# General plan documents — berkeley-california Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 6 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: circulation, citizen_participation, conservation, economic_development, general_plan_implementation, housing, land_use, noise, open_space, safety, urban_design. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-10-14. --- ## Land Use — General Plan Land Use Element (October 2026) - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/01%29%20Land%20Use%20Element_Oct%202026.pdf - Pages: 32 - Covers: land_use - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # LAND USE ELEMENT <
> ## INTRODUCTION The Land Use Element provides general direction and guidance for the physical development of Berkeley. Element objectives and policies provide guidance for future decisions regarding development applications, zoning regulations, the subdivision and development of land, development fees to pay for necessary public facilities, and improvements to the city's infrastructure. The Land Use Diagram, which is included at the end of the Element, depicts the general distribution, location, and density of land uses in the city based upon the policies of the General Plan and existing land uses. The Diagram does not portray the specific use of each parcel of land. Rather, it shows the planned locations of generalized activities and residential densities. The Zoning Ordinance determines specific regulations governing development of property. The Land Use Element policies are closely related to the Transportation Element, Urban Design and Preservation Element, and Citizen Participation Element policies. The Land Use and Transportation Elements’ policies are coordinated to ensure that new housing and future development occur in areas of the city that are best served by public transportation services. For example, the Land Use policies encourage higher density housing along the transit corridors shown in the Transit Network map in the Transportation Element. The Land Use and Urban Design and Preservation policies are coordinated to ensure that all new development is sensitive to Berkeley’s unique physical character and scale, and the Land Use and Citizen Participation Elements’ policies are coordinated to ensure that decisions regarding physical development of the city are made with maximum possible citizen participation and involvement. # POLICY BACKGROUND ## The Character of Berkeley The first objective of the Land Use Element is to maintain and preserve the character of Berkeley. As stated in the 1977 Master Plan: *Though it is perceived by each person differently, concern over the preservation of the "character of Berkeley" is expressed by all segments of the population. This distinctive character results from Berkeley's unparalleled natural setting, from its myriad of tasteful architectural styles, from the presence of the University of California campus, and from its diversified lifestyles. Yet, Berkeley represents an intricate and delicate balance that is constantly undergoing subtle changes in its physical and social fabric. A continuing need exists to maintain, improve, adapt and, where necessary, replace existing development to meet changing circumstances. The Land Use Element recognizes the interdependence of residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, employment centers and the University of California. Its proposals are intended to insure that future development reinforces, rather than undermines, this mosaic of community values.* ## Land Use in Berkeley The basic land use pattern of Berkeley was established by the early 1900s. In West Berkeley, industrial uses developed adjacent to the railroad and San Pablo Avenue. Institutional and commercial activities grew around the University. Residential growth, with its accompanying commercial services and public facilities, occupied the remaining land between the early centers of development. Before World War II Berkeley accommodated new or expanding activities on vacant land. By 1950, remaining parcels were scattered and limited in their potential use by small size, location, **Land Use Distribution** <
> topography, and adjacent development. The general distribution of land uses in Berkeley has not changed significantly in the last 40 years. As shown in the figure above, residential uses and streets occupy almost three-quarters of the overall city land area. Institutional uses, such as the University of California, schools, churches, public facilities, and hospitals, occupy approximately 9% of the total land area. The area of land occupied by commercial activity is estimated at approximately 7% of the City's total acreage. Only 2% of the city’s land area is vacant and most of that land is located in the area recently purchased by the East Bay Regional Park District for the Eastshore State Park. Figure 3 at the end of the Land Use Element shows the geographical distribution of land uses in Berkeley. The map is for information purposes only. Figure 4, the Land Use Diagram, shows planned distribution of land uses, as envisioned by this General Plan. ## Berkeley’s Population, Housing, and Jobs In addition to having a well-established land use pattern, Berkeley experienced no growth in population or housing supply in the last 30 years. From 1970 to 2000, the citywide population has dropped from 116,532 to approximately 102,743[^p3-1] and the number of housing units increased from 46,160 to 46,875. While housing and population remained fairly constant in Berkeley over the last 30 years, Berkeley experienced a significant increase in the number of jobs. In 1970, Berkeley had about 51,000 total jobs. Estimates for the number of jobs in Berkeley in 2000 vary between 70,000 and 77,000. This figure includes approximately 65,000 wage and salaried jobs and between 5,000 and 10,000 non-wage earning jobs and self-employed residents. The increasing number of jobs and the fairly constant supply of housing results in increased demand for the limited housing and an increase in the number of people commuting into the city on a daily basis. <
> Since adoption of the 1977 Master Plan, some of the most controversial and difficult land use decisions in Berkeley have been about residential development proposals. Although increasing housing opportunities has been a major policy goal of both the 1955 and 1977 Master Plans, incompatible apartment development during the 1960s led to a downzoning of many [^p3-1]: City staff review of the preliminary 2000 Census population figures indicates that the Census may have missed as many as 5,000 student residents on the south side of the University. If correct, the City's 2000 Population would be approximately 108,000. neighborhoods and ordinance revisions in 1973 reduced development intensities permitted in multi-family zones. Demand for existing housing produces high prices, sometimes inadequate maintenance, and housing shortages. (See the Housing Element for a more in-depth discussion of housing in Berkeley.) Over the last 30 years, buying a home became more difficult as home prices rose faster than household incomes in Berkeley. According to the California Association of Realtors, in 1999 only 10% of Berkeley households had the income necessary to purchase a median-priced single-family home in Berkeley. Although vacant land for new housing development is extremely limited, on the major transportation corridors and avenues and in the Downtown there are a significant number of underutilized parcels that represent opportunities for additional housing or other types of needed development.[^p4-2] Land Use Element policies are designed to maintain Berkeley’s unique physical character, while allowing for additional housing development on underutilized sites within and in proximity to high-quality transit corridors and Downtown and other changes to land use that are necessary to maintain, improve, adapt, and, where necessary, replace existing development to meet changing community needs and circumstances. ## Residential Areas The second objective of the Land Use Element is to maintain and enhance Berkeley’s residential areas. In Berkeley, residential uses occupy approximately 48% of the city's total land area. There is a wide range of housing types in Berkeley, including: single-family homes, apartments, dormitories, live-work units, cooperatives, tenancies-in-common, condominiums, senior housing, high- and low-income rentals, rental rooms, and homeless shelters. Single-family homes constitute 45% of all housing in Berkeley, over 55% of the housing units in Berkeley are in multi-family buildings. | Housing Units by Building Type (2000) | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Type | Units | Percent of Total | | Single Detached | 19,460 | 42% | | Single Attached | 1,294 | 3% | | Multi-Unit (2-4) | 9,561 | 20% | | Multi-Unit (5 plus) | 16,546 | 35% | | Mobile homes | 14 | Less than 1% | | Total | 46,875 | 100% | Berkeley’s residential areas reflect the city’s historic development pattern. Century-old Victorian homes are still found in many parts of Berkeley. The first quarter of the 20th Century brought the [^p4-2]: See the Housing Appendix to this plan distinctive Berkeley brown-shingled homes and the extraordinary architecture of Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck. In the flatland areas, the need for inexpensive but adequate housing inspired a variety of residential styles, many highly innovative. The Land Use Element maintains and enhances Berkeley residential neighborhoods by encouraging zoning development standards that are consistent with the historic development patterns that include smaller multi-family dwellings on a single lot, emphasizing the importance of protections for neighborhoods from non-residential uses, and directing new higher-density housing development to high-quality transit corridors and the Downtown. ## Downtown and Other Commercial Mixed Use Areas The third objective of the Land Use Element is to maintain and enhance Berkeley’s commercial areas and the Downtown. Commercial activity is primarily distributed between Downtown, West Berkeley, the neighborhood and avenue commercial districts of North Shattuck, Elmwood, Solano, Shattuck/Adeline, and Telegraph Avenue, and the commercial strips along San Pablo and University Avenues. The Downtown Area is bounded by: Hearst Avenue along its northern edge, Dwight Way to the south, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way to the west (Figure 2: Downtown Subareas). Oxford-Fulton Streets forms its eastern edge (beyond which lies UC Berkeley’s main campus), except for residentially-zoned parcels contained in the Southside Plan area. While most of the Downtown Area falls within mixed-use designations (for commercial, cultural, educational, institutional, and multifamily residential uses), it also contains some residential-only neighborhoods. Downtown is the city's primary civic, office, and entertainment center, as well as a retail area. The major open space in the Downtown is the three-acre Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. Downtown Berkeley has important areas of strength. The Downtown is home to many arts organizations, including the Berkeley Repertory Theatre, the Aurora Theater, the Freight and Salvage Coffee House, the Berkeley Jazz School, and many other music and arts venues. UC Berkeley expects to build a new University Art Museum and the Pacific Film Archive in the Downtown Area. In addition to the arts and other businesses, the Downtown includes many restaurants, excellent transit service, and a customer base of residents, students, and office workers all within walking distance. Public investments in the arts, the Berkeley Public Library and Downtown infrastructure have helped to re-establish Downtown Berkeley as a vital arts and cultural center. Downtown Berkeley is also home to the Berkeley City College, Berkeley High School, a number of private educational institutions, and is bordered by the campus of the nation’s premiere public university, making Downtown an important education and learning center. Downtown is Berkeley’s most intensely developed commercial district. Commercial uses extend along Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue. Downtown, at the geographic heart and transportation hub of the city, should serve as the community's dominant retail center, as well as its civic and entertainment center. As a retail district, Downtown Berkeley is faced with strong competition from automobile-oriented retail centers outside of Berkeley and by other commercial centers in Berkeley. *Figure 2 – Downtown Subareas* <
> In 1990, the Downtown Plan was adopted to address the economic struggle of Berkeley’s city center, among other issues. Critical to the 1990 Downtown Plan was maintaining the Downtown as "a compact, economically vital, historic city center with a defined core area and transition zones buffering residential neighborhoods." At the time the Plan was developed, most citizens agreed that retail revitalization was necessary and that preserving and enhancing the historic character of Downtown, while allowing for some change, was of primary importance. Encouraging housing in the Downtown was a secondary priority of the 1990 Downtown Plan, because of its proximity to regional transit systems and to encourage new retail uses in the area. In November, 2010, the voters of the City of Berkeley adopted the following Vision Statement for Downtown: *The People of the City of Berkeley hereby adopt, as a vision for the City’s Downtown Area, a Downtown that meets the City’s climate action goals by concentrating housing, jobs and cultural* destinations near transit, shops and amenities; preserving historic resources, enhancing open space, promoting green buildings; and allowing for 2 residential buildings and 1 hotel no higher than our existing 180 foot buildings and 2 smaller office buildings up to 120 feet, concentrating housing and jobs, thus helping to make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States. By adopting Measure R in 2010, the voters advised the City Council that greater heights and more intensity is acceptable in the Downtown. With its adoption of the 2012 Downtown Area Plan, City Council adopted policies that allow increased height and intensity in response to Measure R’s direction. Under the DAP, three buildings up to 180 feet, could occur in the Core Area) within one block of BART), and two UC buildings and two non-UC buildings could occur within the combined Core Area and Outer Core area. These buildings would be exceptions to a generally allowed height – within the combined Core Area, Outer Core and Corridor area – of 60 feet “as matter of right” and 75 feet with a special Use Permit. Also note that the DAP provides for the protection of adjacent residential neighborhoods, and calls for the rezoning of the Downtown Area’s southwest corner from R-4 to R-3 to reduce allowable building heights. Berkeley’s neighborhood commercial and avenue commercial areas include a large number of specialty stores and services that attract customers from outside the surrounding neighborhoods. The types of businesses that attract customers from outside the immediate neighborhood include popular restaurants, specialty furniture stores, and unique book, music, and specialty food stores which are not found in regional malls or neighboring communities. <
> Approximately 50 percent of all retail sales are generated in West Berkeley (Weatherford BMW in West Berkeley is the city’s largest sales tax generator), 10 percent in the Downtown, and 10 percent in the Telegraph area. Various other neighborhood and avenue commercial districts throughout the city generate the remaining 30 percent. Commercial quotas have been adopted since 1977, as part of the Zoning Ordinance, to regulate new uses occurring in the Telegraph, Elmwood, North Shattuck, and Solano Avenue commercial zoning districts. In the late 1970s, rising lease rates in some of these districts were beginning to drive out the familiar neighborhood-serving shops and services in favor of a multiplicity of new restaurants and boutique shops. In response, commercial rent control was an early method used by the City to protect merchants. However, when that was overturned by the California courts, the present quota system was enacted to regulate specific categories of use. Quotas for various uses, such as gift/novelty shops, beauty shops, or certain food services, are now codified through the Zoning Ordinance for several neighborhood and avenue commercial areas. In most cases, these numerical quotas were set at or below the existing number of establishments in any one particular category. The goal was to limit the number of certain types of businesses while allowing a diverse range of other, neighborhood-serving businesses to remain and find space in the districts. For the neighborhood and avenue commercial corridors shown on the Land Use Diagram, the Land Use Element respects the existing development standards and height limits and provides guidance for future City decision-making to ensure that these areas continue to be vital, thriving, pedestrian-oriented commercial centers that serve area residents and provide necessary goods and services. ## Industrial Areas The fourth objective of the Land Use Element is to maintain and enhance Berkeley's remaining industrial areas. Approximately 24% of all Berkeley jobs are in West Berkeley, where manufacturing and wholesale jobs account for 41% of all jobs, service jobs for 30%, retail jobs for 16%, and other jobs (construction, transport, etc.) for 13%. Industrial activity is located almost exclusively in West Berkeley and occupies approximately 4% of the city's total land area. Located near the center of the region and in close proximity to freeway and rail transportation, Berkeley's industrial districts are attractive for many types of industry. The manufacturing and warehousing category is the third largest economic sector in the city, behind institutional and retail commercial uses. In 1977, industrial uses occupied virtually all of West Berkeley aside from its residential areas. Since then, industrial activity in the area has decreased substantially, and office and retail uses have occupied a portion of the former industrial area. These changes occurred as part of the national retreat of industry, and especially large-scale industries, from central cities in the 1970s and 1980s. Heavy industries did not necessarily reduce their employment, but rather consolidated their facilities and closed outlying branch plants such as those located in Berkeley. In some cases in West Berkeley, heavy industrial uses were replaced not by non-industrial uses, but by light industrial uses. This change has had both positive and negative consequences for the City of Berkeley. On the positive side, it has generated increased retail sales tax revenue and, in some cases, increased property tax revenue. Retail districts at Seventh Street/Ashby Avenue and Fourth Street/Hearst Avenue have emerged as two of the most successful districts in Berkeley. On the negative side, the loss of industry resulted in the loss of many high-paying blue-collar jobs accessible to workers without college education. New development, especially retail development, also creates additional traffic. Berkeley added 800 manufacturing jobs during the period 1987 to 1992, due mostly to the growth at the Bayer Corporation in West Berkeley. This 14% increase reversed a 15-year decline in manufacturing jobs in Berkeley and outpaced manufacturing growth in the county as a whole. In 1993, the City Council adopted the West Berkeley Plan. The Plan seeks to balance the revenue gains and the social costs of this change in land use by securing the necessary local conditions to preserve at least some of the city's industrial base, thereby retaining some of the city's diversity of jobs, and, in some cases, some major tax generators. Since 1992, the number of manufacturing jobs in West Berkeley has remained stable and West Berkeley has continued to experience growth in the retail sector, primarily in and around the Fourth Street and Gilman Street commercial areas. During 1999, overall industrial vacancy rates fell 2.1 percentage points, to finish the year at 4.4 percent, the lowest rate recorded in over 10 years. In Emeryville, warehouse and manufacturing space is being converted to flex or pure office space. The continuing loss of true manufacturing and warehouse space in Emeryville is expected to secure a continuing strong demand for manufacturing and warehouse space in Berkeley. The Land Use Element maintains the City's current industrial and manufacturing land use policies. ### University of California The fifth objective of the Land Use Element is to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the benefits of the University of California on the citizens of Berkeley. Since its earliest days, the University has been a major factor in the physical, social, and economic development of Berkeley. The University provides a wide range of cultural opportunities not available in most cities the size of Berkeley and is a major contributor to the economic health of the city. During the 2000/2001 school year, the University population included 29,979 students, 11,598 employees, and approximately 1,650 post-doctoral and visiting scholars for a total daytime population of approximately 43,227. <
> In 1988, the Berkeley community passed Measure N (The Public Agency Accountability Measure) which states that it is City policy that all land use plans, development, and expansion by public agencies should follow City laws and pay taxes and fees, comparable to those paid by private citizens and businesses, to support their fair share of City services. Although the University population contributes significantly to the economic health of the city, the University's tax-exempt status means that Berkeley's largest landholder, employer, and traffic generator does not pay any property tax. It is difficult to measure the cost of the direct services provided by the City such as police and fire service; it is even more difficult to measure the indirect costs such as accommodating high levels of traffic. In 1997, the City and the University signed a memorandum of understanding which recognized the "desirability of maintaining a cooperative relationship and pursuing collaboratively long range plans, studies, and potential projects of mutual benefit and concern." Pursuant to that memorandum, the City and the University staff worked together to produce a draft Southside Area Plan and a Southside and Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study which seeks to develop common goals for travel behavior. However, despite these efforts, University-related housing demands, traffic, and public infrastructure and service impacts continue to be difficult for Berkeley to successfully accommodate. For example, in 2000: * Approximately 17,900 University students lived in Berkeley, yet the University provided beds for only about 10,000 students in Berkeley and Albany. * Approximately 4,900 professional (non-student) faculty and staff members live in Berkeley, but the University only provided about 100 housing units for faculty and staff. * The 1990 Long Range Development Plan included plans for 2,350 to 3,410 new beds between 1990 and 2005. Over the last 10 years the University has only been able to add about 173 beds and plans to build another 900 beds with the Underhill development projects. * Approximately 8,007 of the University’s 13,345 faculty and staff drove alone to campus each day. * Approximately 4,800 students were driving alone to campus each day. | University of California Population by Place of Residence (1998) | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Residence | UC Faculty and Staff | Students | | Berkeley | 43% | | | Oakland and Piedmont | 15% | | | Other East Bay | 14% | | | San Francisco | 7% | | | Elsewhere | 21% | | | **University Housing Supply (2000)** | | | | Housing Type | Beds | Units | | Residence Halls | 5,225 | | | Fraternities/Sororities | 1,819 | | | Cooperatives | 1,304 | | | International House | 580 | | | Family Student Housing | | 994 | | Single Student Apartments | | 132 | | Faculty Apartments | | 26 | | Faculty Condominiums | | 75 | | Totals | 8,928 | 1,227 | | **University of California Commute Mode (1994)** | | | | Commute Mode | UC Students (Approx. 29,797) | UC Faculty (Approx. 1,759) | UC Staff (Approx. 7,698) | | Walk | 52% | 13% | 14% | | Bike and Motorcycle | 17% | 10% | 9% | | Transit | 15% | 12% | 19% | | Auto | 16% | 65% | 58% | University of California, Berkeley’s 2020 LRDP provides a framework to shape future decisions on land use, enrollment, housing, parking, academic facilities, architecture, and landscape design. Although University expansion is not subject to local land use controls and zoning, the Berkeley General Plan Land Use Element includes policies regarding the University of California presence in Berkeley and future expansion in order to maximize the benefits of the University’s presence in Berkeley and minimize the adverse impacts. In 2005, the City and University agreed to work together to develop a new Downtown Area Plan so that University growth in the Downtown could be planned comprehensively and with community objectives in mind. The Downtown Area Plan was also recognized as a vehicle for being more effective on issues of mutual interest, such as economic revitalization, environmental sustainability, transportation, affordable housing, and community health. ## The Waterfront The sixth and final objective of the Land Use Element is to establish the waterfront area west of the freeway as a recreational and open space resource. The concept of an Eastshore State Park, extending through Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albany, was initiated in 1980 with broad support from the three respective cities and numerous conservation organizations. In 1981, the State Parks Commission voted priority status for an Eastshore park, and in 1982, feasibility reports were issued by the State Department of Parks and Recreation as well as the Coastal Conservancy. In 1988, Proposition 70 allocated $25,000,000 for the acquisition of the park, and in 1989, an additional $15,000,000 was allocated through the passage of Measure AA. The principal private property owner, Catellus Corporation (formerly Santa Fe Development), had proposed extensive development in all three cities for a total of close to nine million square feet. These proposals were in large part the impetus for the development of the Berkeley Waterfront Plan and Waterfront Specific Plan. In 1986, the City Council adopted the Waterfront Plan and the Waterfront Specific Plan, and the Berkeley community adopted Measure Q, which limits development along the Berkeley waterfront to 565,000 square feet. The California Department of Parks and Recreation, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the California State Coastal Conservancy are working to develop a plan for the Eastshore State Park that would include approximately 130 acres of Berkeley waterfront. As required by its enabling legislation: "The park shall be a recreational facility harmonious with its natural setting" (Public Resources Code Section 5003.3). The plan should present a clear picture of the future park, which balances the diverse recreational needs of the public with the protection of significant habitat values. The planning process for the State Park began in early 2001 and is expected to be complete by late 2002. A Marina Plan is currently being prepared by the Waterfront and Parks and Recreation Commissions to identify and prioritize needed improvements for the City-owned Marina area. The remaining privately owned waterfront land, north of a line extending west from Virginia Street and the future Eastshore Park to the Albany border, is currently used for parking and stables for Golden Gate Fields racetrack. ### Element Objectives The policies and actions of the Land Use Element are designed to achieve the following six objectives: 1. Maintain and preserve the character of Berkeley. 2. Maintain and enhance Berkeley’s residential areas. 3. Maintain and enhance Berkeley’s commercial areas and the Downtown. 4. Maintain and protect Berkeley’s remaining industrial areas. 5. Minimize the negative impacts and maximize the benefits of the University of California on the citizens of Berkeley. 6. Establish the waterfront area west of the freeway as a recreational and open space resource. ## POLICIES AND ACTIONS ### The Character of Berkeley **Policy LU-1 Community Character** Maintain the character of Berkeley as a special, diverse, unique place to live and work. **Policy LU-2 Preservation** Protect Berkeley’s character by identifying, restoring, and preserving historic buildings. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policies UD-1 through UD-3.) **Policy LU-3 Infill Development** Encourage infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policies UD-16 through UD-24.) **Policy LU-4 Discretionary Review** Preserve and enhance the aesthetic, environmental, economic, and social character of Berkeley through careful land use and design review decisions. Action: A. When evaluating development proposals or changes to zoning consider General Plan and Area Plan policies, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards, existing land uses, environmental impacts, safety and seismic concerns, social and economic consequences, and resident, merchant, and property owner concerns. **Policy LU-5 Citizen Involvement** Assure the effective participation of Berkeley citizens and others in land use decisions. Action: A. Continue to evaluate how well City processes and staff serve neighborhood residents in land use matters. (Also see Citizen Participation Policies CP-1 through CP-11.) # Residential Areas **Policy LU-6 Safe and Attractive Neighborhoods** Ensure that all residential areas are safe and attractive places to live. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policies S-13 through S-16.) **Policy LU-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life** Preserve and protect the quality of life in Berkeley’s residential areas through careful land use decisions. Actions: A. Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area. B. Carefully evaluate and monitor new and existing uses to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on adjacent residential uses. C. Carefully review and regulate proposals for additional residential development in the Hill Fire Hazard Area and the tsunami, seismic and landslide hazard areas identified in the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policies S-14 and S-16.) D. Strengthen Zoning Ordinance language to ensure greater protection of solar access to adjacent properties when new projects or additions are proposed. E. Acquire an analysis of the implications of revising R-1, R-2, R-2A, MU-R, and C-N zoning to require a Use Permit and public hearings for projects that exceed 28 feet. **Policy LU-8 Home Occupations** Monitor and evaluate the present and future effects of home occupations, home offices, and other similar developments on residential areas. **Policy LU-9 Non-Residential Traffic** Minimize or eliminate traffic impacts on residential areas from institutional and commercial uses through careful land use decisions. (Also see Transportation Policies T-20 and T-23.) **Policy LU-10 Parking** Protect residential areas from institutional and commercial parking impacts by encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation and strictly enforcing residential parking permit regulations. (Also see Transportation Policies T-31 and T-34.) **Policy LU-11 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Neighborhoods** Ensure that neighborhoods are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with well-maintained streets, street trees, sidewalks, and pathways. Action: A. Ensure that any City-owned pathways or dedicated easements adjacent to, abutting, or through private property are preserved when reviewing new development proposals. (Also see Transportation Policies T-43, T-47, and T-52 and Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22 Action A.) **Policy LU-12 City Service Impacts** Reduce the impacts of City facilities on residential areas. Action: A. Continue to consider financially feasible opportunities for the eventual relocation of the Corporation Yard. **Policy LU-13 Basic Goods and Services** Ensure that neighborhoods are well served by commercial districts and community services and facilities, such as parks, schools, child-care facilities, and religious institutions. Actions: A. Locate commercial uses and community facilities throughout the city on transit corridors. B. Maximize joint City/Unified School District use of and planning for facilities such as recreation, libraries, and cultural centers. C. Encourage a range of child-care facilities, including family child-care home, public and private child-care centers, and recreation centers. D. Encourage coordinated housing, social, and child-care programs. **Policy LU-14 Community Service Centers** Work with the Berkeley Unified School District and the University of California to establish a network of community centers including school sites, neighborhood resource centers, and City facilities that offer community services such as child care, health care, and recreational programs. **Policy LU-15 Service and Institutional Use Locations** Wherever possible, locate public and private institutional uses and community service centers that serve the city residents or have a regional-service orientation on transit corridors so that they are accessible to public transportation and will not disrupt adjacent residential areas. (Also see Transportation Policy T-16.) ## Downtown and Other Commercial Mixed-Use Areas **Policy LU-16 Downtown Area Plan** Take actions to attain goals and policies in the Downtown Area Plan, which is an element of the General Plan. Broad goals include: 1. Express and enhance Berkeley's unique social and cultural character in the Downtown. 2. Create an appealing and safe Downtown environment, with a comfortable pedestrian orientation. 3. Diversify, revitalize, and promote the Downtown economy. **Policy LU-18 Downtown Affordable Housing Incentives** Maximize the supply of affordable housing in the Downtown. **Policy LU-20 Downtown Pedestrian and Transit Orientation** Reinforce the pedestrian orientation of the Downtown. (See also the Downtown Area Plan for related policies and actions.) Actions: A. Continue to explore options for the partial or complete closure of Center Street, Addison Street, or Allston Way to automobiles to promote the pedestrian and commercial vitality and enhance Civic Center Park use and appearance. When exploring options, carefully consider the experiences of other cities where closures have proven to be successful and where closures have proven to be unsuccessful or detrimental. B. Continue to explore costs and plans for the daylighting of Strawberry Creek. (Also see Environmental Management Policy EM-27.) C. Implement capital improvement projects that reinforce the pedestrian, transit, commercial, arts, and entertainment orientation of the Downtown and improve the quality of life for visitors and residents of the area. D. Reconstruct the Downtown BART Station and Plaza to be more pedestrian-friendly and visually attractive. E. Encourage development of public spaces, plazas, and restoration of natural areas in the Downtown and other areas of the city where appropriate to enhance the pedestrian environment. **Policy LU-21 Architectural Design in the Downtown** Require high-quality architectural design for all Downtown projects. (*Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policies UD-16 through UD-35.*) Actions: A. Ensure that all Downtown area projects conform to the Downtown Area Plan, the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines, and the Urban Design and Preservation Element. B. New construction should fit into the context of the existing built environment and complement Downtown's historic character. C. Encourage infill development that is compatible with existing uses and improves the pedestrian environment and the streetscape. **Policy LU-22 Civic Center** Maintain the Civic Center as a cohesively designed, well-maintained, and secure place for community activities, cultural and educational uses, and essential civic functions and facilities. (*Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-38 Action A.*) Actions: A. Old City Hall, the Berkeley Community Theater, Post Office, Civic Center Building, Veterans Memorial Building, and Civic Center Park are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and changes to these buildings, spaces, and nearby buildings, must be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. **Policy LU-23 Transit-Oriented Development** Encourage and maintain zoning that allows greater commercial and residential density and reduced residential parking requirements in areas with above-average transit service such as Downtown Berkeley. (*Also see Transportation Policy T-16 and Downtown Area Plan.*) **Policy LU-24 Car-Free Housing in the Downtown** Encourage development of transit-oriented, low-cost housing in the Downtown. (*Also see Transportation Policy T-16 and Downtown Area Plan.*) **Policy LU-25 Affordable Housing Development** Encourage development of affordable housing in the Downtown Plan area, the Southside Plan area, and other transit-oriented locations. (*Also see Housing Policy H-16.*) Actions: A. Consider revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to require and/or encourage inclusion of a greater percentage of affordable housing units and a greater percentage of units restricted to households with low or very low income in multi-family housing projects, than currently required under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. B. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to clarify and improve administration of the state density bonus for affordable housing for multi-family housing projects that will encourage development of affordable housing and minimize potential impacts of new multi-family housing projects on adjacent residents. **Policy LU-26 Neighborhood Commercial Areas** Maintain and improve Neighborhood Commercial areas, such as Elmwood, Solano, and North Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive areas and ensure that Neighborhood Commercial areas fully serve neighborhood needs. (See Land Use Diagram for locations of Neighborhood Commercial areas. Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-4 and Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-28.) Actions: A. Require ground-floor commercial uses to be oriented to the street and sidewalks to encourage a vital and appealing pedestrian experience. B. Ensure safe, well-lighted, wide walkways that are appropriately shaded for compatibility with upper-story residential units and adequate traffic signals for pedestrian street-crossings in commercial areas. C. Provide street trees, bus shelters, and benches for pedestrians in commercial areas. D. Provide bicycle facilities and ample and secure bicycle parking wherever appropriate and feasible. E. Maintain and encourage a wide range of community and commercial services, including basic goods and services. F. Encourage sensitive infill development of vacant or underutilized property that is compatible with existing development patterns. G. Control the design and operation of commercial establishments to ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential areas. H. Use design review and careful land use decisions to preserve the historic character of Neighborhood Commercial areas. **Policy LU-27 Avenue Commercial Areas** Maintain and improve Avenue Commercial areas, such as University, San Pablo, Telegraph, and South Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive areas of pedestrian scale and ensure that Avenue areas fully serve neighborhood needs as well as a broader spectrum of needs. (See Land Use Diagram for locations of Avenue Commercial areas. Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-4 and Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-28.) Actions: A. Require ground-floor commercial uses to be oriented to the street and sidewalks to encourage a vital and appealing pedestrian experience. B. Ensure safe, well-lighted, wide walkways that are appropriately shaded for compatibility with upper-story residential units and adequate traffic signals for pedestrian street-crossings in commercial areas. C. Provide street trees, bus shelters, and benches for pedestrians in commercial areas. D. Provide bicycle facilities and ample and secure bicycle parking wherever appropriate and feasible. E. Maintain and encourage a wide range of community and commercial services, including basic goods and services. F. Encourage sensitive infill development of vacant or underutilized property that is compatible with existing development patterns. G. Regulate the design and operation of commercial establishments to assure their compatibility with adjacent residential areas. H. Maintain and improve the historic character of Avenue Commercial areas with design review and careful land use decisions. **Policy LU-28 Impact Fees** Ensure that new development adequately mitigates impacts on transportation facilities and services, housing availability and affordability, child-care availability and affordability, or open space resources and facilities. Actions: A. Prepare a nexus study to enable collection of a transportation services impact fee. (Also see Transportation Policy T-6.) B. Continue to collect appropriate housing impact fees. (Also see Housing Policy H-2.) C. Continue to collect appropriate child-care impact fees. D. Consider preparing a nexus study to enable collection of an open space impact fee and/or in-lieu fee for residential development. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-15.) **Policy LU-29 University Avenue Strategic Plan** Implement the University Avenue Strategic Plan and take actions to achieve the six goals of the Plan: 1. Increase public safety for residents, merchants, and customers. 2. Revitalize the University Avenue corridor through appropriate economic development and housing. 3. Protect and improve neighborhood quality of life. 4. Encourage more pedestrian-oriented development and an appropriate mix of uses to improve neighborhood identity. 5. Enhance University Avenue as a gateway to the city, a series of neighborhoods, and the Downtown. 6. Coordinate and enhance public transit systems, pedestrian access, and bicycle circulation. **Policy LU-30 South Shattuck Strategic Plan** Implement the South Shattuck Strategic Plan and take action to achieve the four objectives of the Plan: 1. Improve and create commercial and mixed-use development along South Shattuck. 2. Create and enhance the identity of the South Shattuck commercial corridor as a unique and pleasant district that complements adjacent residential neighborhoods. 3. Ensure that residential properties are used and maintained according to appropriate standards. 4. Make traffic improvements which complement economic development and urban design goals, encourage the use of alternatives to the automobile, and preserve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. **Policy LU-31 South Berkeley Area Plan** Implement the South Berkeley Area Plan and take action to achieve the 55 goals of the Plan. **Policy LU-32 Ashby BART Station** Encourage affordable housing or mixed-use development including housing on the air rights above the Ashby BART station and parking lot west of Adeline Street. Actions: A. Consider a joint City/BART development plan for the Ashby BART site to encourage and ensure appropriate development design, density, and parking to accommodate the BART station and transit-oriented development. Development at the Ashby BART station should include multi-family, transit- oriented housing and ground-floor commercial space. If feasible, at least 50% of the housing units should be affordable to low- and very-low- income households. (Also see Housing Policy T-18.) B. Consider revising the zoning for the site to reduce the on-site parking requirements for new housing above the BART station. (Also see Transportation Policy T-16.) ## Industrial Areas **Policy LU-33 West Berkeley Plan** Implement the West Berkeley Plan and take actions that will achieve the three purposes of the Plan: 1. Maintain the full range of land uses and economic activities including residences, manufacturing, services, retailing, and other activities in West Berkeley. 2. Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population. 3. Maintain and improve the quality of urban life, environmental quality, public and private service availability, transit and transportation, and aesthetic and physical qualities for West Berkeley residents and workers. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-2.) Actions: A. Examine the original purposes of live-work, especially with regard to affordability, impact on manufacturing uses, and provisions for artists and craftspeople, and evaluate to what extent such purposes have been met. Examine whether live-work space is actually being used for both living and work as intended. Consider zoning amendments to restrict live- work, enforce live-work requirements, and/or require that live-work units be restricted to households with low or very low income. B. Evaluate traffic and parking conditions in West Berkeley and develop new regulations or programs if appropriate to address the problems. C. Evaluate transit services and other transportation options in West Berkeley and develop a plan to ensure their adequacy to meet the needs of residents and workers. **Policy LU-34 Industrial Protections and Automobile Sales Uses** Protect industrial uses in West Berkeley. Actions: A. Inform non-industrial uses that are considering moving into industrial areas that truck traffic, 24-hour operations, and noise up to legal limits are common and accepted in industrial areas. Non-industrial uses are expected to adjust to the practices of industrial operations. B. Prohibit further expansion of the Fourth Street commercial area beyond the existing commercially zoned areas. Maintain boundaries of the Mixed Use-Light Industrial District. Enforce prohibitions of retail uses in the Mixed Use-Light Industrial District. C. Allow automobile sales uses in the Manufacturing District in order to provide for this economically beneficial land use in an area of the City with large sites and proximity to Interstate 80. However, automobile sales are not permitted on City-owned land used for a Materials Recovery Enterprise or waste transfer station as of January 1st, 2008. ## University of California and Institutional Uses **Policy LU-35 Mutually Beneficial Land Use Decisions** Develop and foster close working relationships with the University of California to ensure and facilitate land use decisions that are mutually beneficial to the institution and the adjoining neighborhoods. (Also see voter-approved Measures L and N.) Actions: A. Maintain a clear and consistent City position, through Council action and other appropriate means, on University land use and development issues that impact the city. B. Share information and policies on similar problems and solutions with other cities with University of California campuses, such as Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Davis. C. Evaluate the present and past effectiveness of Berkeley’s City government in dealing with the University on land use matters. D. Use all available lawful means to ensure that the University and other public agencies abide by the rules and laws of the City and that these agencies pay taxes and fees, comparable to those paid by private citizens and businesses, to support their fair share of City services. Seek State legislation that would require the University to conform to local land use regulations, policies, and processes. E. Discourage additional UC expansion (with the exception of housing) in Berkeley and also discourage the University from removing additional properties from the City’s tax rolls. F. Seek ways and means, and commit additional resources, to ensure that the University of California at Berkeley complies with voter-approved Measure N. G. Work with the University to increase the supply of housing for students, faculty, and staff. **Policy LU-36 University Impacts and Costs** Minimize the negative impacts of the size of the University population and University expansion on adjacent neighborhoods and the city as a whole. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-10.) Actions: A. Actively advocate that the University maintain a student enrollment cap of 30,000 pursuant to the 1990 Long Range Development Plan Mitigation Implementation Agreement between the City and the University. B. Explore methods by which the University would pay for municipal services "in lieu" of tax payments. **Policy LU-37 University Housing** Encourage the University to maximize the supply of housing for students, faculty, and staff to minimize the impacts of the University on the citywide supply of housing. (Also see Housing Policies H-35 through H-37.) Action: A. Support sensitively designed additional housing for students, faculty, and staff within walking distance of campus. New developments should conform with the City height limits and zoning, and be compatible with the surrounding area’s dominant architectural style, and should avoid removal or compromise of on-site or adjacent historic structures. **Policy LU-38 University Impact on City Tax Revenue** Discourage to the maximum extent possible additional use of land by the University that would result in the removal of property from the tax rolls or a reduction of tax revenue to the City. Actions: A. Encourage the University to utilize its current landholdings for housing development. B. Oppose University actions that would result in the reduction of tax revenue to the City as the result of University development, leases, or property acquisition. **Policy LU-39 University Traffic** Reduce traffic impacts of the University on the citywide transportation system. (Also see Transportation Policies T-13, T-34, T-37, and T-38.) Action: A. Urge the University to raise parking fees for all students, staff, and faculty to market rates and limit off-street parking to faculty, staff, and students based upon the following criteria: a) need for a vehicle on the job; b) number of passengers carried; and c) disability. **Policy LU-40 Public Use of University Facilities and Grounds** Continue to support maximum opportunities for citizen use of University libraries and recreational facilities, the maintenance of the hill lands as open space, and the adoption of campus development standards and policies to conserve and enhance present open space resources. **Policy LU-41 Public Agency Development** Ensure that all land use plans, development, and expansion by public agencies are consistent with City laws, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to the extent feasible, and the California Environmental Quality Act. (Also see voter-approved Measures L and N.) **Policy LU-42 Berkeley Unified School District** Encourage the Berkeley Unified School District to adopt a resolution to make the School District’s land use decisions subject to the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. ## The Waterfront **Policy LU-43 Waterfront Plan** Implement the Waterfront Plan and take actions to achieve the five goals of the Plan: 1. Establish the waterfront as an area primarily for recreational, open space, and environmental uses, with preservation and enhancement of beaches, marshes, and other natural habitats. 2. Develop the waterfront as part of a continuous Eastbay shoreline open space system. 3. Provide for an appropriate amount and type of private development to make the waterfront part of Berkeley’s vibrant urban community, attractive to and usable by Berkeleyans, neighboring bay area residents, and other visitors. 4. Establish uses and activities that reflect and enhance the unique character of the waterfront and foster the community’s relationship with the shoreline. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policies OS-13, OS-15, and OS-16.) **Policy LU-44 Berkeley Marina Plan** Prepare and adopt a plan for the maintenance and improvement of the Berkeley Marina. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-2, Action J.) **Policy LU-45 Southside Plan** Implement the Southside Plan and take actions to achieve the six goals of the Plan: 1. Housing: Create additional housing at appropriate locations to help meet the housing demand for students and people employed nearby, thus taking advantage of proximity to the University and Downtown to reduce automobile dependence and to increase travel to work or school by non-automobile transportation. Encourage the provision of affordable housing. 2. Land Use: Provide for a high-density residential and commercial mixed-use edge to the University of California campus and the “spine” along Telegraph Avenue. The high-density edge and spine are the focus for infill development. Development becomes progressively less dense and more residential in use the greater the distance from Bancroft and Telegraph, providing a buffer and transition to the lower density residential areas to the east and south of the Southside Area. 3. Transportation: Increase the quality, amenity, and use of all non-automotive modes (public transit, bicycles, and pedestrian), and reduce the number of trips made in single-occupant automobiles. 4. Economic Development: Enhance the commercial district so that it better meets the needs of the wide variety of users who frequent the neighborhood. Improve access, marketing, and safety. 5. Community Character: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the unique physical character of the Southside. 6. Public Safety: Improve public safety, address social needs, and act to minimize loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. ### Policy LU-46 Adeline Corridor Mixed Use Maintain and improve Adeline Corridor Mixed Use area, along Adeline Street and South Shattuck Avenue (from Dwight Way to Adeline Street), as an economically and culturally diverse, transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive area of pedestrian scale and ensure that these areas fully serve neighborhood needs as well as a broader spectrum of needs. (See Land Use Diagram for locations of Adeline Corridor Mixed Use areas. Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-4 and Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-28.)[^p24-21] Actions: A. Encourage development of a variety of types of housing at a range of income levels, especially for those at very low-income levels and who are at high risk of involuntary displacement. B. Leverage publicly owned land, such as the Ashby BART Station Area surface parking lots, and the right-of-way to maximize affordable housing, culturally and historically significant uses such as the Berkeley Community Flea Market, community facilities and public improvements desired by the community. C. Create a sustainable urban environment that incorporates transit-oriented development, green building features, green infrastructure and ecology, sustainable energy systems, water efficiency and conservation, and sustainable transportation systems. [^p24-21]: D. Require ground-floor commercial uses to be oriented to the street and sidewalks to encourage a vital and appealing pedestrian experience. E. Ensure safe, well-lighted, wide walkways and adequate traffic signals for pedestrian street-crossings in commercial areas. F. Provide street trees, bus shelters, and benches for pedestrians. G. Provide bicycle facilities and ample and secure bicycle parking wherever appropriate and feasible. H. Maintain and encourage a wide range of community and commercial services, including basic goods and services. I. Encourage sensitive infill development of vacant or underutilized property that is compatible with existing development patterns. J. Regulate the design and operation of commercial establishments to assure their compatibility with adjacent residential areas. K. Maintain and improve the historic character of Adeline Mixed Use areas with design review and careful land use decisions. ### Policy LU-47 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Actions: A. Implement the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and take actions to achieve the four desired outcomes of the Plan: 1. Increased diversity and supply of housing; 2. Increased business activity to support a thriving community; 3. Enhanced interaction between public and private spaces; 4. Enhanced local and citywide access. ## LAND USE DIAGRAM AND CLASSIFICATIONS *Figure 3, Existing Land Use* – illustrates the geographic distribution of existing land uses in Berkeley. *Figure 4, the General Plan Land Use Diagram* – generally illustrates proposed distribution and location of land uses in the city as envisioned by the General Plan. The Land Use Diagram does not display existing land uses or existing land ownership, although planned uses are in most cases similar to existing uses. (For official City land use zoning maps, consult the Current Planning Division, Department of Planning and Development.) The Land Use Diagram includes several land use classifications. The residential, commercial, and industrial classifications are based upon a group of compatible existing zoning districts, which are identified after each classification in the text below. The range of uses and development standards within each classification is based upon ranges allowed within the compatible zoning districts. Due to limitations of the map size, small land uses such as small neighborhood parks³ may be too small to depict on the diagram. However, the use may be allowed within the broader classification of uses. For example, small neighborhood parks and schools may not be shown, but they are allowed within the residential land use classifications. Each classification also includes a range of appropriate building intensities and in some cases, population densities. The densities allowed by existing zoning are consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Population densities are determined by multiplying the maximum units per acre by the city’s average household size of 2.2. For residential classifications the units-per-acre building intensity corresponds to the maximum residential densities currently allowed in these districts. In non-residential land use classifications, building intensity is based upon maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) currently allowed in the corresponding Zoning Ordinance districts. General Plan land use classifications are for general planning purposes.⁴ They describe a range of land uses and intensities that reflect different General Plan policies related to the type, location, and intensity of development. Because the General Plan land use classifications describe a range of land uses and development intensities in a relatively large area, they are not intended to be used as standards to determine the maximum allowable density on a specific parcel. Allowable densities and uses in each zoning district are established in the more detailed and specific Zoning Ordinance. It is not the intent of the General Plan to upzone each zoning district to the maximum allowed within the range. The intent is to reflect the range of the existing zoning districts. Therefore, Zoning Ordinance regulations for a particular area may allow a smaller range of uses than allowed by the more general land use classification. ## Land Use Classifications **Lower Density Residential** These areas are generally characterized by single-family homes and small multi-family structures. Appropriate uses for these areas include: residential, community services, schools, home occupations, recreational uses, and open space and institutional facilities. Building intensity can range from one to 70 dwelling units per net acre⁵, not including secondary units, and the population density will generally not exceed 110 persons per acre. [^p26-3]: The Open Space and Recreation Element includes a comprehensive map of parks and recreational facilities. [^p26-4]: The Land Use Element classifications allow the City, the public, and other agencies to determine overall land use pattern and density. [^p26-5]: Net acreage excludes land area dedicated to roads, watercourses, and dedicated rights-of-way. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are: Residential Multi-Unit 1 (R-1), and Environmental Safety- Residential (ES-R), which allows approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Height limits in these zoning districts typically allow up to 35 feet. **Medium Density Residential** These areas of Berkeley are generally characterized by a mix of single-family homes and small to medium sized multi-family structures. The same uses appropriate in Lower Density Residential are appropriate in Medium Density Residential areas. Building intensity can range from 20 to 70 dwelling units per net acre, and the population density will generally range from 44 to 132 persons per acre, with the exception of the Southside Plan Area. Within the R-3 within the Southside Plan Area, except in areas located in the Hillside Overlay zoning district, building intensity will range from a FAR of less than 1.0 to a FAR of 3.0. Residential development is subject to a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and a minimum population density of 150 persons per acre. There is no residential density limit. This allows for greater flexibility in housing types to maximize housing opportunities in the Southside Plan Area. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are: Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2), Residential Multi-Unit 2A (R-2A), and Multiple-family Residential (R-3), which allows approximately 26 units per acre. Height limits in the R-2, R-2A, R-3 and R-3H zoning district are 35 feet (or 45 feet in the R-3 zoning district within the Southside Plan Area). . **High Density Residential** In Berkeley, these areas are generally characterized by large, multi-family structures conveniently located near transit, the Downtown, the University campus, or BART. Appropriate uses for these areas include: residential, community service, schools, institutional, recreational uses, open space, and in some cases where allowed by zoning, ground-floor commercial and office. Building intensity will range from 40 to 100 dwelling units per net acre, and the population density will generally range from 88 to 220 persons per net acre, with the exception of the Southside Plan Area. Within the Southside Plan Area, building intensity will generally range from a FAR of less than 1.0 to a FAR of 4.0. Residential development is subject to a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre and minimum population density of 250 persons per acre. There is no residential density limit. This allows for greater flexibility in housing types to maximize housing opportunities in the Southside Plan Area. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are: Multi-Family Residential (R-4), which allows building heights of 35 feet with provisions to allow buildings up to 65 feet, and High Density Residential (R-5), which allows building heights of 40 feet with provisions to allow buildings up to 65 feet, and Residential Southside (R-S) which allows building heights of 55 feet. **Residential Mixed Use** These areas are generally characterized by a diverse mixture of residential, commercial and institutional structures, located in close proximity to transit and major shopping and employment centers. Appropriate uses for these areas include residential, neighborhood serving retail, offices, school, institutional, re creational uses, and open space. Building heights will generally range from two stories to eight stories, depending on type of use and location. Building intensity will range from an FAR of less than 1.0 to a FAR of 7.0. Residential development is subject to a minimum density of 150 dwelling units per acre and a minimum population density of 375 persons per acre. There is no residential density limit. This allows for greater flexibility in housing types to maximize housing opportunities in the Southside Plan Area. For information purposes, the compatible zoning district for this classification is Residential Southside Mixed Use (R-SMU), which allows building heights up to 85 feet. **Neighborhood Commercial** These areas of the city are generally characterized by pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving commercial development, and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on two-lane streets with on-street parking and transit. Appropriate uses for these areas include: local-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 3. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are shown below with accompanying development standards. | Zoning District | Maximum FAR | Maximum Height | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Neighborhood Commercial (C-N): | 3 | 35ft | | Elmwood Commercial (C-E): | .8 to 1 | 28ft | | North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS): | 1 (non-res.) | 35ft | | Solano Avenue Commercial (C-SO): | 2 | 28ft | | South Area Commercial (C-SA)[^p28-6] | 4 | 24-36ft | **Avenue Commercial** These areas of Berkeley are characterized by pedestrian-oriented commercial development and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on wide, multi-lane avenues served by transit or BART. Appropriate uses for these areas include: local-serving and regional-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 to a FAR of 8.0. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre. [^p28-6]: Height limits in the C-SA zone vary depending on location. Portions of the C-SA zone are included in both the Neighborhood Commercial and Avenue Commercial General Plan designations. Within the Southside Plan Area, residential development in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) district is subject to a minimum density of 200 dwelling units per acre and minimum population density of 500 persons per acre. There is no residential density limit. This allows for greater flexibility in housing types to maximize housing opportunities in the Southside Plan Area. Within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area, there is a minimum residential density limit of 100 dwelling units per acre and no maximum residential density limit. This allows greater flexibility in housing types to maximize opportunities in the Specific Plan Area. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are shown below with accompanying development standards. | Zoning District | Maximum FAR | Maximum Height | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | South Area Commercial (C-SA): | 4.0 | 24-60 ft | | General Commercial (C-1)[^p29-7]: | 3.0 | 35-50 ft | | Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) : | 3.0 - 8.0 | 50-85 ft | | West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) | 3.0 | 40-50 ft | | San Pablo Avenue Commercial (C-SP)[^p29-8] | 4.25 | 75 ft | ### Downtown Mixed-Use The Downtown Area contains areas characterized by high density commercial, office, arts, culture, and entertainment and residential development, which are designated as Downtown Mixed-Use (see Figure 4). The Downtown Area Plan establishes sub-districts subject to different intensities and types of use (see Figure 2 and the Downtown Area Plan). It is intended that the Downtown Mixed-Use area allow and encourage diverse uses and the highest building intensity in the City to promote a vibrant city-center by increasing housing, supporting retail and cultural uses, and capitalizing on exceptional access to transit. For information purposes, the compatible Zoning Districts for this classification are: Central Commercial (C-2) and General Commercial (C-1). By approving the 2010 Ballot Measure “Adopting a Green Vision for Downtown,” the voters advised the City Council that greater heights and more intensity is acceptable in the Downtown. The City Council may adopt an amendment to allow increased height and intensity in response to that direction. The Downtown Area also contains residential neighborhoods that lie outside of the Downtown Mixed-Use area and are designated low-medium (Zoning: R-2A), medium (R-3) or high density (R-4) residential, depending on the characteristics of the neighborhood. The DAP provides for the protection of adjacent residential neighborhoods, and calls for the rezoning of the Downtown Area’s southwest corner from R-4 to R-3, thereby reducing allowable building heights and development pressures. ### Adeline Corridor Mixed Use [^p29-7]: Please see the University Avenue Strategic Plan for a description and location of development nodes on University Avenue in the C-1 Zoning District. [^p29-8]: Please see the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for a description and location of the Designated Nodes on San Pablo Avenue in the C-SP district. These areas of Berkeley are characterized by pedestrian-oriented commercial development and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on multi-lane avenues served by transit or BART. Appropriate uses for these areas include: local-serving and regional-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional with an overall goal of at least 50% of all new housing units as income-restricted housing. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 to an FAR of 5. Population density will generally range from 100 to 300 persons per acre. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification is shown below with accompanying development standards. | Zoning District: Adeline Corridor | Maximum FAR* | Maximum Height* | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | South Shattuck Subarea | 2.5 | 45 feet | | North Adeline Subarea | 2.0 | 35 feet | | South Adeline Subarea | 2.0 | 35 feet | Ashby BART SubareaFuture development at the Ashby BART area would be subject to agreement with BART consistent with the policy and objectives projected in the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (See Chapter 3, Policy 3.7) *Note: Maximum FAR and Maximum Height shown are for the Tier 1 development standards. Increases in FAR and height if additional on-site affordable housing units provided at specified quantity and affordability levels. **Ashby and North Berkeley BART Transit Oriented Development (TOD)** These areas leverage their location and the proximity of the BART stations to provide high-quality transit-oriented development, affordable housing, civic and public space, multi-modal transportation and site access, high-quality building design and architecture, and a mix of land uses that contributes positively to the community. Building intensity will permit a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 4.2, development at a height of at least 7 stories, and a development density of at least 75 dwelling units per acre. **Institutional** These are areas of Berkeley for institutional, government, educational, recreational, open space, natural habitat, woodlands, and public service uses and facilities, such as the University of California, BART, Berkeley Unified School District, and East Bay Municipal Utility District facilities. It is General Plan policy that public agencies comply with General Plan policies and local zoning standards. Within these areas, building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 4. **Manufacturing** These areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of Berkeley for manufacturing and industrial uses necessary for a multi-faceted economy and job growth. Appropriate uses for these areas are identified in the West Berkeley Plan. Within these areas, building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 2. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are: Manufacturing (M), Mixed Manufacturing (MM), Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI), and Manufacturing, Research and Development (M-RD) which all allow a maximum FAR of 2 and a maximum building height of 45 to 105 feet. **Mixed Use-Residential** These areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of the city for lighter manufacturing and industrial uses and allow for additional uses, including residential, where determined appropriate by zoning, and only if the use will not weaken Berkeley’s manufacturing and industrial economy. Within these areas, building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 1.5. Population density will generally range from 44 to 132 persons per acre, where housing is allowed. For information purposes, the compatible zoning district for this classification is Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R), which allows a maximum FAR of 1 to 1.5 for non-residential uses and a maximum building height of 35 feet. **Waterfront/Marina** These areas are intended to maintain and preserve areas of Berkeley adjacent to the Bay for open space, recreational uses, waterfront-related commercial and visitor services, boating, and water transit facilities. Appropriate uses for these areas are identified in the Waterfront Plan. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0 to 0.5, as established by the Waterfront Plan and Measure Q. **Open Space and Recreation** These areas of the city are appropriate for parks, open space, pathways, recreational facilities, natural habitat, and woodlands. Appropriate uses for these areas include parks, recreational facilities, schoolyards, community services, and facilities necessary for the maintenance of the areas. **Old Santa Fe Right-of-Way** The Land Use Diagram shows the approximate location of the Santa Fe Right-of-Way (ROW). The ROW is shown for information purposes only and is not intended to serve as a land use classification. Some portions of the ROW are occupied by park uses, others by residential uses, and others are vacant. Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-6 addresses the planning process necessary for the remaining vacant portions of the ROW. **Designated Nodes** Both the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the University Avenue Strategic Plan established specific "nodes" along University Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in which specific regulatory policies and programs would be applied as an overlay to accomplish area plan goals for revitalization in these specific locations. See the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, and the University Avenue Strategic Plan for more detail. --- ## Circulation — General Plan Transportation Element (October 2026) - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/02%29%20Transportation%20Element_October%202026.pdf - Pages: 42 - Covers: circulation # TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ## INTRODUCTION <
> The Transportation Element establishes policies for the movement of people, goods, and vehicles through the city. To successfully compete with other retail and entertainment destinations, Downtown must offer an attractive sense-of-place. In the Downtown Area, transportation design and operation decisions should give priority to pedestrians. The Transportation Element and Land Use Element are closely related by land use policies that direct new development to areas of the city already well served by public transportation services and land use policies emphasizing the importance of transit-oriented design in new development. The Transportation Element emphasizes the importance of making more efficient use of the existing transportation systems that serve these areas. The relationship between the two Elements is also evident in the correlation of the Land Use Diagram and the Transportation Element maps, which identify the major vehicular, transit, bicycle, and emergency evacuation routes through the city. The Vehicular Circulation Network map, Transit Network map, Bicycle Circulation Network map, and Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map are included at the end of this Element. The following plans and studies inform the Transportation Element: * Downtown Plan, South Berkeley Plan, South Shattuck Strategic Plan, and University Avenue Strategic Plan. * Berkeley Resource Conservation and Global Warming Abatement Plan (1998). * Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2000). * Berkeley Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Task Force Recommendations (2000). * Southside/Downtown Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Study (2001). # POLICY BACKGROUND A detailed description of transportation conditions in Berkeley is included in Conditions, Trends and Issues: A Background Report for Updating the City’s General Plan (1993). The major transportation issues addressed in the Transportation Element are summarized below. ## Traffic and Congestion Since 1977, traffic volumes and traffic congestion have generally continued to increase in Berkeley and in the larger region. Between 1990 and 2020, the vehicle miles of travel on Bay Area roads is expected to grow by 59 million miles per day, an increase of 55%. Interstate 80 through Berkeley, Ashby Avenue, University Avenue, College Avenue, and San Pablo Avenue continue to experience significant congestion during the commute hours. The table below includes a sample of 24-hour traffic volumes on major streets in Berkeley. As shown in the table, traffic volumes have generally been increasing. On some of the most congested streets (i.e., College Avenue, lower University Avenue, and the Warring/Derby corridor) the high level of congestion, and City efforts to increase safety through addition of stop signs or new signals, resulted in an actual reduction in volumes of traffic. *Figure 1: Sample Traffic Volumes* | Sample 24-Hour Traffic Volumes | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Sample Street Segment | 1977 24-Hour Volume | 1987 24- Hour Volume | 2000 24-Hour Volume | Percent Change 1977 to 2000 | | San Pablo (Ashby to Dwight) | 23,400 | 24,000 | 29,500 | +26% | | University (Sacramento to California) | 29,000 | 36,200 | 32,400 | +12% | | Shattuck (Dwight to Adeline) | 30,000 | 33,500 | 36,400 | +21% | | Shattuck (south of Ward) | 20,000 | 19,000 | 22,300 | +12% | | Ashby (Shattuck to Telegraph) | 22,500 | 30,500 | 24,700 | +10% | | Warring (Derby to Dwight) | 21,500 | 25,000 | 20,500 | -5% | | College (Ashby to Derby) | 15,200 | 14,200 | 13,000 | -14% | | Bancroft (Piedmont to College) | 6,000 | 6,700 | 5,100 | -15% | | Adeline (south of Ashby) | 15,000 | 15,000 | 18,100 | +21% | | Telegraph (Ashby to Oakland City Line) | 23,000 | 24,600 | 28,200 | +23% | | Telegraph (north of Ashby) | 26,600 | 26,000 | 19,900 | -25% | The increase in traffic volumes and congestion in Berkeley may be attributed to several factors: 1. Growth in the local and regional economy has resulted in additional jobs and commuter trips into Berkeley each day. With increasing housing prices regionwide and in Berkeley in particular and a limited supply of housing affordable to low- and middle-income workers, the growing Berkeley workforce is increasingly forced to look for housing outside of Berkeley. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of jobs in Berkeley increased by about 18,600 and the number of housing units only increased by about 541. 2. Growth in the retail sector, both locally and in neighboring jurisdictions, has resulted in additional non-commute trips. 3. The typical Berkeley household owns more cars. Between 1970 and 1990, the population decreased by over 13,000 in Berkeley, but the number of cars owned by Berkeley residents increased by 10,000, which may indicate that each household in Berkeley is making more daily non-commute trips. 4. Lack of adequate public funding for transit resulted in service reductions in the 1990s, which discouraged transit use. 5. Federal and State policies to subsidize the cost of gasoline, road construction, and maintenance encourage automobile ownership and use. 6. Lack of a strong regional planning effort to address regional congestion has resulted in a piecemeal and sometimes contradictory strategy for improving the regional transportation system. ## Traffic Management, Traffic Calming, and Congestion Increased volume and congestion result in increased neighborhood traffic and neighborhood requests for traffic management and traffic calming devices. Berkeley has over 30 years of experience in neighborhood traffic management and calming. During this time, traffic management improvements have included traffic signal timing and coordination, bicycle and automobile activated signals (about 25% of all signals are activated), rush-hour on-street parking restrictions, addition of left-hand-turn signals, and other improvements to improve the flow of traffic. To calm the flow of traffic in neighborhood areas, the City has used diverters, speed humps, and signage. Although many of these efforts have successfully reduced traffic on certain residential streets, the City's diverter system has also resulted in higher volumes on some arterial streets and some residential streets. Similarly, citizen complaints about the effects of speed humps on the disabled and concerns about emergency vehicle access resulted in a 1995 moratorium on the installation of additional speed humps. *Figure 2: Traffic Circles and bulb-outs* <
> Traffic Circles and bulb-outs have been used successfully in Berkeley neighborhoods to calm traffic without diverting traffic onto neighboring streets. Recent citywide traffic counts illustrate the relationship between traffic calming and congestion in Berkeley. In response to neighborhood concerns about high traffic volumes and high speeds on the Derby-Warring corridor, the City added several stop signs and directional signs directing motorists to Telegraph Avenue. As a result of the changes, traffic has slowed, and congestion on the corridor has increased, but the numbers of vehicles on the corridor have decreased as drivers search for alternatives to avoid the congestion. On University Avenue, the City added left-turn signals to facilitate turning at Sixth Street and improve safety at the intersection. The changes immediately improved safety at the intersection, which improved access to Sixth Street, but also resulted in a dramatic increase in congestion on University Avenue. A review of the citywide traffic counts shows that over the last ten years, despite the congestion, traffic volumes on University Avenue have actually lessened, and as might be expected, traffic volumes on Hearst Avenue (parallel to University Avenue) have increased as drivers look for alternatives to the congested University Avenue. In conclusion, it may be stated that in general the city’s vehicular network of major and collector streets (see Figure 10) is very close to volume capacity. Any action that encourages more people to drive will result in more congestion. Any action that discourages use of one major or collector street by diversion or slowing of traffic is likely to increase congestion and traffic volumes on other, nearby streets. In addition to inconvenience, congestion contributes to the deterioration of air quality in the Bay Area and an increase in health problems. Increasing traffic volumes and worsening congestion in Berkeley and the Bay Area have contributed to increasing air quality problems throughout the region. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency revoked the Bay Area’s clean air designation. Although the additional congestion caused by modifications to city streets in an effort to slow or calm traffic is often an uncomfortable side effect, many traffic and transit experts argue that increased congestion is one of the most common reasons drivers choose to shift from the automobile to other transportation modes. (In addition to congestion, the availability of low-cost parking and availability of public transportation alternatives also influence commute decisions. Both of these issues are addressed below.) As congestion increases, the amount of time and money that is needed to drive increases. As the costs and time spent driving increase, these factors begin to become comparable to public transportation. However, for public transportation to be an effective alternative, changes such as "transit-only" lanes become necessary to ensure that public buses or trolleys are not caught in the automobile congestion. ## Parking With the growth of the economy, both locally and regionally, and the increase in traffic volumes, parking continues to be an issue in Berkeley. Long term City policy has discouraged commuter parking in Downtown, generally by encouraging high costs for all day parking. However, as parking rates have climbed, "meter feeding" on-street parking has become a tempting option for people who park all day. Downtown is also perceived as lacking sufficient parking, partially because there is a lack of signage directing people to available parking. Effective parking requires a comprehensive approach that distinguishes between the needs of retail patrons versus commuters and looks to the price of parking and information technologies as a means to manage the parking supply more effectively. In the Southside area and in neighborhood and avenue shopping areas, public parking and on-street parking are sometimes filled to near capacity. These near capacity conditions continue to generate problems for adjacent neighborhood areas, which experience on-street parking shortages due to the overflow from nearby commercial areas. The University of California is a major generator of parking demand and provides a significant number of off-street parking spaces on and around the campus. Much of the University parking is restricted to University staff, faculty, and students and below-market-rate pricing has fostered a high demand among the University parking users for the limited number of spaces. The overflow parking problem in the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown and the Southside is exacerbated by sometimes inadequate enforcement of the residential permit parking system, inappropriate issuance of permanent and temporary parking permits, and all-day parkers who are willing to move their automobiles every two hours or feed meters all day. ## Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Safety Compared to other cities in the county and in the state, Berkeley has a very high number of residents who walk to work. According to the 1990 Census, more Berkeley residents walked to work (17%) than took transit (15%). The highest walk-to-work rates are found in the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the University and Downtown between Cedar to the north, Ashby to the south, and Martin Luther King Jr. Way to the west. In the Southside, over 50% of the employed residents reported that they walked to work in 1990. The percentage of Berkeley residents who walked to work was about four times the percentage of walking commuters for the county as a whole (4%). These walking trips have a significant effect on the city’s street system. If Berkeley’s rate of walking to work were as low as the county average, as many as 12,500 automobile trips per day would be added to Berkeley traffic. In addition to commute trips, many Berkeley citizens walk for pleasure and for non-work-related trips. In a 1989 survey of Berkeley residents, 70% said that they sometimes walked to a store to shop or run errands. In recent years, the City of Berkeley has continued to make positive improvements to the street network to facilitate pedestrian travel, such as the widening of the Center Street sidewalk between BART and the University of California campus. As envisioned in the 1977 Master Plan, bicycles continue to be an important mode of transportation in Berkeley. In 1990, about 5% of employed Berkeley residents commuted by bicycle, a high percentage for an urban area. The City has installed additional public bicycle racks in recent years and designated a network of bicycle boulevards, which are identified on the Bicycle Circulation Network map. In April 2000, the City Council adopted the Berkeley Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines. The Bicycle Plan is incorporated by reference into the General Plan and the Bicycle Plan’s goals are included below in the policy section of this chapter. The Bike Plan’s network of bikeways is shown on the Bicycle Circulation Network map at the end of the Element. Despite efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, Berkeley has more than two times the rate of pedestrian, and more than four times the rate of bicyclist injury than other cities. In comparison to 44 cities of a similar size in California, Berkeley ranks number one in both pedestrian and bicycle injury and death. This disparity is partly explained by the fact that Berkeley has higher rates of walking and bicycling than other cities in the state. Moreover, Berkeley is home to a large disabled community, which faces the same dangers as pedestrians and bicyclists as they attempt to negotiate crowded streets throughout the city. The following table (Figure 3) identifies the 15 most dangerous intersections in the city for bicyclists and pedestrians: *Figure 3: Dangerous intersections in Berkeley* | Intersection | Number of Accidents | | :--- | :--- | | Shattuck at University | 29 | | Durant at Telegraph | 15 | | Ashby at Sacramento; Oxford at University; and Gilman at San Pablo (tied) | 13 each | | Allston at Shattuck; Ashby at MLK; San Pablo at University; and Bancroft at Bowditch (tied) | 12 each | | Ashby at San Pablo; Bancroft at Dana; College at Russell; Hearst at Oxford; Milvia at University; and MLK at University (tied) | 11 each | ### Public Transportation Since 1977 public transportation services have increased throughout the city. With the cooperation of AC Transit, every residence in Berkeley is within one-quarter mile of a transit line. In 1993, based on the transit service measure of "seat miles per capita" Berkeley had nearly double the transit service of the average metropolitan area in the United States, placing the city in the top 10 metropolitan areas nationwide. As of 1999 about 1,200 buses passed through the Downtown on a daily basis, and all of AC Transit’s 18 local bus lines connect with a BART station. Although Berkeley remains one of the top 25 cities in the country in percentage of commuters using public transportation, public transportation remains the "least preferred" mode of transportation for many Berkeley residents. During the 10 years between 1980 and 1990, the citywide population remained stable, but bus ridership declined from 17% to 7% for Berkeley resident commuters, and BART ridership increased only slightly, from 3% to 8%. During this same period, the number of Berkeley residents who reported that they took public transportation dropped by 1,500 to approximately 15% of the population, and the residents who reported that they drove alone to work increased approximately 3,700 to a total of 24,742 (approximately 25% of the population). Although ridership numbers in Berkeley for AC Transit since 1990 are not available, data from BART turnstiles in Berkeley show that between 1990 and 1999 ridership increased about 4%. <
> Public transit remains the only mode available for many Berkeley residents. AC Transit estimates that approximately 76% of its riders did not have the option of using an automobile for their trips. Of the 2,000,000 Bay Area residents who rely on non-automobile modes of transportation, most are seniors, children, low-income, or disabled. Historically, urban transit systems such as AC Transit and San Francisco Muni have been underfunded relative to the suburb-serving systems such as BART. BART receives a far higher public subsidy ($3.00 per passenger) than AC Transit ($0.65 per passenger). Since 1990, regional agencies, transportation agencies, city governments, public institutions, AC Transit, and BART have been making improvements to the public transportation system to increase ridership and reduce traffic congestion in the Bay Area. AC Transit and cities in the region have been working on improvements to the system to make it a more attractive alternative for more Bay Area residents. The San Pablo Avenue corridor, extending from Richmond in the north to Oakland in the south, is the focus of several transit improvement projects, including the Signal Interconnect Study, Transit Operations Study, and the Bus Rapid Transit Technical Assistance Program. The San Pablo Avenue Signal Interconnect Study will coordinate all traffic signals along San Pablo Avenue, giving priority to buses and emergency vehicles. The San Pablo Avenue Operations Study is examining improvements to transit services and facilities to offer faster bus service along the corridor. The Federal Transportation Administration has chosen the San Pablo Avenue corridor as an important route for the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project by offering technical assistance to AC Transit and the cities along the corridor. The BRT program combines planning and technological devices to allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability, and efficiency of light rail vehicles at only a fraction of the cost. AC Transit also conducted a Major Investment Study to consider options for improving transit on the Telegraph Avenue corridor between Berkeley and San Leandro with shuttles or light rail. The following photomontage (Figure 4) illustrates how a light rail or dedicated transit lane on transit corridors such as University Avenue, San Pablo, or Telegraph Avenue could significantly increase transit ridership. *Figure 4: Photomontage illustrating light rail* <
> In 1999, AC Transit and UC Berkeley began the Class Pass Pilot Program that allows full-time, registered UC Berkeley students unlimited rides on both local and transbay routes by adding a mandatory transit fee to their academic registration fee. AC Transit and UC Berkeley believe that this program gives students incentives to use the bus more often as an alternative to driving. For the spring 2000 semester, 17,000 students acquired class passes. In Silicon Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority established the "Eco-Pass" program in 1996, which is similar to the "Class Pass." The program allows a company of any size in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority service area to purchase transit passes for its employees at a deep discount; passes allow employees to ride transit for free. At some companies, transit ridership has doubled. Similar programs exist in other parts of the country, including Dallas, Texas, and Boulder, Colorado. All Bay Area employers are eligible for "Commuter Checks," which are coupons that can be used to purchase Bay Area transit passes, or pay for fares on registered vanpools/bus pools. The program is a pre-tax payroll deduction program that allows employers to provide transit vouchers to employees as a tax-free benefit. It can work as an employer-paid benefit or as a deduction from the employee’s existing salary. The program can cut the cost of transit tickets and vouchers by 40%. In a recent survey of Bay Area commuters, only 19% indicated that they had heard of the Commuter Check program. Locally, the University of California, Alta Bates Hospital, and the West Berkeley Transportation Management Agency/Bayer Corporation operate regular shuttle services. The City and the University of California provide funds for Berkeley TRIP, which is a storefront in Downtown that provides ridesharing, carpooling, vanpool, and public transportation information and/or tickets. The City funds several transportation services and provides some funding for public improvements to make public transportation a more attractive option. The City provides vans and other services to senior citizens, the homeless (Social Service Transport), and the disabled (Paratransit Program). The City provides a transit subsidy ($20) that can be used to discount the cost of monthly BART and AC Transit tickets for some but not all of the City’s employees. (The program is included in the contract negotiations for each union group.) In recent years the City has been working with local transit providers to fund maintenance of bus shelters throughout the city and make improvements to the Berkeley Amtrak Station. Since 1993 Amtrak has eliminated the Berkeley stop from the San Joaquin line due to low ridership counts. However, passenger counts on the Capitol Corridor line have been increasing. The existing rail stop at the foot of University Avenue is substandard. Amtrak has informed the City that the stop must be upgraded to provide an acceptable level of service to persons traveling to and from Berkeley by rail. Needed improvements include a new transit plaza, adjacent bus stops, seating, lighting, public art, and street trees. The stop also requires a full platform upgrade. The platform needs to be raised, widened, and lengthened to meet minimum standards. ## Streets and Sidewalks The citywide system of streets and sidewalks is the essential infrastructure that allows people, bicycles, buses, trucks, emergency vehicles, and automobiles to move around the city. Without a well-maintained system of streets and sidewalks, the Berkeley community will be unable to meet many if not all of its transportation objectives over the next 20 years. The Berkeley street system is comprised of 221 miles, 206 miles of which are improved with asphalt, and seven miles of which are constructed of poured concrete. In periods of limited budgets and/or perceived needs of higher priority, street maintenance is typically the first element of a street program to be cut, thus lowering short-term costs, but significantly increasing the long-term costs. After Proposition 13, deferred maintenance and the resultant street deterioration have become commonplace in many California cities, including Berkeley. Since 1985, Berkeley has employed a Pavement Management System (PMS) program, designed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to help prioritize asphalt street repair. The PMS method reverses typical maintenance priorities in order to extend performance life and prevent accelerated deterioration, thus obtaining the most value from budgeted resources. The program is designed to maximize the number of streets maintained in "excellent" to "fair" condition, and to allow sections already in "poor" or "failing" condition to continue to deteriorate prior to reconstruction. The emphasis of PMS is on preventing the street sections from reaching the "poor" condition, because sections classified as "poor" or "failed" require reconstruction, which is very expensive and is the least cost-effective use of available funds. Berkeley's 5 Year Capital Improvement Program allocates over $13 million over the 5-year period for street improvements from 2001 to 2006. Figure 5 shows the streets planned for repaving over the next 5 years (2001 through 2006). *Figure 5: Street Repaving Projects Planned for 2001-2006* <
> There are approximately 300 miles of concrete sidewalks in Berkeley. City staff estimates that approximately 95 miles of the city’s sidewalks are currently in need of repair or replacement. At a cost of $6.00 per square foot, to complete the repairs would require approximately $18 million. The adopted 2000/05 Capital Improvement Program allocates approximately $3.4 million over five years to the repair and replacement of sidewalks and pathways. Presently, there are two types of sidewalk repair conducted by the City: emergency repair and a long-term "spiral" repair. Emergency repairs are initiated both by citizen complaint and by routine City Engineering inspection. The degree of repair is either a temporary safety measure consisting of concrete removal and/or the placement of an asphalt overlay, or permanent concrete repair, depending on the particular circumstances of the damaged walk and the available resources. The "spiral" repair program provides for permanent repair and is designed for systematic maintenance in which the segmented phases of work are defined, beginning from the Civic Center area and spiraling outward toward the city limits. Northeast and Southeast Berkeley have unique networks of pedestrian pathways. These pathways provide pedestrian access in the hill areas between streets, quiet resting places, panoramic viewpoints, and a critical evacuation alternative to the often narrow and winding streets in the hills. There are approximately 135 paths. Figure 6 shows the approximate location and general extent of the city’s pathway networks. The Department of Public Works maintains a detailed database of public pathways and publicly dedicated rights-of-way. *Figure 6: Pathway Networks* <
> # ELEMENT OBJECTIVES The policies and actions of the Transportation Element are intended to achieve the following six objectives: * Maintain and improve public transportation services throughout the city. * Reduce automobile use and vehicle miles traveled in Berkeley, and the related impacts, by providing and advocating for transportation alternatives and subsidies that facilitate voluntary decisions to drive less. * Improve the quality of life in Berkeley neighborhoods by calming and slowing traffic on all residential streets. * Maintain and improve the existing infrastructure and facilities for the movement of people, goods, and vehicles within and through the city. * Improve the management of public parking to better serve the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. * Create a model bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly city where bicycling and walking are safe, attractive, easy, and convenient forms of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and abilities. # POLICIES AND ACTIONS ## Public Transportation **Policy T-1 Regional Transit Policy** Advocate for regional coordinated transit services and regional transportation policy to reduce automobile use and increased funding for public and alternative transportation improvements. Action: A. Vigorously pursue regional, statewide, and national policies that encourage greater transit use by providing funding to improve transit services, to subsidize lower fares and free (or nominal-cost), seamless transfers among transit systems, and to provide AC Transit with an increased, more stable operating budget. **Policy T-2 Public Transportation Improvements** Encourage regional and local efforts to maintain and enhance public transportation services and seek additional regional funding for public and alternative transportation improvements. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-6.) Actions: A. Work with AC Transit to: 1. Expand service and reduce waiting time and transfer times for people who have to use more than one bus to get to their destination. 2. Increase east-west cross-town service. 3. Add transit-only or transit/HOV-only lanes where appropriate on any streets or portions of streets that are part of the city’s transit network. 4. Implement improvements to make transit more convenient, dependable, and attractive, such as benches at bus stops, transit shelters, transit centers, information kiosks, and signs. 5. Upgrade the City’s traffic signal system to provide transit-priority operation. 6. Continue to replace older diesel buses with quieter, less polluting vehicles. 7. Establish an AC Transit/BART/UC/LBNL/City/BUSD transit coordinating council to improve transit service in the Southside and Downtown areas. B. Work with BART to: 1. Maintain and expand the frequency and hours of BART service through Berkeley. 2. Continue its efforts to provide electric charging stations and electric vehicles at BART stations. 3. Provide 24-hour service in support of Downtown cultural and residential uses and provide direct connections to San Francisco in evening hours. C. Promote and market public transportation by: 1. Improving access to information about public transportation alternatives and schedules. 2. Pursuing joint marketing campaigns with transit agencies and event sponsors promoting alternative ways to get to city districts and events. D. Improve shuttle and transit services by: 1. Increasing shuttle and transit services from Rockridge and the Rockridge BART station to Downtown BART and the campus. 2. Increasing shuttle services between neighborhood commercial areas and between BART stations and employment centers, such as West Berkeley. 3. Promoting express shuttle services to complement local transit service and ensure that Berkeley residents and commuters have information about shuttle services readily available. 4. Testing the feasibility of a low-cost shuttle or "jitney" service for Berkeley residents. 5. Encouraging transportation providers to coordinate and consolidate the installation of new jointly used shelters. 6. Encouraging expansion of transit, rail service, and inter-modal connections in West Berkeley. 7. Developing a mass transit validation program in Berkeley commercial districts similar to a parking validation program. **Policy T-3 Eco-Pass City Program** Increase transit use and reduce automobile traffic and congestion in Berkeley by creating an Eco-Pass program. Action: A. Work with AC Transit, BART, neighboring jurisdictions, major employers, and neighboring transit districts to establish an "Eco-Pass" program for Berkeley employers that would allow pass holders free unlimited rides on AC Transit and/or BART. Once the program is established: 1. Provide Eco-Passes for all City employees. 2. Establish participation in the Eco-Pass program as a condition of approval for all new businesses with over 50 employees. 3. Encourage existing area employers, particularly major employers such as UC Berkeley, Berkeley Unified School District, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Alta Bates Medical Center, to join the program. 4. Contact all employers with 50 or more employees to encourage their participation in Eco-Pass. 5. Work with the participating transit agencies to offer a neighborhood Eco-Pass, which would allow neighborhoods to participate in the program, similar to the Boulder, Colorado, Neighborhood Pass. 6. Consider creation of a Citywide Transit Pass for Berkeley residents financed by a tax that would allow pass holders free unlimited rides on AC Transit and/or BART. 7. As an interim measure, contact and encourage area employers to participate in the existing Commuter Check program. Maintain or increase existing transit subsidies for City employees and encourage other employers to maintain and increase existing transit subsidies. **Policy T-4 Transit-First Policy** Give priority to alternative transportation and transit over single-occupant vehicles on Transit Routes identified on the Transit Network map (Figure 7, page T-31). Action: A. In residential areas, restrict fixed-route transit services to Primary and Secondary Transit Routes shown on the Transit Network map. **Policy T-5 Light Rail/Bus Rapid Transit** Support regional efforts to develop light rail or bus rapid transit service connecting East Bay cities. Actions: A. Locate light rail or bus rapid transit systems on the primary transit corridors identified on the Transit Network map. B. Consider bus rapid transit, with bus priority signals and bus priority lanes on transit corridors, as an interim and low-cost alternative to a new light rail system. C. Aggressively pursue regional funding sources with AC Transit and neighboring cities for a light rail or bus rapid transit system. D. Continue to work with AC Transit and regional transportation agencies to evaluate potential major public investment strategies and alternatives to improve transit services for Berkeley citizens, including light rail and bus rapid transit. E. Work with local merchants to build support for a light rail system and bus rapid transit and minimize potential impacts to businesses from construction and loss of parking. F. Investigate a low-cost open trolley service along major pedestrian and shopping corridors such as University, Shattuck, and Telegraph as an interim or permanent solution similar to the Santa Barbara waterfront trolley system. G. Support AC Transit's Major Investment Study with its recommendations to achieve long-term rail on Telegraph Avenue. Advocate for extension of the recommendations to the foot of University Avenue and connection with service enhancements on San Pablo Avenue. **Policy T-6 Transportation Services Fee** Ensure that new development does not impact existing transportation services and facilities. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-28.) Action: A. Prepare a nexus study (pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) to enable imposition and collection of a Transportation Impact Fee for new development projects. **Policy T-7 Special Transit Programs** Continue to maintain and improve access and mobility for the disabled, seniors, and youth with programs such as paratransit, the taxi voucher program, and senior vans. Actions: A. Work with paratransit service providers to better meet the needs of the disabled community, including: accommodating scooters and all types of wheelchairs, improving response time, expanding hours of service, and requiring drivers to take sensitivity training to better assist disabled riders. B. Work cooperatively in the development of a comprehensive County program. **Policy T-8 Amtrak** Encourage additional Amtrak service to Berkeley and pursue platform and vicinity improvements to make the train stop more attractive and safe. Actions: A. Continue to pursue future opportunities to establish a staffed train station in Berkeley. B. Consider joint use possibilities for a new station and possible reuse of the former China Station restaurant as a passenger station. C. Consider designating some of the available parking spaces as all-day parking spaces dedicated to Amtrak users. D. Pursue joint marketing strategies with Amtrak, 4th Street, West Berkeley, and Marina merchants to advertise and promote train access to West Berkeley. E. Expand express transit/shuttle connections to Amtrak stations and connections from Amtrak to the BART stations. F. Advocate for continued Capitol Corridor services and timely service to San Jose. G. Advocate for East Bay participation with planning and the use of the Trans-Bay Terminal, maintaining a high-speed rail connection to the Trans-Bay Terminal, across San Francisco Bay Bridge to Southern California. **Policy T-9 Ferry Service** Continue to evaluate the possibility of working with the City of Albany, the racetrack owners, regional transportation agencies, and AC Transit to establish a ferry terminal and regular San Francisco ferry service from Berkeley at the foot of Gilman Street or at the foot of University Avenue as an alternative to the Bay Bridge and as an essential recovery element following a significant seismic event. Actions: A. Ensure transit, shuttle, and bicycle connections are in place before beginning ferry service to minimize parking demand and traffic caused by people driving to the ferry service. B. Prioritize transit, pedestrian, and bicycle public expenditures over expenditures of public funds for ferry service, and ensure that new ferry service will not result in a reduction in public subsidies for existing transit services. C. Ensure that ferry services are less environmentally detrimental than the automobile. Advocate for low-emission, environmentally sensitive ferries. ### Automobile Use Reduction **Policy T-10 Trip Reduction** To reduce automobile traffic and congestion and increase transit use and alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when appropriate require, programs to encourage Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce automobile trips, such as: 1. Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Program (also see Transportation Policy T-3). 2. Participation in the Commuter Check Program. 3. Carpooling and provision of carpool parking and other necessary facilities. 4. Telecommuting programs. 5. "Free bicycle" programs and electric bicycle programs. 6. "Car-sharing" programs. 7. Use of pedal-cab, bicycle delivery services, and other delivery services. 8. Programs to encourage neighborhood-level initiatives to reduce traffic by encouraging residents to combine trips, carpool, telecommute, reduce the number of cars owned, shop locally, and use alternative modes. 9. Programs to reward Berkeley citizens and neighborhoods that can document reduced car use. 10. Limitations on the supply of long-term commuter parking and elimination of subsidies for commuter parking. 11. No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all shopping districts throughout the city. **Policy T-11 City of Berkeley** Establish the City of Berkeley as a "Model Employer" in the area of trip and emission reduction. (Also see Environmental Management Policies EM-18 through EM-22.) Actions: In addition to establishing a Berkeley Eco-Pass program (see Transportation Policy T-3): A. Eliminate free or low-cost parking provisions from employee individual and union contracts. B. Establish employee automobile use reduction goals. To meet these goals, consider: in addition to Eco- Pass, expanding the fleet bicycle program, providing a vacation day bonus for bicycle or transit use, and establishing flex hours and telecommuting programs. C. Publicize the Guaranteed Ride Home Program for carpoolers and parents who use alternative transportation. D. Locate City worksites near major public transportation facilities to the extent feasible. E. Provide express shuttle service during peak hours between transit hubs and outlying worksites. F. Purchase only energy efficient gasoline powered, "hybrid," and biodiesel and other alternative-fuel City vehicles. G. Encourage development of compressed natural gas and other alternative-fuel stations. H. Use market pricing mechanisms to discourage all-day parking in City garages. I. Add transit information and information about Eco-Pass (once established) and Commuter Check to all business license application related mailings. J. Provide secure bicycle parking at all major City worksites. **Policy T-12 Education and Enforcement** Support, and when possible require, education and enforcement programs to encourage carpooling and alternatives to single-occupant automobile use, reduce speeding, and increase pedestrian, bicyclist, and automobile safety. Actions: A. Consider developing a program that rewards households, block groups, or neighborhood organizations that can document their reduction in automobile use. Consider discounts on electric bicycles to reward automobile use reduction. B. Encourage hotels, motels, and other visitor destinations to provide visitors with information on public transportation and bicycle services and facilities. **Policy T-13 Major Public Institutions** Work with other agencies and institutions, such as the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Vista Community College, the Alameda County Court, and neighboring cities to promote Eco-Pass and to pursue other efforts to reduce automobile trips. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-39.) Actions: A. Encourage other agencies and institutions to match or exceed the City of Berkeley's trip reduction and emission reduction programs for their employees. B. Encourage other agencies, institutions, and cities to use market-pricing mechanisms to reduce automotive use and discourage all-day parking. C. Encourage the University of California: 1. To maintain and improve its facilities and programs that support and encourage pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. 2. To provide bicycle facilities, "all hour" bicycle paths, and timely pavement maintenance. 3. To locate non-student-serving offices and additional staff and student housing at or near BART stations outside Berkeley. D. Encourage the Berkeley Unified School District to establish programs and facilities to reduce automobile use among staff, faculty, and students, including: 1. Training in safe and competent bicycle use. 2. Providing safe and convenient bicycle facilities. 3. Working with parents to establish carpools, "bicycle to school groups," and "bus to school groups." 4. Create programs that offer incentives to use public transportation such as Eco-Pass. E. Obtain "Safe Routes to School" grants and other funds for programs to make it safer for students to travel to school. F. Continue limiting the number of residential parking permits given to BUSD faculty and staff. G. Assist the University of California and the Berkeley Unified School District in developing satellite parking lots with shuttle service for students and staff. H. Encourage the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, and other major institutions to cap parking at current levels while seeking to reduce automobile use. I. Encourage institutions to create incentives for their employees and students to live locally. J. Encourage all public and private institutions, including schools, health clubs, recreation centers and other community destinations to organize carpools and shuttles. **Policy T-14 Private Employers** Encourage private employers to reduce the demand for automobile travel through transportation demand management programs that include elements such as: 1. Trip reduction incentives such as Commuter Check and Eco-Pass. 2. Flexible work hours and telecommuting to reduce peak-hour commute congestion. 3. Carpool and vanpool incentives to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use. 4. Provision of mass transit pass/credit instead of free employee parking (parking "cash-out" programs). 5. Providing bicycle facilities. 6. Market pricing mechanisms for employee parking to reduce automotive use and discourage all-day parking. 7. Local hiring policies. 8. Numerical goals for trip reduction. **Policy T-15 Local Hiring** Establish Berkeley residency as a preference for hiring, and encourage other public employers, institutions, and private employers to hire locally. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-1.) **Policy T-16 Access by Proximity** Improve access by increasing proximity of residents to services, goods, and employment centers. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-13 and LU-23, Housing Policy H-16, and Environmental Management Policy EM-41 Action B.) Actions: A. Locate essential commercial and other services in transit-oriented locations to reduce the need for cars and enable people living near transit and services to reduce auto trips. B. Encourage higher density housing and commercial infill development that is consistent with General Plan and zoning standards in areas adjacent to existing public transportation services. C. Encourage the University of California to provide additional housing within walking distance of campus to reduce University-related traffic. D. Encourage siting of child-care facilities and other services in large residential or commercial facilities to reduce traffic impacts associated with child-care drop-off and pick-up. E. In locations served by transit, consider reduction or elimination of parking requirements for residential development. **Policy T-17 Transportation Planning** Involve local residents, businesses and institutions in all stages of transportation planning. (Also see Citizen Participation Policies CP-1 through CP-5 and CP-8 through CP-10.) **Policy T-18 Transportation Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled** When considering transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City shall consider how a plan or project affects all modes of transportation, including transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, to determine the transportation impacts of a plan or project. Plans and projects shall be designed to deliver significant benefits to travel by pedestrians, bicycle, or transit, and/or reduced impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and safety. For the purposes of CEQA, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) shall be the metric used to analyze the transportation impacts of a plan or project. Action: A. Replace level of service (LOS) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric to analyze transportation-related environmental impacts under CEQA. **Policy T-19 Air Quality Impacts** Continue to encourage innovative technologies and programs such as clean-fuel, electric, and low-emission cars that reduce the air quality impacts of the automobile. (Also see Environmental Management Policies EM-18 through EM-22.) Actions: A. Establish bicycle and low-emission vehicle preferred parking areas. B. Install electric vehicle charging stations in all City-owned parking facilities downtown and at major parking facilities and employment centers. C. Where appropriate, install timed signals on major streets to allow traffic to move at a steady 25 miles an hour on major and collector streets, and a steady 15 or 20 miles an hour on neighborhood streets to minimize air quality impacts from "stop and go" traffic. ### Neighborhood Traffic Calming **Policy T-20 Neighborhood Protection and Traffic Calming** Take actions to prevent traffic and parking generated by residential, commercial, industrial or institutional activities from being detrimental to residential areas. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-9, LU- 10, and LU- 11.) Actions: A. Continue to support and actively move forward neighborhood strategies to slow and "calm" traffic. B. Endorse strategies to reduce shortcutting and speeding and minimize the use of neighborhood streets by through traffic. C. Endorse traffic calming strategies that primarily slow traffic. D. Discourage strategies that divert traffic from one residential street to another residential street. E. Require that strategies provide for the movement of emergency vehicles to and through the neighborhoods and recognize the needs of the disabled, pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists. F. Make use of street modifications, including sidewalk bulb-outs, and appropriate traffic calming measures to slow traffic on neighborhood streets to 15 or 20 miles per hour and limit 24-hour volumes to less than 1500 cars per day. G. Support and encourage neighborhood traffic watch associations to work with local enforcement to report and prosecute traffic violations in neighborhood areas. H. Establish a Residential Traffic Calming Program that includes objective criteria for evaluating neighborhood traffic problems such as traffic volume, pedestrian and bicycle accident rates, and vehicle speeds, especially in areas where children and seniors are concentrated. Include processes to ensure neighborhood participation in the development and evaluation of potential traffic calming solutions. I. Implement strategies that slow and calm traffic on residential streets including both local streets and residential segments of collector and major streets. J. Develop engineering, education, and enforcement strategies to discourage speeding on local, collector and major streets. Prioritize speed limit enforcement on local streets and on residential segments of collector and major streets. K. Evaluate effectiveness of enforcement efforts to prevent speeding and consider increasing the number of traffic enforcement officers if necessary to reduce and control speeding. L. Establish levels of service standards for residential areas on collector and major streets. M. In residential areas, restrict the use of large buses to Primary and Secondary Routes shown on the Transit Network map, whenever feasible. **Policy T-21 Speed Limits** Pursue changes to State regulations to allow cities to enforce a 15- or 20-mile-per-hour residential speed limit. **Policy T-22 Traffic Circles and Roundabouts** Encourage the use of landscaped traffic circles to calm traffic in residential areas. Action: A. Consider roundabouts as a viable traffic-calming device, especially at the Shattuck and Adeline intersection, the Gilman Street Freeway on and off ramps, and at other appropriate intersections in the city. **Policy T-23 Truck Routes and Truck Traffic** To the greatest extent possible, protect residential streets from hazardous or heavy traffic. Actions: A. Revise and maintain signed truck routes throughout the city to facilitate movement of goods and materials and minimize the impact of trucks in residential areas. Restrict tank vehicles with potentially hazardous materials in residential and other areas such as the Hazardous Fire Area. B. Post signs to indicate location of truck routes; and on residential streets where truck traffic is a problem, indicate that through truck traffic is prohibited. Prohibit through truck traffic on streets that are not designated truck routes. C. Provide a City phone number with voice mail on which citizens can report license numbers and names of trucking companies that violate truck route regulations. D. Consider requiring as part of the City review process for major projects that a construction truck route plan be approved by the City and followed by all contractors and subcontractors. **Policy T-24 Ashby Avenue** Take actions necessary to reduce congestion, improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and improve the quality of life for residents on Ashby Avenue. Action: A. Ensure safe pedestrian crossing of Ashby Avenue along its entire route, but particularly to City facilities such as schools, senior citizen centers, and libraries. Infrastructure and Facility Improvements **Policy T-25 Street Maintenance** Maintain streets, sidewalks, and other public infrastructure to reduce long-term replacement costs. Actions: A. Maintain a citywide resurfacing schedule that will ensure that street maintenance and repair occur in a timely manner and reduce the need to conduct more expensive street reconstruction. B. Coordinate pedestrian and transit public improvements with street repairs and repaving. C. Ensure that street repairs and repaving are completed without negatively affecting the disabled or bicyclists (e.g., ensure that all repaving and patching provides a smooth surface for bicyclists and wheelchairs). D. Continue to give priority to streets designated as Bikeways for road maintenance and repair. E. Coordinate the work of agencies such as EBMUD and others to minimize the digging up of City streets. **Policy T-26 City Streets** Do not widen local, collector, or major streets unless necessary to allow passage of emergency vehicles, or remove parking from residential streets for the purpose of expanding automobile traffic lanes. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22.) **Policy T-27 Freeway Expansion** Oppose additional freeway construction in Berkeley, either on new routes or through the expansion of existing facilities. **Policy T-28 Emergency Access** Provide for emergency access to all parts of the city and safe evacuation routes. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22.) Actions: A. Do not install new full diverters or speed humps on streets identified on the Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map unless it is determined by the Fire and Police Departments that the installation will not significantly reduce emergency access or evacuation speeds. The Fire Department should be able to access all Berkeley locations within four minutes (see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element). All other proposed traffic calming devices or obstructions to the free flow of traffic on these streets should be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to ensure that the proposed change will not significantly increase emergency response times or hinder effective evacuation of adjacent neighborhoods. B. Maintain and improve pedestrian pathways throughout the city that are dedicated for public use and provide an alternative to the streets in case of an emergency evacuation. C. Maintain and make available to the public up-to-date maps of all emergency access and evacuation routes. D. Where necessary, consider parking restrictions to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicle access and evacuation in hill area neighborhoods with narrow streets. E. Prioritize evacuation routes for undergrounding of overhead utilities. **Policy T-29 Infrastructure Improvements** Facilitate mobility and the flow of traffic on major and collector streets (shown on the Vehicular Circulation Network map at the end of the Element), reduce the air quality impacts of congestion, improve pedestrian and bicycle access, and speed public transportation throughout the city by making improvements to the existing physical infrastructure. Actions: A. Provide timely pavement maintenance and eliminate hazards on bicycle routes. B. Designate or add transit-priority lanes or transit-only lanes. C. Add or eliminate left turn lanes. D. Establish commute period parking restrictions. E. Regularly maintain pavement. F. Improve freeway approaches and interchanges at Ashby Avenue (including removal of Potter Street ramp) and Gilman Street (to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation to the waterfront and facilitate truck access to West Berkeley). G. Complete the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Plan improvements designed in cooperation with the surrounding cities. H. Time traffic signals on major transit corridors to give priority to and speed movement of transit vehicles. **Policy T-30 Traffic Signals** Continue to pursue better signal devices and systems to facilitate movement on Berkeley’s limited road network. Consider: 1. Signals that provide separate phases for through (straight) traffic, pedestrians and cyclists, and turning traffic. 2. Bus-activated signals. 3. All-way stop signals that allow the free flow of pedestrians through the intersection. 4. "Smart" signals to calm traffic and improve intersection safety. 5. Timed traffic signals to give priority to and speed movement of transit and emergency vehicles. 6. Pedestrian /bicycle-activated signals that allow bikes and pedestrians to cross busy streets. # Parking **Policy T-31 Residential Parking** Regulate use of on-street parking in residential areas to minimize parking impacts on neighborhoods. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-10.) Actions: A. Improve enforcement of the Residential Preferential Parking Program. B. Restrict Residential Parking Permits to residents of the district and further limit the number of guest passes that can be issued to a single address. C. Correct abuses of 14-day and 1-day Residential Preferential Parking visitor permits. D. Do not issue parking permits to residents of new car-free housing developments or to residents of projects which have been granted variances to reduce required off-street parking. E. Discourage use of on-street parking for long-term storage of cars. F. Enforce regulations against parking on lawns and sidewalks. G. Ensure provision of adequate off-street parking for new projects in low-density residential areas. H. Add information on transit alternatives on parking tickets. I. Allow the expansion of RPP areas if it is found that additional residential streets are being used for employee and other commercial parking or vehicle storage. J. Revise the RPP program to further restrict the number of permits issued to institutional users and set clear standards for issuance of RPP permits to institutions that include requirements for on-site transportation demand management programs and transportation alternatives. **Policy T-32 Shared Parking** Encourage Berkeley businesses and institutions to establish shared parking agreements, which would make the most efficient use of existing and new parking areas. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-6.) **Policy T-33 Disabled Parking and Passenger Zones** Ensure adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones. Actions: A. Require access to adequate disabled parking and passenger drop-off zones in all new commercial and residential developments. B. Improve enforcement of disabled "blue zone" parking. **Policy T-34 Downtown and Southside Parking Management** Manage the supply of Downtown and Southside public parking to discourage long-term all-day parking and increase the availability and visibility of short-term parking for local businesses. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-6 and Downtown Area Plan.) Actions: A. Offer reduced rate or free parking for carpools and van pools at City garages and selected street locations. B. Improve signage and access to existing public parking, including UC lots open to the public, in the Downtown and in the Southside. C. Increase all-day parking rates, maintain lower parking rates for short-term parking, eliminate monthly parking passes, provide "cash-out" programs, and extend hours of operation in City garages. D. Improve lighting and security in Downtown garages to encourage better utilization during off-peak hours. E. Require all City employees and officials to pay the fair market rate for parking. F. Limit employee parking based on need for a vehicle on the job, number of passengers carried, disability, and/or lack of alternative public transportation. G. Identify locations to increase short-term, on-street parking capacity through re-striping and angled parking in commercial areas. H. Enforce existing short-term parking laws in commercial districts (e.g., meter parking) to alleviate abuse. I. Provide information on transit alternatives, commuter checks, and obtaining transit passes at City parking garages and on City parking tickets. Give this information to everyone who applies for a long-term parking permit in any City-owned parking lot or garage. J. Encourage visitors attending sporting events, entertainment events, theatrical performances and special events in the Downtown and Southside areas to use transit so that some existing parking remains available for other visitors. K. Increase the availability of short-term parking by encouraging better utilization of existing parking as recommended by the Southside/Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study, including making parking that is currently not available to the public, available for short-term parkers. L. Work with the business and arts community and owners of existing parking lots and garages, including the University, to cooperatively manage parking demand and parking resources, coordinate parking policies, parking rates and parking information programs, and widely disseminate parking maps and parking information. **Policy T-35 Public Parking Supply in the Downtown and Southside** Prioritize implementation of improved parking conditions in the Downtown and Southside through better utilization of existing parking and through implementation of policies to reduce demand for parking. Actions: A. Reduce demand for parking by implementing specific actions in the Southside/Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study (see Tier One, Tier Two, and Tier Three programs and actions in the TDM Study) particularly taking actions to improve transit services and implementing an Eco-Pass program (see Policy T-3), and implementing commuter, shopper, and visitor shuttles (see Policy T-2). B. Increase availability of existing parking, including UC parking, to shoppers, visitors, and other short-term users (see also Policy T-34). C. Establish baseline parking supply and utilization data and monitor parking conditions on an ongoing basis in all City and UC parking lots and garages available to commuters, shoppers, and other visitors to determine effectiveness of implementation of Actions A and B. D. Conduct a visitor access survey to improve understanding of visitor use of and demand for parking (including bicycle parking) and transit at different times and locations in the Downtown and Southside and to help inform implementation of Actions A and B. If visitor access survey indicates substantial visitor/customer demand for short-term parking, determine how the City’s parking policies and administration can be strengthened to discourage all-day commuter parking and make more visitor/customer parking available. E. Create a prioritized implementation plan for Actions A and B, including a schedule, so that the community can track the progress of implementation. F. Working cooperatively with the Downtown Berkeley Association and other stakeholders, develop approaches (incentives and disincentives) that would discourage employees from parking at meters, preventing those spaces from being used by short-term visitors and customers. G. Develop a consolidated parking strategy to determine locations and priorities for new shared parking to serve Downtown’s growth. Parking expansion shall be prohibited at the Civic Center Park. **Policy T-36 Satellite Parking Facilities** Explore opportunities to move existing long-term parking supply out of the Downtown, University, and Southside areas by creating satellite parking lots with express shuttle service to the Downtown and Southside areas. **Policy T-37 University of California and Large Employer Parking** Encourage large employers, such as the University of California and Berkeley Unified School District, to allocate existing employee parking on the basis of a) need for a vehicle on the job, b) number of passengers carried, c) disability, and d) lack of alternative public transportation. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-39.) Action: A. Encourage the University of California to cap its parking supply at current levels, to postpone any plans to expand its existing (year 2009) parking supply, and instead to encourage transit use and alternative modes of transportation, and better manage and utilize existing parking. **Policy T-38 Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination** Establish partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies, such as the University of California and the Berkeley Unified School District, to reduce parking demand and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Actions: A. Manage off-street parking facilities. B. Create satellite parking lots for employees and students. C. Promote programs such as the AC Transit Class Pass for students and employees to reduce parking demand. D. Encourage the University to increase all-day parking fees to market rates. E. Encourage the University to make all University parking available at market rates to the public during evening hours and summer sessions. F. Promote bicycle and pedestrian travel through training, education, incentive programs, and physical improvements such as path improvements and signage, bicycle lockers, and shower facilities. G. Encourage BUSD and UC to provide bicycles for staff use and job-related tasks. **Policy T-39 High-Tech Parking** To make the most efficient use of available land, encourage consideration of high-tech computerized parking (e.g., lifts and or "robotics") when replacing existing public parking or when providing off-street parking for multi-family residential projects. **Policy T-40 Parking Impacts** When considering parking impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act for residential projects with more than two units located in the Avenue Commercial, , or High Density Residential land use classifications, any significant parking impacts identified that result from the project should be mitigated by improving alternatives to automobile travel and thereby reducing the need for parking. Examples include improvements to public transportation, pedestrian access, car sharing programs, and bicycle facility improvements. Parking impacts for these projects should not be mitigated through the provision of additional parking on the site. For the Downtown Area, a comprehensive parking strategy should be developed (see Downtown Area Plan). The City finds that: 1. Parking supply and demand may easily be adjusted by changing local pricing policies and by changing how the supply is managed. 2. As the parking supply increases or parking costs decrease, automobile use becomes a more attractive transportation alternative and demand for parking increases. As parking supply decreases and its price increases, demand decreases. 3. Increasing the parking supply increases automobile use, which causes a measurably negative impact on the environment. **Policy T-41 Structured Parking** Encourage consolidation of surface parking lots into structured parking facilities and redevelopment of surface lots with residential or commercial development where allowed by zoning. Actions: A. Strategically locate structures to serve commercial and employment centers through the use of express shuttle and trolley service. B. Encourage housing above parking in transit-oriented locations. C. Provide parking and recharging facilities for alternative vehicles such as bicycles and electric and low-emission vehicles. D. Whenever feasible, orient automobile access to parking lots and garages away from designated bicycle ways and boulevards and avoid blank walls along pedestrian ways. # Bicycles (Also see the Berkeley Bicycle Plan) **Policy T-42 Bicycle Planning** Integrate the consideration of bicycle travel into City planning activities and capital improvement projects, and coordinate with other agencies to improve bicycle facilities and access within and connecting to Berkeley. **Policy T-43 Bicycle Network** Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of bikeways that serves the needs of all types of bicyclists, and provide bicycle-parking facilities to promote cycling. Actions: A. Expand the supply of highly secure bicycle parking near transit hubs and commercial areas. B. Encourage business owners to provide bicycle parking, showers, and lockers for employees and bicycle parking for customers. C. Encourage, and when appropriate require, new multi-family residential developments to provide secure locker space for resident bicycles and for such things as dollies, shopping rollers, wagons, and carts that facilitate a non-motorized lifestyle. **Policy T-44 Bicycle Safety** Improve bicycle safety for riders, pedestrians, and drivers through continuing education of motorists and bicyclists as well as rigorous enforcement of laws for both bicyclists and automobile drivers. **Policy T-45 Bicycle Promotions** Promote bicycle use by increasing public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of the available bike facilities and programs. **Policy T-46 Bicycle Funding** Secure sufficient resources from all available sources to fund ongoing bicycle improvements and education. **Policy T-47 Bicycle Delivery Services and Other Utility Cycles** Support pedal cab, bicycle delivery services, and other utility cycle uses. Actions: A. Encourage local businesses to support utility cycle businesses. B. Continue to use bicycle delivery services for City of Berkeley deliveries. C. Continue to provide bicycles for use by City of Berkeley employees for work-related local trips. D. Encourage use of human-powered utility cycles by Berkeley residents. E. Consider supporting a pilot program to introduce and promote use of utility cycles in Berkeley. ## Pedestrians and Persons with Disabilities **Policy T-48 Pedestrian Plan** Create a Pedestrian Plan for the purpose of developing additional strategies and policies to make Berkeley safer for pedestrians and to make Berkeley a more pedestrian-friendly city. **Policy T-49 Disabled Access** Improve pedestrian access for the entire disabled community. Actions: A. Fund sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, signalization and signage, and talking signal improvements. B. Use regulation and incentives to require or encourage accessibility upgrades for private businesses. C. Encourage businesses to exceed the minimum standards set by the ADA "readily achievable barrier removal" requirement. **Policy T-50 Sidewalks** Maintain and improve sidewalks in residential and commercial pedestrian areas throughout Berkeley and in the vicinity of public transportation facilities so that they are safe, accessible, clean, attractive, and appropriately lighted. Actions: A. Prioritize pedestrian-serving public improvements, such as sidewalk repair and widening, bus shelters, street trees and lighting, public art, fountains, and directional signs. B. Establish safe, attractive pedestrian connections between residential areas, transit, shopping areas, and schools and other community facilities. C. Ensure that sidewalks are kept in good repair and are level, with a suitable grade for pedestrians and wheelchairs. Discourage, and when possible prevent, new developments from creating uncomfortably steep grades. D. Ensure adequate unobstructed sidewalk passage by appropriate placement of street furniture and amenities and prevention of obstruction of travel ways by such items as advertisement signs, merchandise, and utility boxes. **Policy T-51 Pedestrian Priority** When addressing competing demands for sidewalk space, the needs of the pedestrian shall be the highest priority. **Policy T-52 Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility** Provide safe and convenient pedestrian crossings throughout the city. Actions: A. Seek to ensure that the distance between signal-controlled intersections, "smart crosswalks," or stop signs is never more than one-quarter mile on major and collector streets. At intersections with severe or high pedestrian/automobile collision rates and at heavily used pedestrian crossings, consider all-way stop signals that allow the free flow of pedestrians through the intersection, "smart" signals to calm traffic and improve intersection safety, and pedestrian/bicycle-activated signals that allow bikes and pedestrians to cross busy streets without inviting traffic onto cross streets. B. Consider pedestrian crosswalk "runway" lights in the pavement at intersections with severe or higher than average pedestrian collision rates. C. Encourage and educate the public on the use of painted and unpainted crosswalks; enforce jaywalking regulations on main arterials. D. Encourage the creation of accessible pedestrian medians or islands in wide streets where people have to cross more than two lanes. E. Enforce pedestrian right-of-way laws. **Policy T-53 Intersections with Severe or High Collision Rates** Reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions, injuries, and fatalities. Action: A. Undertake a review of intersections or street locations with a high number of collisions and/or a high percentage of fatal or permanently disabling collisions and develop programs with appropriate mix of education, enforcement, and engineering changes to improve the safety of these intersections and locations. Consider: 1. Adding signage at intersections, warning the public that the intersection has been the site of several traffic collisions or fatalities. 2. Moving bus stops to the far side of the intersection so that buses do not block visibility at the intersection when stopping to pick up passengers. 3. Providing an all-red, pedestrian phase to especially congested intersections, giving pedestrians the ability to cross the intersection in any direction before vehicles are given a green light. 4. Lighted crosswalks. 5. Maintaining a minimum 50-foot red, no-parking zone adjacent to the intersection to increase visibility. 6. Re-timing pedestrian crossing signals to allow more time for pedestrian crossing. 7. Other actions recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report. **Policy T-54 Pathways** Develop and improve the public pedestrian pathway system. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-11 and Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-22 Action A.) Actions: A. Allocate resources to identify and improve unimproved pathways. B. Maintain a complete and accurate inventory and database of Berkeley's Pathway Network, to include all known public paths, dedicated easements, and rights-of-way. C. Work with residents and interest groups adjacent to pathways to prepare a "Top Priority Improvement List" for pathway restoration. Give highest priority for public investment to paths that: 1) include neighbor support and a clear title, 2) provide an evacuation route, 3) continue existing paths, and 4) improve neighborhood circulation and provide access to community services and facilities. D. Continue to make repairs and safety improvements on public paths and restore unimproved paths. ### Transportation Maps **Policy T-55 Street Networks: Increasing Access and Mobility** To ensure the effective and convenient movement of people and goods, ensure a successful integration of land use patterns and transportation systems, and encourage transitions to more environmentally sensitive modes of transportation, the Berkeley General Plan includes four network maps: the Vehicular Circulation Network map, the Transit Network map, the Bicycle Circulation Network map, and the Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map. The network maps identify the city’s transportation infrastructure and establish priorities and standards for its use and improvement. These priorities and standards shall be used in conjunction with General Plan policies to determine priorities for use and determine network modifications to facilitate certain modes of travel. In all cases, the City shall recognize that the transportation network is a shared network that requires shared use and that to effectively achieve the transportation, land use, community safety, and economic development objectives of the General Plan will require careful consideration and balancing of competing objectives and needs. The network maps are intended to facilitate these future decisions. **Figure 7: Transit Network** The Transit Network map shown below identifies the network of streets that are necessary for efficient and effective transit services throughout the city. These streets are the highest priority for transit improvements, such as bus shelters and planned improvements that may serve light rail or ferry services. The network map does not depict every street that may be used by transit services and it is not meant to limit transit and shuttle services from streets not shown on the map. **Primary Routes** shown on the map are the highest priority routes necessary to serve existing needs and inter-city connections. **Secondary Routes** are routes that are necessary to provide convenient access to other areas of the city and supplement the Primary Routes. **Planned Routes** identify the highest priority additions to the transit circulation network. Variations to the network may occur during final planning, design, funding, and implementation of specific transit improvements without a General Plan amendment. **Figure 8: Bicycle Circulation Network** The Bicycle Circulation Network map shown below identifies the streets necessary for the efficient and safe movement of bicyclists throughout the city. These streets are the highest priority for bicycle treatments and improvements. **Bicycle Boulevards** are roadways that have been designated for planned modifications to enhance bicyclist safety and convenience. The Bicycle Boulevards are intended to serve as the city's primary bikeways. **Bicycle paths, lanes, and shared roadways** (Class 1, 2, 2.5, and 3) are defined in the Bicycle Plan. They serve as the secondary bikeways necessary to provide safe and convenient access throughout the city. Distinctions and details on bikeway designations, improvements, and priorities are included in the Bicycle Plan. Variations to the network may occur during final planning, design, funding, and implementation of specific bicycle improvements without a General Plan amendment. *Figure 9: Emergency Access and Evacuation Network* The Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map (figure 10) classifies the city's roadways in the city that must be maintained for emergency access and emergency evacuation in case of a major disaster, such as fires, earthquakes, floods, reservoir rupture, or hazardous materials release. *Figure 10: Vehicular Circulation Network* The Vehicular Circulation Network map (figure 10) classifies the city's street system. The Vehicular Circulation Network map and Transit Network map fulfill the State Government Code requirement that the General Plan provide a map or diagram showing the "general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and terminals." (The Vehicular Network map maintains the 1977 Master Plan Circulation Plan Map, pursuant to Council action on December 18, 2001. See Transportation Element Amendment #1.) **Local Streets** are for local slow traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. Local streets should be maintained and improved to create a safe and comfortable environment for residents living on the street and in the area. Improvements should emphasize the needs of the pedestrian first, bicyclists second, and vehicles third. Additional vehicular capacity should only be added if needed for public safety reasons. Street design improvements should discourage vehicular speeds above 15 or 20 miles per hour to maintain a safe environment for children, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Local streets are not shown on the map. If a street is not a collector or major street, it is a local street. **Collector Streets** serve the movement of automobiles, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles between neighborhoods and across the city. Collector streets should be maintained and improved to balance the needs for a safe and comfortable environment for the residents living on these streets as well as the needs of the general public to be able to move efficiently through the city on a variety of modes, including bicycles, automobiles, transit buses, and shuttles. Street design improvements should discourage vehicular speeds above 25 miles per hour and maintain a smooth flow of traffic. In cases where a collector street is identified as a bicycle boulevard on the Bicycle Circulation Network map, improvements should emphasize the bicyclist first, and the automobile second. Collector streets in manufacturing areas should be improved to facilitate truck access and commercial traffic. **Major Streets** serve the movement of automobiles, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles across the city, connecting to the regional transportation network, and to other jurisdictions. Major streets should be maintained to facilitate the efficient flow of automobiles and large vehicles through the city and out of the city. Improvements should encourage a smooth flow of traffic and discourage speeds above 25 miles an hour. In cases where a major street is identified as a Transit Route on the Transit Network map, improvements should emphasize the movement of public transit vehicles first and private automobiles second. In cases where major streets enter the Downtown, improvements should emphasize the pedestrian first, transit second, and the automobile third. **Scenic Routes.** A segment of an established regional network of routes which traverse or provide the most efficient routes to or between areas of major scenic, recreation, or cultural attractions. ### Figure 7. Transit Network <
> Legend: | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **_** | Primary Route | Ⓕ | Planned Ferry Terminal | ▲ | Library | | **_** | Secondary Route | ⓑ | BART Station | ■ | Public School | | **---** | Planned Route | Ⓡ | Rail Station | | | | **--** | Regional Rail | | | | | *Figure 8: Bicycle Circulation Network* <
> (If any conflicts exist between this map and the Berkeley Bicycle Plan Map, the Berkeley Bicycle Plan Map should govern.) Figure 9: Emergency Access and Evacuation Network <
> Legend: - Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes (also includes all streets in Fire Hazard Area) - Hill Fire Hazard Area - * Fire Station - + Hospital - ◬ Public School - ▲ Senior Center - ★ Recreation Center *Figure 10: Vehicular Circulation Network* <
> LEGEND — Major Street --- Scenic Route ● Freeway and Interchange — Collector Street // Area Under Study ++++ Rail Lines ○ B.A.R.T.D. Station --- ## Housing — Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element and Appendices - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_2023-2031%20Housing%20Element_02-17-2023v2_0.pdf - Pages: 670 - Covers: housing - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. CITY OF BERKELEY # Housing Element Update ## 2023-2031 <
> # ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ### RESOLUTION 70,669-N.S. ADOPTED ON JANUARY 18, 2023 AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2023 # Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element On January 18, 2023, the Berkeley City Council approved and adopted a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the period 2023-2031 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.) On January 30, 2023, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided formal comments following a 60-day review of the draft version that was submitted on December 1, 2022. HCD’s review also incorporated the edits and amendments made by City Council and submitted on January 23, 2023. Pursuant to the City Council Resolution, the City made non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element in order to respond to the comments received from HCD to achieve certification. RESOLUTION NO. 70,669-N.S. A RESOLUTION TO (A) CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2022010331) AND ADOPT RELATED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND (B) APPROVE AND ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires every city and county in California to adopt a General Plan for its long-range development, and further, to periodically update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that each City shall include a Housing Element in its General Plan, and that the Housing Element be updated regularly on a schedule set forth in the law to reflect current conditions and legal requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley ("City") adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update of the Berkeley General Plan on April 28, 2015 with Resolution No. 67,008-N.S.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City of Berkeley, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (SCH No. 2022010331) ("EIR" or "Final EIR"); and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") to analyze the environmental effects of the Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Draft EIR scoping hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2022, to receive comments on the scope and content of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Draft EIR was issued on August 30, 2022 along with the publication of the Draft EIR itself, both of which were made available to the general public and governmental agencies for review and comment; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and took public testimony, which was preceded by the distribution of notices in accordance with State and local noticing requirements; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Final EIR was issued and a Final EIR was published on November 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the August 2022 Draft EIR and the November 2022 Final EIR; and WHEREAS, all documents constituting the record of this proceeding are and shall be retained by the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, at 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, California; and WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita... California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 8,943 housing units, comprised of 2,446 very-low income units, 1,408 low-income units, 1,416 moderate-income units, and 3,664 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(5)), and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and WHEREAS, the City prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element in conformance with State and local planning law and practices, considering local conditions and context, including economic, environmental, and fiscal factors; and WHEREAS, State law generally states that the Housing Element and the City’s zoning must support housing for all income levels, and residential densities under 30 units per acre do not support construction of housing for lower income households (Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv)); and WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes an inventory of sites that can accommodate new housing sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA obligation at each income level; and WHEREAS, more than fifty-percent (50%) of the sites identified to accommodate the City’s low-income RHNA obligation are non-vacant. However, the City specifically finds that based on age, low building to land value, low Floor Area Ratio relative to zoning trends, condition of non-residential structures, local land use trends including the redevelopment of auto-related uses, banks, low-intensity retail and commercial uses, church properties, and adjacency to new residential development, the existing uses on such non-vacant parcels identified in the sites inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be integrated with new residential uses or discontinued during the planning period, and therefore will not constrain development or redevelopment of additional residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period, and so such sites can meet their development potential; and WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 17 months, including three public workshops, six outreach events, three online surveys, two walking tours, approximately 28 stakeholder interviews and meetings, four City Council work sessions, five Planning Commission meetings, and presentations before the Homeless Services Panel of Experts, Commission on Disability, Landmarks Preservation Commission, Zoning Adjustments Board, Commission on Aging, Energy Commission, Children, Youth and Recreation Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Civic Arts Commission, and the City/UC/Student Relations Committee; and WHEREAS, public input influenced the development of the housing goals and policies, housing opportunity sites, and housing program of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial review, following 30-day public review between June 13 and July 14, 2022, and incorporating revisions over the course of 18 business days between July 15 and August 10, 2022 (Gov. Code Section 65585); and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022, HCD provided the City with a number of preliminary comments about the draft Housing Element. City staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and analysis based on preliminary comments and a revised draft was made available for public comment from October 18 through October 25, 2022 and City staff held office hours on October 24, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for follow-up review; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The letter noted that the Housing Element would meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the letter’s requirements. On November 23, 2022, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the additional descriptions, analysis, and clarifications requested by HCD and sought public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2022, the City submitted the revised draft Housing Element to HCD for subsequent review with a cover letter listing in detail the City’s response and revisions to address HCD’s comment letter in order to bring the draft Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was prepared pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 22.04.020, Amendment-Procedures required-Planning Commission and City Council, and Gov. Code Section 65355; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and its six appendices, including the findings and changes recommended by HCD, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, and public comments, and recommended that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no recirculation of the EIR is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and that are identified in the CEQA Findings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the significant environmental effects of the Project (Exhibit B to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings pursuant to the General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element of the General Plan: 1. The 2023-2031 Housing Element and its FEIR comply with the provisions of CEQA. 2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is internally consistent, and is consistent with the rest of the City’s General Plan. 3. The 2023-2031 Housing Element process was developed through diligent effort by City staff to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(9)). 4. The 2023-2031 Housing Element consists of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Furthermore, the Housing Element identifies adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583). 5. The 2023-2031 Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housing by analyzing and taking action to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10) and 65584.0). The Housing Element provides an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity, and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. In particular: a. The Housing Element proposes to allow for multi-unit development in all residential zones, including R-1; b. The RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity; c. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing low and middle income (“LMI”) household trends by disproportionately placing lower income units in LMI areas at a higher rate. A larger proportion of moderate and above moderate income units are in LMI areas compared to lower income units; d. The RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas (“R/ECAPs”). Of the units included in the sites inventory, 26.6% are located in R/ECAPs. A significantly smaller proportion of lower income units are located in R/ECAPs compared to moderate and above moderate income units; e. The RHNA strategy helps fair housing conditions by placing future lower income households in in high resource areas. Approximately 60% of RHNA units, including 67.3% of lower income units, are in highest or high resource tracts. There is only one low resource tract (Southside), and the City allocated a mix of units of various income levels in this tract; f. Appendix E identifies goals and actions to address four identified fair housing issues, including expanding fair housing testing and outreach, pursuing strategies to produce more affordable housing and protect tenants from displacement in cost-burdened neighborhoods, seeking grants to fund affordable housing, establishing a development arm of the Berkeley Housing Authority to develop new affordable units, funding home modifications for lower income households, creating opportunity for infill middle housing in single-family districts, and developing a housing preference policy to assist residents at risk of displacement; g. In response to HCD’s feedback, the Housing Element now evaluates programs relative to specific neighborhoods for purposes of AFFH, such as targeting fair housing outreach and enforcement, rental housing safety programs, and rental assistance programs in Central and South Berkeley where there are higher proportions of lower income households and cost-burdened renters. h. Program 36 – *Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring* includes a mid-term evaluation of the RHNA strategy and development progress, including a commitment to make adjustments as appropriate to achieve the City’s goals, including AFFH. 6. HCD staff reviewed the City's Draft Housing Element as required by Section 65585(b) of the Government Code, and the City's responses, described in the staff report, have been included as part of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. 7. Based upon the comments from HCD and the City's responses to those comments, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element and its appendices, which has addressed and has incorporated findings from HCD, as shown in Attachment 1 to the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 2023-2031 Housing Element supersedes and replaces the 2015-2023 Housing Element. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council intends to complete the HCD review process to obtain their finding of substantial compliance and certification and hereby authorizes the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element in response to comments received from HCD to achieve certification. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Gov. Code Section 65357. The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Berkeley City Council on January 18, 2023 by the following vote: Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Harrison, Humbert, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf and Arreguin. Noes: None. Absent: None. Attest: Rose Thomsen, Deputy City Clerk Jesse Arreguin, Mayor # TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Overview...................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Housing Element Requirements ................................................................................................................ 9 1.4 General Plan Consistency......................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Public Participation................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Goals and Policies ............................................................................................................................................ 15 3 Housing Needs .................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Summary of Key Findings......................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 20 3.3 Income and Employment Characteristics ................................................................................................ 27 3.4 Special Needs Populations........................................................................................................................ 34 3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 44 3.6 Housing Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 58 4 Housing Constraints ......................................................................................................................................... 62 4.1 Governmental Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................... 97 5 Housing Resources........................................................................................................................................... 104 5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing................................................................................................. 104 5.2 Resources for Housing Protection, Preservation, and Production ....................................................... 113 5.3 Public/Private Partnerships...................................................................................................................... 116 5.4 Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 117 5.5 AFFH Actions Summary............................................................................................................................. 155 5.6 Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................................ 162 # LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events ...........................................................12 Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890-2020) ...................................................................21 Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring Cities (2000-2020) ........................21 Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040 .................................................................22 Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019) ........................................................................22 Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000-2019) .................................23 Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County ....................................24 Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019).........................................................................25 Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019) ..................................................25 Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000-2019) ..........................................................................................26 Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) .............................................................................26 Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County .............................................27 Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) .........................28 Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories .......................................................................................................29 Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure ..............................................................................................29 Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017) .................................................................................30 Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) .....................................................................30 Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) ....................................................................................31 Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010-2021) ....34 Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and Households .......................................................34 Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015-2022) ...............................35 Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019) ........36 Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) ...........................................36 Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019) .................................................................37 Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019) ...................................................................................................37 3 Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020) ........................................ 38 Table 3.17: Senior Households[^p12-1] by Tenure and Income Group ................................................................ 39 Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019) ...................................................... 41 Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019).............................................................................. 42 Figure 3.14: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2017) ......................................................... 43 Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2020) ........................................... 44 Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020) ...................................................................... 45 Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010-2020) ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019) .............................. 46 Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019) ..................................................................... 47 Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019) ......................................................... 47 Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019) .............................................................................................................. 48 Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019) ........................................................................ 49 Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019) ........................................................................ 49 Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre- and Post-Costa-Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021) ............................... 51 Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000-2020) ............................... 51 Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021) ....................................................................... 51 Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001-2020) ........................................................................................... 52 Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010-2021) ............................................................................. 52 Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021) .......................................................... 53 Table 3.28: Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate ............................................................................. 56 Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units ............................................ 56 Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ................................... 59 Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017) ...................................................................................... 60 Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ................................ 61 Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017) ............................................................................ 61 Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................................ 63 Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 ............................. 64 Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 .................................. 64 Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses ................................................................................ 66 Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times ................................................................................................... 76 [^p12-1]: text Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone ................................................81 Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone .......................82 Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone ................................................................86 Table 4.9: Comparison of Planning Fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond.................................92 Table 4.10: Fee Comparison for Sample Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Development93 Table 4.11: Development Information Provided on Berkeley's Website................................................96 Table 4.12: Home Mortgage Application Data for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD (2020) .............................................................................................................................................................................103 Table 5.1: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031 ...................................................................................104 Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021)...............106 Table 5.2: BART Station Sites .......................................................................................................................107 Table 5.3: Remaining RHNA..........................................................................................................................107 Table 5.4: Summary of 6th Cycle Opportunity Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA...................109 Table 5.5: Summary of RHNA Strategies ...................................................................................................110 Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory .......................................................................................................112 Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions.........................................................................................................155 Table 5.7: Summary of Quantified Objectives (2023-2031).....................................................................162 # 1 INTRODUCTION *City of Berkeley’s Mission: Provide excellent service to the Berkeley community; promote a diverse, accessible, affordable, safe, healthy, environmentally sound and culturally rich city; innovate; embrace respectful, democratic participation in local decision-making; respond efficiently and effectively to neighborhood and commercial concerns; and do so in a fiscally sound manner.* Incorporated in 1909, Berkeley is centrally located within the Bay Area in Alameda County. While much more than just a university town, Berkeley benefits from the University of California’s cultural and educational facilities and its positive impact on the local economy. Along with the University, other top employers include the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, and the City of Berkeley. As one of the older cities in the East Bay, Berkeley has a number of lively pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that developed along former streetcar routes and near the University. It has many pleasant, livable residential neighborhoods with many attractive older homes. It has largely avoided the newer car-oriented suburban sprawl and strip mall style of commercial development found in other parts of the Bay Area. Berkeley last updated its 5th cycle Housing Element in 2015. In the time since, Berkeley’s policies and actions have been shaped by worldwide, national, and local events including federal anti-immigration practices, the murder of George Floyd and resulting protests focused on racism and policing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased impacts due to climate change including severe local air quality impacts from wildfire smoke in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Berkeley has taken local action to address these pressures and affirm its values of equity, inclusiveness, and innovative action. Berkeley became the first sanctuary city in the U.S. in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 2016 to support its residents, regardless of documentation. In 2018, Berkeley City Council declared a Climate Emergency and a goal of becoming a Fossil Fuel Free City as soon as possible; in 2019, Berkeley adopted the nation’s first prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. Berkeley has acknowledged and is working to address racially discriminatory practices that impact housing, displacement, and policing. In 2021, Berkeley City Council approved a resolution to end Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley, declared racism as a public health crisis, and developed a Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce that began work to create a model of equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley. Plans adopted by Berkeley since 2015 that reflect Berkeley’s values and actions, and shape the patterns, amenities, and quality of development in Berkeley include: * **Berkeley Resilience Strategy (2016).** Advances community connections, preparedness, and equity in Berkeley. * **Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan (2016).** Prepares for and prioritizes the physical enhancements of Berkeley’s transportation network to improve access, safety, and mobility for all users. * **Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017).** Aims to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, attractive, easy, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and bicycling abilities. * **Measure O: Affordable Housing Bond (2018).** Provides $135 million of funding from bond revenue to pay for affordable housing projects, including creating and preserving affordable housing for low-income households, working families, and individuals including teachers, seniors, veterans, the homeless, and persons with disabilities. Berkeley voters passed Measure O in November 2018 with 77.5% approval. Since the passage of Measure O, 972 units of affordable housing have either been built, are under construction, or are in predevelopment. * **Berkeley Strategic Plan (2018).** Identifies the long-term goals and short-term priorities that the City government will focus on the benefit the Berkeley community. Its goals include creating affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members; being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment; and championing and demonstrating social and racial equity. * **Age-Friendly Berkeley Plan (2018).** Works on improving the experience of older adults in Berkeley with a focus on housing and economic security, transportation and mobility, health and wellness, and social participation and civic engagement. * **Green Infrastructure Plan (2019).** To guide the identification, implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects within the City of Berkeley. * **Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019).** To prepare for and mitigate the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters. * **Vision Zero Action Plan (2019).** An equity-focused, data-driven effort to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our city streets by 2028. * **Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap (2020).** Identifies goals, strategies, and actions to create a fossil fuel-free transportation system that integrates with and supports the City’s ongoing efforts to increase walking, biking, and public transportation, and ensures equitable access to the benefits of clean transportation. * **Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (2020).** Articulates a community vision and planning framework for an important Priority Development Area that will serve as a guide for the City and other public agency decision-makers, community members, and other stakeholders over the next 20 years. * **Vision 2050 Framework (2020).** A long-term plan to build, upgrade, and repair Berkeley’s aging infrastructure to be more sustainable and resilient in order to meet the serious challenges of the future, including climate change and is driven by a set of core values: equity, public health and safety, a strong local economy, resiliency, and sustainability. * **Pedestrian Plan (2021).** Establishes a clear path forward for pedestrian infrastructure improvements by focusing its recommendations and goals squarely on equity and safety. * **Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy (2021).** A ground-breaking plan to transition existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives in a way that benefits all residents, especially members of historically marginalized communities. This Housing Element Update must meet state law, as detailed in Section 1.2 Overview and 1.3 Housing Element Requirements, and define the specific goals, polices, and programs that will support Berkeley’s portion of the regional population growth. It must also do so in a manner that reflects Berkeley’s mission, values, and is consistent with its plans and work towards sustainability, safety, and equity. As Berkeley continues to grow and develop, housing density will increase. This increased density can have many benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved health, and more access to affordable housing. Berkeley’s Housing Element Update identifies policies and programs to provide and preserve healthy, resilient housing at a range of prices, with special attention given to special needs housing, homelessness prevention, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). In doing so, it helps to realize Berkeley’s sustainable future as a Fossil Fuel Free City, powered by 100 percent renewable electricity, with safe transportation options to vibrant commercial areas and institutions, providing social and community connections for all residents. ## 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element’s purpose is to identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. The Housing Element is an eight-year plan, extending from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element will primarily address: * Preserving and improving the existing housing stock * Providing housing for special needs populations * Supplying enough new housing to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s need * Affirmatively furthering fair housing ## 1.2 OVERVIEW State law requires that each jurisdiction prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan (Government Code §65302(c)). Since a General Plan serves as a jurisdiction’s blueprint for future development and growth, the Housing Element plays a critical role in the overall Plan. A Housing Element is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize the housing needs of the City and determine ways to best meet these needs, while balancing community objectives and resources. The 2023-2031 Housing Element has five chapters: 1. **Introduction.** Provides an overview of the purpose, scope, and organization of the Housing Element. 2. **Goals and Policies.** Outlines the City’s commitments to providing and preserving housing opportunities in the City. 3. **Housing Needs.** Summarizes the City’s community profile, including demographic and housing characteristics, and an assessment of the associated housing needs. 4. **Housing Constraints.** Assesses the potential constraints to housing development and preservation, including governmental and non-governmental constraints. 5. **Housing Resources.** Provides a collection of resources available for meeting the City’s existing and projected housing needs, including a sites inventory and housing implementation programs, and assesses the direct or indirect impacts in furthering fair housing choice. In addition, this Element includes several Appendices: * Appendix A. Publicly Assisted Housing * Appendix B. Development Standards * Appendix C. Sites Inventory * Appendix D. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments * Appendix E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) * Appendix F. Outreach and Engagement Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the City needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The State and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, the region’s metropolitan planning organization), carry out this process and allocate to each jurisdiction a share of California’s new housing need based on the community’s demographic trends, proximity to transit and employment, and other characteristics. As part of the Housing Element, the City must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must consider California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Guidelines (Government Code §65585). Jurisdictions must periodically review the Housing Element to evaluate (1) the appropriateness of its goals and policies in meeting the state’s housing goals, (2) its effectiveness in attaining the City’s housing goals and (3) the progress of its implementation (Government Code §65588). ## 1.3 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS All Housing Elements must comply with several State laws. The preparation of the Housing Element is guided by California Government Code, Article 10.6. The law governing the contents of Housing Elements is among the most detailed of all elements of the General Plan. According to Section 65583 of the Government Code: *The Housing Element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory- built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. Housing Element Law requires “An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.” The law requires: * An analysis of population and employment trends, including the UC Berkeley student population * An analysis of household characteristics * An inventory of suitable land for residential development * An identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right * An analysis of the governmental and non-governmental constraints on the improvement, maintenance, and development of housing * An analysis of special housing needs * An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation * An analysis of publicly assisted housing developments that may convert to non-assisted housing developments The purpose of these requirements is to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community, and to set forth policies and schedules which promote preservation, improvement, and production of diverse housing types for all income levels throughout Berkeley. Senate Bill (SB) 1087 (2005; Government Code §65589.7) requires cities to provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower-income housing. The Housing Element will be provided to these agencies immediately upon adoption. ## 1.4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY State law requires every California city to adopt a general plan that contains seven mandatory topics called "elements," but cities are given flexibility in how elements are named and organized. The mandatory elements in the Berkeley General Plan are Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Management (which addresses noise and conservation), Housing, Open Space & Recreation, and Disaster Preparedness & Safety. Cities may also adopt other optional elements. Berkeley has added Economic Development & Employment, Urban Design & Preservation, and Citizen Participation as optional elements. All elements carry equal weight and are designed to be consistent with each other. State law (Government Code §65300.5) requires that “...the General Plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies....” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within the City. The Housing Element is being updated at this time in conformance with the 2023-2031 update cycle for jurisdictions in the ABAG region. The City has reviewed the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan Elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element reflect the intent and policy direction contained in other General Plan Elements. As amendments are made to the General Plan, the City will also review and revise the Housing Element for ongoing consistency. ## 1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The 2023-2031 6th cycle Housing Element Update includes input from a variety of public outreach efforts. A dedicated webpage is available on the City’s website: https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update. The webpage includes a list of upcoming events, overview of the Housing Element update process, a timeline of key benchmarks, project documents, resources, and a summary of past events. The webpage also has the option to subscribe to a mailing list and an email address (housingelement@cityofberkeley.info) to contact with questions or concerns. In a diligent effort to include all segments of the Berkeley community, the Housing Element team reached out to City boards and commissions that advise on housing-related issues, such as the Homeless Services Panel of Experts, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Commission on Disability, Commission on Aging, and the Children, Youth and Recreation Commission. In addition, the outreach team conducted small group interviews with homeless interest groups, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, UC Berkeley's student housing commission, and representatives from local faith-based institutions. Renters were engaged through pop-up events at grocery stores, a renter-specific online survey, and a stakeholder meeting that brought together renters from various different income levels. *Public Input and the Housing Element Update* Input from the City’s outreach events and meetings helped define the Housing Element Update priorities and goals, and provide direction on the sites inventory, housing policies and programs, and zoning efforts. The most common theme of comments received relate to housing affordability and housing supply. In response, nearly half of the 35 policies identified in the Housing Element are in support of housing affordability and production goals. Public input also provided direction in how the community would like to see these broader goals achieved. For example, in response to Council referrals and a sizeable volume of feedback indicating interest in upzoning and increasing density in low-density neighborhoods, the City is prioritizing the timeline for Program 29 -Middle Housing, which would amend the zoning code to allow multi-unit development on single lots. Staff also relied upon feedback gathered from stakeholder meetings to improve draft policies and programs. For example, Program 12 -Workforce Housing aims to provide low to moderate-income housing to middle-income households with the goal of attracting and supporting professionals who work in the City of Berkeley, such as teachers, healthcare workers, retail clerks, artists, and more. It was created with continued assistance from numerous community stakeholder groups that passionately advocated for the inclusion of such a program in the Housing Element. All public comments provided to the City during the public comment period were reviewed by the Housing Element team and made available publicly on the Housing Element website. As mentioned above, the feedback received resulted in direct edits to the Housing Element Update. ### Summary of City Meetings and Community Engagement Events The following is a summary of workshops, meetings, surveys, and other outreach methods used during the update process. Key information from the public participation events and surveys are included in Appendix F Outreach and Engagement. Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events | Meeting | Date(s) | Description | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Public Workshop | 10/27/2021
1/27/2022
6/29/2022 | Online presentations and interactive breakout groups to provide an update on the planning process and gather input at key stages of the Housing Element project: Overview, Sites Inventory, and Public Draft document. | | City Council | 9/21/2021
12/9/2021
3/15/2022
8/26/2022
9/20/2022 | Reports, presentations, public comment, and decision-maker feedback at four worksessions, which yielded policy direction for identifying suitable sites, housing programs, and zoning efforts. | | Planning Commission | 9/1/2021
2/9/2022
5/4/2022
6/1/2022
9/7/2022
12/7/2022 | Presentation and accompanying memorandum to City boards and commissions took place throughout the Fall and Winter of 2021-2022 to introduce the Housing Element, seek input on key stakeholders for outreach, and identify a liaison to participate in ongoing Housing Element outreach efforts. Reports and presentations were given to the Planning Commission pertaining to the CEQA EIR Scoping Session and public comment on the Housing Element Draft EIR. | | Homeless Services Panel of Experts | 9/1/2021 | | | Commission on Disability | 9/1/2021 | | | Landmarks Preservation Commission | 9/2/2021 | | | Zoning Adjustments Board | 9/9/2021 | | | Commission on Aging | 9/15/2021 | | | Energy Commission | 9/22/2021 | | | Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission | 9/27/2021 | | | Housing Advisory Commission | 9/30/2021 | | | Rent Stabilization Board | 11/18/2021 | | | Civic Arts Commission | 1/19/2022 | | | City/UC/Student Relations Committee | 1/28/2022 | | | | 10/14/2022 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Residential Walking Tours and Online Survey | 11/23/2021-1/31/2022 | Two walking tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for community members to provide input on the development of housing options in Berkeley. | | Citywide Housing Element Online Survey | 10/28/2021-11/14/2021 | A total of 747 individuals submitted survey responses. | | Renter Survey | 4/21/2022-5/8/2022 | Online survey requesting input on tenant programs and strategies that will help protect tenants, prevent displacement, and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The first 100 respondents received a $10 gift card to Berkeley Bowl, a local grocer. | | Southside Area UC Student Housing Survey | 11/23/2022-12/18/2022 | Online survey seeking input from UC Berkeley students (undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral) on their housing preferences to inform Southside zoning efforts (Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors). The first 100 respondents received a $20 gift card to the Cal Student Store. | | Black/African-American Interest Group | 10/12/2021 | Stakeholder Interviews and Small-Format Meetings with key business and advocacy organizations, business and property owners, housing developers, community leaders, UC Berkeley student housing commission and campus planning, and racial and ethnic interest groups. | | Market-Rate Developers | 10/12/2021 11/23/2021 | | | Senior Center | 10/12/2021 | | | Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) – Housing Commission | 10/19/2021 10/4/2022 | | | Real Estate Professionals | 10/19/2021 | | | Property Management and Business Owners | 10/25/2021 | | | Homeless Interest Group | 10/25/2021 | | | Housing Advocates | 11/5/2021 | | | People with Disabilities Interest Group | 12/3/2021 | | | Hispanic/Latinx Interest Group | 12/17/2021 | | | Berkeley Unified School District | 12/22/2021 1/24/2022 | | | UC Berkeley Campus Planning | 12/20/2021 9/26/2022 | | | West Berkeley Community/Business Stakeholders | 2/4/2022 2/11/2022 | | | Arts and Cultural Centers | 3/8/2022 4/22/2022 | | | Building Trades Representatives | 3/17/2022 | | | Community-Based Organizations | 4/25/2022 | | | Black Ecumenical Ministerial Alliance | 5/9/2022 | | 13 | All-Income Renter Stakeholder Meeting | 5/25/2022 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | East Bay For Everyone | 9/14/2022 | Presentations and receive feedback on proposed Residential Objective Standards zoning amendments for the Southside Plan Area,( Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors) | | Berkeley Design Advocates | 10/5/2022 | | | Southside Neighborhood Consortium | 10/5/2022 | | | Downtown Berkeley Farmers’ Market | 2/26/2022 | Tabling outreach at community gathering locations, including local businesses, farmer’s market, and recreation events. | | Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach | 4/25/2022 | | | Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach | 5/14/2022 | | | Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party | 5/19/2022 | | | Harvest Festival | 10/15/2022 | | | Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach | 10/18/2022 | | | Public Drop-In Office Hours | 10/24/2022 | City staff and consultant held a two-hour lunchtime drop-in office hours session, to answer questions and receive public input, during the seven-day public review period of the revised Draft Housing Element. | ## Public Draft Housing Element Update Pursuant to AB 215, the initial draft 2023-2031 Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from Monday, June 13, 2022 through Thursday, July 14, 2022. Two subsequent revised public drafts were made available for seven days each prior to submitting to HCD for subsequent review. * **June 13 – July 14, 2022 (30 days):** A public review draft of the Housing Element was made available for comment on the City’s website, including an accessible large print version that was shared with the Commission on Disability. Over the course of the public review period, three emails including links to the draft documents were sent to members of the public who indicated interest in the Housing Element Update. The City received a total of 563 comments. * **July 15, 2022 – August 10, 2022 (18 business days):** Staff incorporated revisions based on public feedback received and submitted its Initial Draft Housing Element to HCD for 90-day review on August 10, 2022. * **September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022:** The City received preliminary comments from HCD and staff incorporated revisions based on HCD comments. * **October 18, 2022 – October 25, 2022 (7 days):** The City published a Revised Draft “v2” for public comment and held office hours on October 24, 2022. The City received 11 comments. * **November 1, 2022:** Staff incorporated revisions based on public comments and resubmitted Revised Draft “v3” to HCD for follow-up review. * **November 8, 2022:** The City received HCD’s formal comment letter listing revisions necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. * **November 23—November 30, 2022 (7 days):** The City published and noticed a revised Public Draft “v4” for subsequent public comment. # 2 GOALS AND POLICIES Through extensive outreach and engagement - at public workshops, board and commission meetings, City Council worksessions, stakeholder interviews and small-format meetings, tabling events, and surveys - the Housing Element team has compiled a comprehensive set of goals and policies that reflect feedback received. The goals and policies guide decision-making to address the housing needs and constraints identified in Chapters 3 and 4. The set includes six goals, as well as 35 policies to enact those goals. ## Goal A Housing Affordability **Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need.** ### Policies **H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate-Income Housing** Increase the number of housing units affordable to current and future Berkeley residents, especially those with lower income levels. **H-2 Funding Sources** Seek, advocate for, and develop additional sources of funds for permanently affordable housing, including housing for people with extremely low incomes and special needs. **H-3 Permanent Affordability** Ensure that below market rate rental housing remains affordable for the longest period that is economically and legally feasible. **H-4 Economic Diversity** Encourage mixed income housing developments through both regulatory requirements and incentives. **H-5 Rent Stabilization** Protect tenants from large rent increases, arbitrary evictions, hardship from relocation, and the loss of their homes. **H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers** Support efforts that provide opportunities for successful home ownership. **H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority** Continue working with the Housing Authority to make quality affordable housing opportunities available to Berkeley residents. **H-8 Workforce Housing** Develop Workforce Housing for low- and moderate-income households, including teachers, artists, and other residents who work in the City of Berkeley. # Goal B Housing Preservation & Improvement Existing housing should be maintained and improved. The City should promote efficiency in new and existing housing to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged. ## Policies **H-9 Housing Preservation** Maintain and preserve the existing supply of housing in the City. **H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing** Encourage strategies to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate properties that provide rental units that are unsubsidized but affordable to low- and moderate-income households, including rent-stabilized units. **H-11 Code Requirements** Enforce code requirements, and provide education, funding and incentives to property owners, to ensure that existing housing meets health and safety standards. **H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance** Prevent blight and the deterioration of housing units resulting from deferred maintenance. **H-13 Seismic Reinforcement** Maintain housing supply and reduce the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes by incentivizing structural strengthening and hazard mitigation in Berkeley housing. **H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience** Implement Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. # Goal C Housing Production Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs, including coordinating with the UC and other agencies. New housing should be developed to expand opportunities and choices to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient. ## Policies **H-15 Publicly-Owned Sites** Encourage use of publicly-owned or controlled sites for affordable housing and/or mixed-use residential projects with a substantial portion of affordable units. **H-16 Medium and High-Density Zoning** Maintain sufficient land zoned for medium- and high- density residential development to allow sufficient new construction to meet Berkeley’s fair share of regional housing needs. **H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction** Encourage construction of new high-density housing on major transit corridors and in proximity to transit stations consistent with zoning, applicable area plans, design review guidelines, and the Climate Action Plan. **H-18 Accessory Dwelling Units** Encourage and facilitate addition of accessory dwelling units on properties with single-family and multi-unit homes. **H-19 Regional Housing Needs** Encourage adequate housing production to meet City needs and the City’s share of regional housing needs. **H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress** The City will continue to prepare annual Housing Element progress reports and present results to the City Council, and make necessary and appropriate adjustments to programs and actions to achieve established objectives. **H-21 University of California** Urge the University of California to maximize the supply of appropriately located, affordable housing for its students and also to expand housing opportunities for faculty and staff. **H-22 Inter-Jurisdictional and Regional Coordination** Pursue opportunities to work with other jurisdictions and with ABAG to address issues of mutual interest and priority. ## Goal D Special Needs Housing & Homelessness Prevention Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes. ### Policies **H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention** Support programs and actions that prevent homelessness and other housing crises by making appropriate services available. **H-24 Homeless Housing** Seek solutions to the problems of individuals and families who are homeless, with the goal of first providing them with permanently affordable housing. **H-25 Family Housing** Support and encourage housing projects that include units affordable and suitable for households with children and large families. **H-26 Senior Housing** Support housing programs that increase the ability of senior households to remain in their homes or neighborhoods, and to offer other suitable affordable housing options. **H-27 Persons with Disabilities** Encourage provision of an adequate supply of suitable housing to meet the needs of people with disabilities, including developmental, behavioral health (mental health as well as alcohol and other drug dependence), and physical disabilities, as well as other medical conditions (such as HIV/AIDS). **H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing** Provide emergency shelter and transitional and supportive housing to homeless individuals and families, including people with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities, victims of domestic violence, youth, and seniors, as needed. The City’s ultimate priority for new homeless housing opportunities is permanent housing. # Goal E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing **The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley.** ### Policies **H-29 Fair Housing** Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local Fair Housing and anti-discrimination laws and ordinances to affirmatively further fair housing for all, ensuring equal access to housing regardless of their special circumstances as protected by fair housing laws. **H-30 Accessible Housing** Promote housing mobility by exceeding the accessibility requirements of the ADA and California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and by encouraging incorporation into new construction and rehabilitation the use of technologies and design features that create universal accessibility. **H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing** Encourage new construction and rehabilitation of accessible housing units that are permanently affordable, in particular to extremely low-income households. **H-32 Middle Housing** Promote and facilitate a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill middle housing in high resource neighborhoods. # Goal F Mitigate Governmental Constraints **Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing.** ### Policies **H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints** Periodically review City fees and regulations to ensure that they do not unduly constrain housing development. **H-34 Streamlined Review Process** Provide for timely and coordinated processing of residential and mixed-use development projects in order to minimize project holding costs and increase housing supply. **H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing** Provide incentives where feasible to offset or reduce the costs of affordable housing development, including density bonuses and flexibility in site development standards. # 3 HOUSING NEEDS The purpose of this chapter is to identify characteristics of Berkeley’s population and housing stock in order to understand the City’s housing needs. These include the unmet needs of existing residents and future needs resulting from anticipated demographic changes. This chapter is organized as follows: 1. Summary of Key Findings 2. Population and Household Characteristics 3. Income and Employment 4. Special Needs Populations 5. Housing Stock Characteristics 6. Housing Challenges, including cost burden and overcrowding The City used a variety of sources to collect the information that follows, including: * Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by ABAG * U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) * U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) * California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates * Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (which are based on the ACS) * Data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) As of the writing of this report, the 2020 Census results have not yet been released, with the exception of the preliminary population estimates for redistricting purposes. It is also important to note that some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data may differ. ## 3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS * **Population.** Berkeley’s population grew by 9 percent from 2010 to 2020, to 122,580 people. ABAG projects that the City will grow 15 percent by 2040, to 140,935, which is an additional 18,355 people. (Goal C Housing Production) * **Demographics.** Seniors ages 65 to 74 are the fastest growing age group in the City, and now comprise 9.2 percent of the population (compared to 6.5 percent in 2010). While young adults ages 15 to 24 remain the largest age group in the City (27 percent), the proportion of adults ages 25-34 grew by 25 percent since 2010 and now make up 18 percent of the population. (Policies H-25 Family Housing and H-26 Senior Housing) * **Race and Ethnicity.** The Asian and Hispanic/Latinx populations continue to grow, with Asians comprising 21 percent (19 percent increase since 2010) and Hispanic/Latinx residents comprising 11 percent (13 percent increase since 2010) of the population. The Black/African American population in Berkeley continues to decline and currently makes up 7.7 percent of the total population. (Policy H-29 Fair Housing) * **Household Income.** The median household income in Berkeley was $95,360 in 2019, according to the American Community Survey. Based on HUD’s income definitions, about 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income. (Goal A Housing Affordability) * **Ownership Cost.** Housing costs have been rising since 2011 and the average Berkeley home value was over $1.5 million in September 2021, according to the Zillow Home Value Index. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability for an explanation of the Zillow Home Value Index. (Policy H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers) * **Rental Cost.** Median rents ranged from $2,950 for a studio to $5,648 for 4-bedroom units, according to a survey of available units conducted in November 2021. Median rents for rent stabilized units were about $1,000 per month less for units with two or fewer bedrooms. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability. (Policy H-5 Rent Stabilization) ## 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ### 3.2.1 POPULATION GROWTH AND PROJECTIONS The City of Berkeley experienced rapid population growth from its founding in the late 19th century through the 1940s (Figure 3.1). Growth within the City leveled off between 1950 and 1970, and experienced decline through the 1970s at a rate of just over one percent per year. From 1980-2000 the population was fairly steady at just over 100,000 people. Since 2000, the City’s population has grown steadily, increasing approximately nine percent each decade. The Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population was 122,580 in 2020. Table 3.1 provides a comparison of population growth in Berkeley, the State, Alameda County and surrounding communities. Between 2000 and 2010, Berkeley grew at a faster rate than the County and its neighboring cities; however, growth in the City was comparable to the State overall. Between 2010 and 2020, Berkeley’s growth rate was slightly lower than the County, but higher than that of the State. The majority of neighboring communities saw similar growth rates (approximately 7 to 11 percent), with the exception of San Leandro (3.5 percent). Berkeley’s population is anticipated to continue to grow steadily between 2020 and 2040 according to the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 projections (Table 3.1). The City’s population is anticipated to reach about 136,000 by 2030 and 141,000 by 2040. Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890-2020) <
> *Sources: Decennial Census, 1890-2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.* Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring Cities (2000-2020) | Jurisdiction | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | % Change 2000-2010 | % Change 2010-2020 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | California | 33,871,648 | 37,253,956 | 39,782,870 | 10.0% | 6.8% | | Alameda County | 1,443,741 | 1,510,271 | 1,670,834 | 4.6% | 10.6% | | Berkeley | 102,743 | 112,580 | 122,580 | 9.6% | 8.9% | | Oakland | 399,484 | 390,724 | 433,697 | -2.2% | 11.0% | | Fremont | 203,413 | 214,089 | 234,220 | 5.2% | 9.4% | | San Francisco | 776,733 | 805,235 | 897,806 | 3.7% | 11.5% | | San Leandro | 79,452 | 84,950 | 87,930 | 6.9% | 3.5% | | Hayward | 140,030 | 144,186 | 160,311 | 3.0% | 11.2% | | Richmond | 99,216 | 103,701 | 111,217 | 4.5% | 7.2% | *Sources: Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.* 21 Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040 <
> Sources: US Decennial Census, 2010; ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections, 2018. Note: Population for 2020 differs between the ABAG projections and CA DOF due to differences in methodology. ### 3.2.2 AGE DISTRIBUTION Residents ages 15 to 24 comprised the largest age group in both 2010 and 2019, followed by people ages 25 to 34 (Table 3.2). Berkeley’s high proportion of young adults is due to the presence of UC Berkeley within the City. While the population ages 15 to 24 stayed relatively flat between 2010 and 2019, the population ages 25 to 34 increased by 25 percent, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete. Berkeley also experienced a significant increase in population ages 65 to 84, which may indicate an increasing need for housing appropriate for seniors in the community. Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019) | Age Group | 2010 | | 2019 | | Percent Change | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | 2010-2019 | | Under 5 | 4,136 | 3.7% | 4,323 | 3.6% | 4.5% | | Age 5-14 | 7,403 | 6.6% | 7,991 | 6.6% | 7.9% | | Age 15-24 | 32,628 | 29.0% | 33,051 | 27.2% | 1.3% | | Age 25-34 | 17,697 | 15.7% | 22,124 | 18.2% | 25.0% | | Age 35-44 | 12,534 | 11.1% | 13,204 | 10.9% | 5.3% | | Age 45-54 | 12,253 | 10.9% | 11,179 | 9.2% | -8.8% | | Age 55-64 | 12,753 | 11.3% | 12,184 | 10.0% | -4.5% | | Age 65-74 | 7,477 | 6.6% | 11,174 | 9.2% | 49.4% | | Age 75-84 | 3,727 | 3.3% | 4,547 | 3.7% | 22.0% | 22 | Age 85+ | 1,972 | 1.8% | 1,708 | 1.4% | -13.4% | | Total | 112,580 | 100.0% | 121,485 | 100.0% | 7.9% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) ### 3.2.3 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION Table 3.3 illustrates the changes in racial and ethnic composition of Berkeley’s population between 2000 and 2019. Over this time period, the proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander residents increased steadily, comprising 16 percent of the population in 2000 and 21 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of Latinx residents also increased to about 11 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of the Black population has declined by approximately 5.6 percent since 2000, and Black residents comprised just under 8 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of White residents has remained relatively constant over the last two decades at approximately 54 to 55 percent of the overall population. When compared to Alameda County as a whole, the City of Berkeley is somewhat less diverse (see Figure 3.3). Alameda County has greater proportions of Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latinx populations than Berkeley. Conversely, the proportion of White residents is greater in Berkeley (53 percent, compared to 31 percent in the County). Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000-2019) | Race/Ethnicity | 2000 | | 2010 | | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | | American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic | 293 | 0.3% | 228 | 0.2% | 282 | 0.2% | | Asian / API, Non-Hispanic | 16,861 | 16.4% | 21,669 | 19.2% | 25,845 | 21.3% | | Black or African American, Non-Hispanic | 13,707 | 13.3% | 10,896 | 9.7% | 9,324 | 7.7% | | White, Non-Hispanic | 56,691 | 55.2% | 61,539 | 54.7% | 64,781 | 53.3% | | Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic | 5,190 | 5.1% | 6,039 | 5.4% | 7,400 | 6.1% | | Hispanic or Latinx | 10,001 | 9.7% | 12,209 | 10.8% | 13,853 | 11.4% | | Total | 102,743 | | 112,580 | | 121,485 | | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) 23 Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) ### 3.2.4 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS According to the Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Households may contain related or unrelated individuals; however, the definition of household excludes group quarters, such as student dormitories. Household growth is a good indicator of housing unit production. Other metrics, such as household size, composition, and tenure can be related to factors such as age, cultural background, income level, and housing availability and cost. According to the American Community Survey, there were an estimated 45,352 households residing in Berkeley in 2019, an increase of approximately 2,163 households since 2010. #### Household Size and Type According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the average household size was 2.44 persons and the average family size was 2.90 persons. Average household size and average family size have both increased slightly since 2010 (see Table 3.4). The City's average household and family sizes remain below the averages for Alameda County as a whole, which had an average household size of 2.82 and average family size of 3.37 in 2019. Although the distribution of household types in Berkeley has remained relatively steady between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of nonfamily households has decreased slightly. However, the majority of Berkeley households were still nonfamily households in 2019 (54 percent). The proportion of seniors living alone has increased slightly since 2019. In Berkeley, there are nearly as many single-person households as there are married couple households (34 percent and 35 percent, respectively). This is in contrast to Alameda County, where the majority of households are family households (67 percent), and single-person households comprise just 24 percent of all households (see Figure 3.4). Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019) | Household Type | 2010 | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | (#) | (%) | | Total Households | 43,189 | 45,352 | 100% | | Family Households | 44% | 20,698 | 46% | | Married Couple | 32% | 16,092 | 35% | | Male Householder, No Spouse Present | 3% | 1,390 | 3% | | Female Householder, No Spouse Present | 8% | 3,216 | 7% | | Nonfamily Households | 56% | 24,654 | 54% | | Single-person Households | 37% | 15,609 | 34% | | Senior Living Alone | 9% | 5,449 | 12% | | Average Household Size | 2.25 | 2.44 | | | Average Family Size | 2.89 | 2.90 | | *Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2006-2010, 2015-2019)* Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019) <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))* ## Household Tenure Housing tenure refers to whether housing units are owner occupied or renter occupied. In Berkeley, the majority of households are renters and the proportion of renter occupied and owner occupied units has remained relatively constant since 2000 (see Table 3.5). By contrast, the majority of Alameda County housing units are owner occupied. Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) shows significant differences in tenure based on the race of the householder. The rate of owner occupancy is significantly lower than the overall rate of 43 percent for all minority racial groups and Hispanic/Latinx households. In contrast, the owner occupancy rate for White householders is higher than the overall rate at 51 percent. Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000-2019) | Tenure | Berkeley | | | | | | Alameda County | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | 2000 | | 2010 | | 2019 | | 2019 | | | # | % | # | % | # | % | % | | Owner Occupied | 19,214 | 43% | 18,846 | 41% | 19,478 | 43% | 54% | | Renter Occupied | 25,741 | 57% | 27,183 | 59% | 25,874 | 57% | 46% | | Totals | 44,955 | 100% | 46,029 | 100% | 45,352 | 100% | 100% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note: For this data, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Therefore, the groups included in this table are not all mutually exclusive. ### Group Quarters Group quarters are a distinct housing type that includes emergency and transitional housing, nursing homes, juvenile homes, residential treatment centers, and student dormitories. Unsurprisingly, Berkeley has a sizeable proportion of the population residing in group quarters due to dormitories and other student housing associated with the University. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, just under 11 percent of Berkeley’s population resides in group quarters. This is an increase of less than one percent from 2014. The proportion of County residents living in group quarters is much lower at about two percent. While group quarters are a critical housing type for certain segments of the population, group quarters are not counted as units when meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). In order to receive RHNA credits, the units must be recorded by the State Department of Finance (DOF) as a housing unit. However, discussions with the State indicated that housing units owned by the University are treated by DOF as group quarters, not as housing units, regardless of the physical structural characteristics. Therefore, university-owned housing does not receive RHNA credits. Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County | | 2014 | | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | | Berkeley | 11,459 | 9.9% | 12,945 | 10.7% | | Alameda County | 32,814 | 2.1% | 31,635 | 1.9% | *Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2010-2014, 2015-2019)* ## 3.3 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS ### 3.3.1 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Household income is a dominant factor impacting housing needs in a community. With the exception of a small number of households owned with little or no mortgage, a household’s ability to afford housing is directly related to household income. Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) illustrates the change in median household income from 2000 to 2019 for Berkeley and Alameda County. Berkeley’s median household income increased by 114 percent between 2000 and 2019, including a 27 percent increase between 2000 and 2010 and a 68 percent increase between 2010 and 2019. While Berkeley and the County’s median household income has increased similarly over the last two decades, Berkeley’s median has remained below that of the County. This is likely due to Berkeley’s large student population, of which over 90 percent live off campus. Students tend to have very low incomes which would skew the City’s median household income downward. However, students are generally not considered “lower income” for the purposes of public housing programs because they often rely on support from families or public loans. Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) <
> Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates (2010, 2019) ### 3.3.2 HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORIES State and federal housing assistance programs utilize income categories established by state and federal law. For the Housing Element and other state programs, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established the five categories listed in Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories. Together, the extremely low, very low, and low income categories are referred to as lower income. Although they differ slightly in their definitions, both state and federal income categories are based on the area median income or AMI. The AMI refers to the median income for a metropolitan statistical area. For 2021, HCD determined the AMI for a four-person household in Alameda County was $125,600. For federal housing programs, eligibility is established for households with incomes up to only 80% of the AMI. Under the federal definition, these households are considered moderate income. These federal definitions are used for plans required by federal regulations (i.e., Consolidated Plans). The HCD definitions (shown in Table 27) are used in the Housing Element whenever possible; however, some datasets, such as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) utilized in this section, do not provide breakdowns by the HCD income categories. Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure provides information on household income by tenure for Berkeley households. Overall, 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income, earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. However, renter households are much more likely to be lower income than owner households (60 percent of renter households compared to 19 percent of owner households). Similarly, over 75 percent of owner households earn over 100 percent of the AMI, compared to just 32 percent of renter households. Berkeley’s breakdown of households in various income categories is similar to Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole, see Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017). However, Berkeley has a higher proportion of households earning less than 30 percent of the AMI when compared to the region. Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) shows stark differences in household income levels when broken down by race. American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/API, and Black/African American households are all more likely to fall within one of the lower income categories, when compared to Berkeley households as a whole. Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories | Income Category | Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) | For a four-person household | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Extremely Low | Up to 30% of AMI | $41,100 or less | | Very Low | 31-50% of AMI | $41,101 to $68,500 | | Low | 51-80% of AMI | $68,501 to $109,600 | | Moderate | 81-120% of AMI | $109,601 to $150,700 | | Above Moderate | Greater than 120% of AMI | $150,701 or more | Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure | Income Level[^p37-1] | Owner Occupied Households | Renter Occupied Households | Total Households | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | | 0%-30% of AMI | 1,140 | 5.8% | 8,510 | 32.7% | 9,650 | 21.2% | | 31%-50% of AMI | 1,035 | 5.3% | 3,880 | 14.9% | 4,915 | 10.8% | | 51%-80% of AMI | 1,449 | 7.4% | 3,104 | 11.9% | 4,553 | 10.0% | | 81%-100% of AMI | 1,204 | 6.2% | 2,259 | 8.7% | 3,463 | 7.6% | | Greater than 100% of AMI | 14,699 | 75.3% | 8,245 | 31.7% | 22,944 | 50.4% | | Totals | 19,527 | 100.0% | 25,998 | 100.0% | 45,525 | 100.0% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release). Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County). [^p37-1]: Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release). Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release). Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County). 30 ### 3.3.3 EMPLOYMENT The employment characteristics of residents can significantly influence their housing needs and choices. Factors such as the earning potential for various types of employment and the location of employment influence an employee’s ability to find affordable housing within a reasonable distance of their workplace. Employment within the City of Berkeley is dominated by educational and health services. Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) shows the top employers within the City of Berkeley. The University of California, Berkeley is the City’s largest employer, comprising 20.3 percent of the City’s total employment and employing more workers than all of the other top ten employers combined. While Table 3.9 illustrates the top employers located within the City of Berkeley, Table 3.10 and Figure 3.9 summarize the types of occupations held by Berkeley residents and the industries in which they work, whether or not their place of employment is located within Berkeley. However, there are notable similarities between Berkeley’s top employers and the dominant industries and occupations held by Berkeley residents. The health and educational services industry employs the greatest proportion of Berkeley residents (43 percent). To a lesser extent, the health and educational services industry is also the top employer in Alameda and the Bay area, employing about 30 percent of workers. About 27 percent of Berkeley employees work in the financial and professional services industry, similar to Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. The agriculture and natural resources, construction, information, manufacturing and wholesale, and retail industries each make up less than 10 percent of resident employment. The majority (67 percent) of Berkeley residents are employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (Figure 3.9). Once again, this is consistent with Berkeley’s top employers, particularly the University and National Laboratory. The proportion of Berkeley residents employed in these types of occupations is significantly higher than in the County and the Bay area as a whole, where about 50 percent of workers are employed in management, business, science and arts occupations. About 15 percent of Berkeley residents have sales and office occupations, followed by service occupations (12 percent). Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) | Employer | Rank | Number of Employees | Percentage of Total City Employment | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | University of California Berkeley | 1 | 13,750 | 20.3% | | Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | 2 | 3,773 | 5.6% | | Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation/Hospitals | 3 | 2,117 | 3.1% | | City of Berkeley | 4 | 1,579 | 2.3% | | Berkeley Unified School District | 5 | 1,302 | 1.9% | | Bayer Corporation | 6 | 1,033 | 1.5% | | Kaiser Permanente Medical Group | 7 | 742 | 1.1% | | Siemens Corporation/Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. | 8 | 736 | 1.1% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Berkeley Bowl Produce | 9 | 636 | 0.9% | | Lifelong Medical Care | 10 | 426 | 0.6% | | Total | | 26,094 | 38.6% | *Source: City of Berkeley, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020.* Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) | Industry | Berkeley (#) | Berkeley (%) | Alameda County (%) | Bay Area (%) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Agriculture & Natural Resources | 143 | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.7% | | Construction | 1,458 | 2.3% | 5.3% | 5.6% | | Financial and Professional Services | 17,281 | 27.3% | 26.0% | 25.8% | | Health & Educational Services | 27,369 | 43.2% | 30.1% | 29.7% | | Information | 3,177 | 5.0% | 3.5% | 4.0% | | Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation | 4,678 | 7.4% | 17.4% | 16.7% | | Retail | 4,055 | 6.4% | 8.9% | 9.3% | | Other | 5,161 | 8.2% | 8.4% | 8.2% | | Total | 63,322 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))* Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) <
> 32 Alameda County <
> Bay Area <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) ### 3.3.4 UNEMPLOYMENT The unemployment rate within a community is an indicator of the health of the economy as well as an indicator of the number of households with limited income and therefore, limited housing choices. Figure 3.10 illustrates the unemployment rates for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area from 2010 to 2021. Unemployment rates were high in the early 2010s as the economy recovered from the Great Recession. Unemployment levels reached a ten-year low in 2019, below three percent; however, unemployment rates skyrocketed in the second quarter of 2020 due to the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Since then, unemployment has dropped steadily; however, rates continue to be higher than pre-pandemic levels. Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010-2021) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021). Note: Unemployment rates for Berkeley are derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. Since this assumption is untested, these data should be examined in broad terms, rather than focusing on exact percentage rates. ## 3.4 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Certain groups may face additional challenges in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. As defined by State Housing Element Law, the “special needs” groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, female-headed households with children, persons experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, and extremely-low income households. These groups are at a greater risk of experiencing housing-related issues, such as overcrowding or cost burden (expending greater than 30 percent of household income on housing expenses). Additionally, these special needs groups are not mutually exclusive and some households or individuals may fall into more than one special needs group. Table 3.11 summarizes Berkeley’s special needs populations and households and each group is discussed in further detail in the following sections. Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and Households | Special Needs Group[^p42-1] | Persons or Households | Number of Persons/Households | Percent of Total Population/Households | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Senior-Headed Households | Households | 12,495 | 27.6% | [^p42-1]: | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Seniors Living Alone | Households | 5,449 | 12.0% | | Persons with a Disability | Persons | 10,529 | 8.7% | | Single-Parent Households | Households | 2,089 | 4.6% | | Single Female-Headed Households with Children | Households | 1,555 | 3.4% | | Large Family Households (5+ persons) | Households | 1,827 | 4.0% | | Farmworkers[^p43-2] | Persons | 132 | 0.1% | | Persons Experiencing Homelessness | Persons | 1,108 | 0.9% | | Extremely Low-Income Households[^p43-3] | Households | 9,650 | 21.3% | Sources: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019); U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on 2013-2017 ACS; EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey. Notes: 1. All data is from the 2015-2019 ACS, except: Persons experiencing homelessness is from the EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count; and Extremely Low-Income Households is from the CHAS dataset. 2. Farmworkers includes all persons employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries. 3. Extremely Low-Income Household data is based on the 2013-2017 ACS (most recent CHAS data available). ### 3.4.1 PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS The most recent point-in-time homeless count for the City of Berkeley occurred in February 2022. In the initial data available for 2022, there were a total of 1,057 individuals experiencing homelessness residing within Berkeley, which is about 14 percent of Alameda County’s total homeless population. The number of persons experiencing homelessness in Berkeley and Alameda County has increased steadily since 2015, though it went down by 51 individuals in Berkeley in 2022 (see Table 3.12). The characteristics of the homeless population, such as gender and household type, provide important insights into the needs of this group which can guide decisions related to the provision of services. In February 2022, about 24 percent of persons experiencing homelessness were sleeping in a shelter (emergency shelter, transitional housing, or safe haven) and about 76 percent were unsheltered (Table 3.13). The majority of unsheltered persons were sleeping either in a tent or on the street (67 percent) or in a vehicle (33 percent). In 2019, only five percent of the homeless population were persons in families, while the remaining 95 percent were single individuals. Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) provides information about the gender and race of Berkeley’s homeless population in 2019. About two-thirds of Berkeley’s homeless population is male. Notably, 57 percent of the homeless population is Black, although just eight percent of Berkeley’s total population is Black (see Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County). Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015-2022) | | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | 2022 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Berkeley | 834 | 972 | 1,108 | 1,057 | Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 Homeless Count and Survey | [^p43-2]: Farmworkers includes all persons employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries. [^p43-3]: Extremely Low-Income Household data is based on the 2013-2017 ACS (most recent CHAS data available). | Alameda County | 4,040 | 5,629 | 8,022 | 9,747 | | Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019) | | Number | Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Location (2022)** | | | | Sheltered | 254 | 24% | | Unsheltered | 803 | 76% | | Tent/Street | 535 | 67% | | RV/Car/Van | 267 | 33% | | Abandoned Building | 1 | <1% | | **Household Type (2019)** | | | | Persons in Families | 51 | 5% | | Single Individuals | 1,057 | 95% | *Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 and 2019 Homeless Count and Survey* Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) <
> *Source: EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey* ### Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness Berkeley is part of Alameda County’s Continuum of Care (CoC) and has adopted the EveryOne Home Plan (the Strategic Plan for the CoC). The goals of the Plan are: * Prevent homelessness and other housing crises * Increase permanent housing opportunities for homeless and high-risk households * Provide wrap-around services to ensure housing stability and quality of life * Measure success and report outcomes To that end, the North County Coordinated Entry System Housing Resource Center is located in Berkeley and conducts assessments to match homeless individuals to available services including shelters, transitional housing, and other services such as mental and physical health services and addiction counseling. As of 2020, the City provided 226 year-round shelter beds, 28 seasonal shelter beds, 20 transitional housing beds, and over 500 supportive housing units. ### 3.4.2 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Individuals with disabilities often have special housing needs due to factors such as the need for accessibility, fixed low incomes or limited employment opportunities, and higher health care costs. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, approximately nine percent of Berkeley’s population has one or more disabilities. This is consistent with Alameda County as a whole, where approximately ten percent of the population has a disability. Disabilities are most common among seniors and about 25 percent of the senior population has one or more disabilities (see Table 3.14). Table 3.15 provides information on the prevalence of various types of disabilities for the adult population as a whole and for the senior population. Cognitive difficulties are the most common disability type for both population groups, followed by ambulatory difficulties, and independent living difficulties. Individuals with ambulatory difficulties and/or self-care difficulties may require accessibility features in their home. Due to the age of Berkeley’s housing stock, assistance with adaptation of older units is often needed. Cognitive difficulties are defined by the Census Bureau as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem. Although a cognitive disability alone may not necessitate specific physical adaptations to the home, individuals with a cognitive disability may need access to additional mental health and social services. Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019) | Age Range | Population with a disability | Total Population | % of Total Population | %of Population with a Disability | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Under 18 | 384 | 15,157 | 2.5% | 3.6% | | 18-64 | 5,855 | 88,740 | 6.6% | 55.6% | | 65 or older | 4,290 | 17,229 | 24.9% | 40.7% | | Total | 10,529 | 121,126 | 8.7% | 100.0% | *Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)* Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019) | Disability Type | % of Adult Population (age 18+) | % of Senior Population (age 65+) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | With a cognitive difficulty | 4.0% | 13.8% | | With an ambulatory difficulty | 3.7% | 10.7% | | With an independent living difficulty | 3.2% | 9.7% | | With a hearing difficulty | 2.2% | 7.0% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | With a self-care difficulty | 1.9% | 5.9% | | With a vision difficulty | 1.5% | 4.3% | Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) ### Developmental Disabilities Developmental disability is defined by State law as “a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual...this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.” Based on zip code-level data from the Department of Developmental Services, ABAG estimates that there are 440 individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Berkeley. About 63 percent of these individuals are adults and 37 percent are under age 18. The majority of persons with a developmental disability reside in their family home (68 percent) (see Table 3.16). Independent/supported living facilities are the second most common place of residence for persons with developmental disabilities at 22 percent. Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020) | Residence Type | % of Individuals with a Developmental Disability | | :--- | :--- | | Home of Parent /Family /Guardian | 68% | | Independent /Supported Living | 22% | | Community Care Facility | 4% | | Other | 3% | | Intermediate Care Facility | 2% | | Foster /Family Home | 1% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)) ### Resource for Persons with Disabilities Although many adults with developmental disabilities can live and work independently, group living environments can also provide an appropriate and supportive setting, particularly when an individual ages out of living in their family home. According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are three residential facilities for adults ages 18 to 59 within Berkeley with a combined capacity of 56 individuals. Additionally, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals. The Berkeley Municipal Code requires approval of a use permit for residential care facilities, the same process is required for other dwelling units in the residential zones. These requirements are discussed in further detail in the Constraints section of this Housing Element. 38 Several City programs assist homeowners with disabilities. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by nonprofit providers completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income households with a disabled member may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program. Additionally, homeowners may apply for a reasonable accommodation to get relief from zoning and building code requirements that hinder accessibility related improvements. ### 3.4.3 SENIORS As Americans’ life expectancy increases, seniors make up an increasing segment of the population. Berkeley’s population ages 65 to 74 was the fastest growing age group between 2010 and 2019 and seniors ages 65 and over made up over 14 percent of the total population (see Table 3.2). Additionally, senior-headed households comprise nearly 28 percent of all Berkeley households. Table 3.17 summarizes the tenure and income level of senior households in Berkeley. There are significantly more owner households than renter households; however, renting senior households are much more likely to fall within the extremely low or very low income groups. Additional affordable, appropriately sized rental units are likely necessary to meet the housing needs of this group. Additionally, as previously noted, about one quarter of Berkeley seniors have one or more disabilities. Therefore, accessibility is another important factor in the provision of housing for Berkeley’s seniors. Table 3.17: Senior Households[^p47-1] by Tenure and Income Group | Income Group[^p47-2] | Owner occupied | | Renter occupied | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | | 0%-30% of AMI | 590 | 6.8% | 1,945 | 50.6% | | 31%-50% of AMI | 640 | 7.4% | 540 | 14.0% | | 51%-80% of AMI | 895 | 10.3% | 330 | 8.6% | | 81%-100% of AMI | 580 | 6.7% | 240 | 6.2% | | Greater than 100% of AMI | 5,945 | 68.7% | 790 | 20.5% | | Totals | 8,650 | 100.0% | 3,845 | 100.0% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Notes: 1. For the purposes of this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. 2. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI) the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties). ### Resources for Seniors According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals. [^p47-1]: Senior Households [^p47-2]: Income Group In 2016, the City began the Age-Friendly Berkeley initiative (https://www.agefriendlyberkeley.org), which identified affordable housing and home modifications as priority issues. Currently, several City programs assist senior homeowners. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by Rebuilding Together and the Center for Independent Living completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income senior households may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program. The City operates two senior centers, the North Berkeley Senior Center and the Henry Ramsey Jr. South Berkeley Senior Center to connect seniors to local resources and provide individualized assistance. The senior centers also operate a grab and go meal program available to all Berkeley residents over 60 that provides five frozen nutritious meals per week for a suggested donation of $15. ### 3.4.4 SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN Single-parent households, in particular single female-headed households, tend to have a greater need for affordable housing, childcare facilities, and other supportive services due to lower per capita income and higher living expenses. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there are 2,089 single-parent households with children residing in Berkeley. The majority of these households (74 percent) are headed by single females. When compared to Alameda County as a whole, Berkeley has a lower proportion of single parent households. In Alameda County, single-parent households made up 6.8 percent of all households, compared to 4.6 percent in Berkeley. The Census Bureau utilizes a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country. In 2021, the poverty level for a four-person household was $26,500 and about 14 percent of female-headed households with children were living below that threshold. However, it should be noted that the proportion of this household type needing additional assistance is probably much greater due to the high cost of living in the area. To that end, HCD’s defined income limit for an extremely low-income four-person household in Alameda County was significantly higher than the federal poverty level at $41,100. *Resources for Single-Parent Families with Children* Single parent families with children can benefit from all programs that are intended to assist lower income households in Berkeley. One such program is the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority. This special needs group may benefit from the City’s youth programs in particular. The City offers an affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Center. Scholarship opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education. ### 3.4.5 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS Large households are defined as households with at least five members. Large family households often include multiple children and/or extended family members, such as grandparents. Since adequately sized housing units to serve the needs of large households are often limited, large households are considered a special needs group. Additionally, a lack of appropriately sized and affordable units can lead to large households living in overcrowded conditions. Figure 3.12 illustrates households by size for Berkeley and Alameda County. Approximately four percent of Berkeley’s households have five or more members (1,827 households). This is notably lower than the County, where 11 percent of households are large households. Berkeley has significantly more one-person households compared to the County, likely due to the presence of the University. According to the U.S. Census bureau, students living in on or off campus student housing facilities are counted “by the bed”; students in private off-campus residences that are not limited to students are counted by their occupancy as a separate living quarter. As shown in Figure 3.13, household tenure varies by household size. The number of large households that rent their home is similar to the number of large households that own their home, while owner occupancy is more prevalent among four-person households. For households consisting of three or fewer individuals, renting was more common than owner occupancy. Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) 41 Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019) <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))* ### Resources for Large Households Lower income large family households are eligible to participate in the City’s affordable housing programs available to all lower income households. This includes the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority. Although affordable units with three or more bedrooms are less common than smaller units, there are several housing projects within Berkeley that feature larger units. For example, the Savo Island Cooperative Homes project contains 22 three-bedroom units and 27 four-bedroom units which could accommodate larger families. ### 3.4.6 FARMWORKERS Farmworkers are considered a special needs group because they tend to have lower incomes, disproportionately live in housing that is in poor condition and/or overcrowded, and are predominantly persons of color. There is no agricultural land in Berkeley; therefore, the farmworker population is low. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there were 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries in Berkeley, comprising about 0.1 percent of the City's population. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers. ### Resources for Farmworkers Since farmworkers make up such a small percentage of Berkeley’s population, specific programs for this special needs group are not necessary. Farmworkers residing in Berkeley can access general housing programs and services available to all lower income households in the City. 42 ### 3.4.7 EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Extremely low-income households are those making 30 percent or less of the area median income. For Alameda County, the HCD defined income limit for extremely low-income households ranged from $28,800 for a one-person household to $54,300 for an eight-person household in 2021. A total of 9,650 Berkeley households fall into this category, comprising 21 percent of all households residing in the City. As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the proportion of extremely low-income households is higher in Berkeley than in Alameda County, where 16 percent of households are extremely low-income. The large majority (88 percent) of extremely low-income households rent their home (Figure 3.14). Therefore, high rents in the City are particularly burdensome to this special needs group. As discussed in greater detail in the Housing Problems section of this chapter, approximately 88 percent of extremely low-income households have a housing cost burden, meaning that over 30 percent of household income is spent on housing-related expenses (refer to Figure 3.20). Figure 3.14: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2017) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) ### Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households The City has focused funding to address the needs extremely low-income households on programs that enable households and individuals living in poverty to attain self-sufficiency, support at-risk youth to succeed in school and graduate, and protect the health and safety of low income households. Training and job placement programs for low income, under-employed or unemployed residents include Inter-City Services employment training, Biotech Academy, the Bread Project, Rising Sun Center for Opportunity Green Energy Training Services, Berkeley Youth Alternatives, UC Theater Concert Careers Pathways, and YouthWorks. Extremely low-income households with children can also benefit from youth and childcare programs offered by the City, including affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Center. Scholarship opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education. # 3.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS Berkeley’s urban landscape reveals a great deal about how the City was developed. Building styles, which are typically associated with a particular time period, vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even from street to street. In some places, different stages of development are revealed by an occasional remnant Victorian, or by the area’s general mixture of later styles. The early transportation hubs can still be detected by the evidence of commercial centers and building clusters from different decades. Broadly speaking, the areas close to the University and Downtown had their initial construction in the 19th Century, though many of them were later substantially rebuilt. West Berkeley, and the village of Lorin in South Berkeley, also had their start in the 19th Century. The initial pattern was a response to the original transportation system of boats, streetcars, and trains. The areas in between remained largely open for some time and then filled in, especially in the first three decades of the 1900s. The expanded suburban development in the hills followed the opening of new streetcar lines, the 1906 earthquake, and ultimately the common use of the automobile. Densities are greatest in the areas close to the University and Downtown, where there are multi-unit apartment buildings and large single-family homes converted to rooming houses or apartments. Density can also be found along the main arterials of the city in both older and new apartment buildings. The majority of the city is characterized by small lots with one to four units. ## 3.5.1 HOUSING GROWTH According to the Department of Finance, there were 51,523 housing units in Berkeley in 2020. This represents a four percent increase from 2010 and a 10 percent increase since 2000 (see Table 3.18). Berkeley’s housing growth rate is lower than that of Alameda County. In the past twenty years, there has been a 13 percent increase in housing units in the County. Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2020) | | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | % Change 2010-2020 | % Change 2000-2020 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Berkeley | 46,875 | 49,454 | 51,523 | 4.2% | 9.9% | | Alameda County | 540,183 | 581,372 | 611,752 | 5.2% | 13.2% | *Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.* ## 3.5.2 UNIT TYPE AND SIZE As illustrated in Figure 3.15, detached single-family houses remain the most common housing type in Berkeley, comprising 41 percent of all units. However, when both small (2-4 units) and large (five or more units) multifamily complexes are taken into account, multifamily units comprise 55 percent of the City’s housing stock. There are 218 mobile home units in the City. Table 3.19 summarizes the number of housing units by type in 2010 and 2020. The majority of new units constructed in the last ten years are part of large multi-family buildings containing five or more units. Overall, the number of multi-family units in the City increased by seven percent while the number of single family units increased by less than one percent. Figure 3.16 provides information on the size of Berkeley’s housing units. Two-bedroom units are the most common in the City, followed by three- to four-bedroom units. The majority of smaller units (studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units) are occupied by renters. Conversely, the majority of larger units are owner occupied. Figure 3.17 provides a comparison of housing units by number of bedrooms for Berkeley, Alameda County, and California as a whole. Berkeley has a larger proportion of smaller units with two or fewer bedrooms when compared to the County and the State. Units of two or fewer bedrooms comprise 65 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, while smaller units make up 49 percent and 45 percent of the County and State’s housing stock, respectively. Similarly, larger units containing four or more bedrooms make up just 14 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, compared to 20 percent of Alameda County units and 21 percent of California units. Berkeley’s unit sizes are generally consistent with the prevalence of smaller households, particularly single person households within the City. Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.) Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010-2020) | Building Type | 2010 | 2020 | Percent Change | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | All Single Family | 22,984 | 23,202 | 0.9% | | Single-Family (Attached) | 2,060 | 2,096 | 1.7% | 45 | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Single-Family (Detached) | 20,924 | 21,106 | 0.9% | | All Multifamily | 26,252 | 28,103 | 7.1% | | Multifamily (2-4 units) | 9,980 | 10,075 | 1.0% | | Multifamily (5+ units) | 16,272 | 18,028 | 10.8% | | Mobile Homes | 218 | 218 | 0.0% | | Totals | 49,454 | 51,523 | 4.2% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.)* Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019) <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))* 46 Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019) <
> Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) ### 3.5.3 VACANCY RATES A certain number of vacancies in a community is necessary to moderate housing costs, provide some level of choice for households seeking housing, and provide incentive to keep units in decent condition. Vacancy rates for rental properties are typically higher than owner occupied properties because rental units tend to turn over more frequently. A vacancy rate is considered to be healthy if it permits adequate choices and mobility among a variety of housing units. A healthy rate is considered to be 5-6 percent for rental units and 2-3 percent for owner occupied units. According to the American Community Survey, vacancy rates have decreased over the last several years (see Table 3.20) and are well below optimal levels. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent for owner occupied units and 2.4 percent for rental units. Vacancy rates in Alameda County are higher than in Berkeley; however, they are also below healthy levels. Table 3.21 provides insight into the types of vacancies that exist within the City. The largest vacancy type in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area is "other vacant" (55%, 44%, and 36%, respectively). The Census Bureau defines "other vacant" as units that do not fit into any other year-round vacant category. It is possible that short-term vacation rentals account for a significant subset of this category. The proportion of units for sale and units for rent are lower in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area. Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019) | Vacancy Rates | Berkeley | Alameda County | | :--- | :--- | :--- | 47 | | 2010-2014 | 2015-2019 | 2010-2014 | 2015-2019 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Vacant Housing Units (% of Total) | 7.6% | 6.8% | 6.0% | 5.1% | | Homeowner Vacancy Rate | 0.9% | 0.3% | 1.3% | 0.6% | | Rental Vacancy Rate | 3.8% | 2.4% | 3.9% | 2.9% | *Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) Note: Overall vacancy includes units that are seasonally occupied units.* Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019) | Vacancy Type | Berkeley | | Alameda County (Percent) | Bay Area (Percent) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Percent | | | | For Rent | 635 | 19% | 26% | 24% | | For Sale | 52 | 2% | 6% | 6% | | For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use | 397 | 12% | 13% | 22% | | Other Vacant | 1,827 | 55% | 44% | 36% | | Rented, Not Occupied | 299 | 9% | 5% | 6% | | Sold, Not Occupied | 112 | 3% | 6% | 7% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note: "Other Vacant" as defined by the Census Bureau is a housing unit that does not fit into any other year-round vacant category.* ### 3.5.4 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK AND HOUSING CONDITION The age of a community’s housing stock can provide insight into the level of maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Generally, structures over 30 years old are likely to have significant rehabilitation needs which may include a new roof, foundation repairs, and new plumbing. Berkeley has a significant proportion of older units, with nearly half of all units constructed before 1939 (see Figure 3.18). Overall, 95 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock will be over 30 years old by the end of this housing element planning cycle and 86 percent will be over 50 years old. According to the 2014-2019 American Community Survey, the median year structure built for the City’s housing stock is 1942. However, the City’s owner occupied housing stock is significantly older with a median age older than 1939, compared to a median age of 1958 for renter occupied units. Regardless of tenure, rehabilitation and maintenance is an ongoing need to preserve the quality of the City’s housing stock. Lack of sufficient plumbing and kitchen facilities is another indicator of substandard housing condition. Although units without sufficient plumbing or kitchens are rare in Berkeley, renter households are more likely to reside in a unit with one of these issues. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates that about 0.6 percent of owner occupied units and about 2.1 percent of renter occupied units lack sufficient kitchen facilities. Lack of sufficient plumbing is rarer, with 0.3 percent of owner occupied units and 1.2 percent of rental units lacking sufficient plumbing (Table 3.22). 48 Local building and code enforcement divisions can also provide insight into the condition of housing units in the community, based on complaints filed, inspections, code violations, and other observations. In 2021 there were a total of 303 code enforcement cases reported, of which 238 were resolved. The average time needed to resolve a case was 53 days. Approximately 15 to 18 percent of complaint-based code enforcement cases were identified as blight cases (approximately 35 cases in 2022), which suggests that there are potentially more units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. A more accurate number of housing units in need of rehabilitation is approximately between 1,000 to 2,500 units, or less than five percent of the City’s total housing stock. Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019) | | Owner Occupied Units | | Renter Occupied Units | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Lack of Sufficient Kitchen Facilities | 117 | 0.6% | 606 | 2.1% | | Lack of Sufficient Plumbing | 58 | 0.3% | 310 | 1.2% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019) <
> Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) ### 3.5.5 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY Housing costs have a significant impact on the prevalence of housing issues within a community. High housing costs in comparison to household income have a direct impact on the types of units a household can afford, whether they incur a housing cost burden, or whether they live in overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the cost of renting and homeownership in Berkeley. An affordability analysis is also included in this section. Additional information on housing problems such as cost burden and overcrowding, is included in the Housing Problems section later in this chapter. 49 *Rent Stabilized Units* The City of Berkeley adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance in 1980, which limits annual rental increases for units built prior to 1980. According to the Rent Stabilization Board, there are approximately 19,414 rent stabilized units within the City of Berkeley as of March 2021. Since 2005, the annual adjustment for rents has been 65 percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the metropolitan area. However, in compliance with the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, landlords are allowed to establish market rate rents when a unit is vacated and leased to a new tenant in units constructed before enactment of the law (known as “vacancy decontrol”). Once reoccupied, the annual rent increases are limited by the local jurisdiction’s rent stabilization provisions. As shown in Table 3.23, vacancy decontrol has had a significant impact on the affordability of rent controlled units. The average rent ceiling for tenancies starting after 1999, when full implementation of the Costa-Hawkins Act began, is nearly two and a half times higher than units with tenancies starting before 1999. Table 3.24 provides the median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Median rents increased at a much greater rate between 2010 and 2020, when compared to the previous decade, with the cost of two-bedroom and smaller units outpacing increases in median income over the same time period. Median rents for new tenants in 2020 ranged from $1,750 for a studio apartment to $3,850 for a three-bedroom apartment. The Ellis Act, first effective in 1986, gives property owners the right to remove apartment buildings from the rental market for development or repurposing. The term “Ellised” has been utilized to refer to a property owner’s removal of a multifamily property from the rental market. The State does not require the owner to report on the reason a property has been Ellised. However, the Ellis Act does authorize local governments to place restrictions on properties that have been Ellised to ensure that this process is not abused. Berkeley has adopted these various restrictions in the Ellis Implementation Ordinance and has monitored compliance with the Ellis Act and Ellis Implementation Ordinance since their introduction. As of June 2020, 154 properties have been Ellised, totaling 457 units, since 1986.[^p58-1] According to the Rent Stabilization Board’s data on Ellised properties, the majority of properties removed from the rental market contain just one or two units. Only three properties containing ten or more units have been removed from the rental market. In September 2017, then Governor Brown signed into law AB 1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix,” which restored the authority of local jurisdictions to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new rental housing projects. Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23.328 Inclusionary Housing currently requires that all residential housing projects, including rental, that result in a total of five or more dwelling units must include at least 20 percent of the total number of units as inclusionary. The units must be sold or rented to very low and/or low income households. [^p58-1]: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Summary of Ellis Act Evictions (1986 – 6/1/2020)”, October 2020. Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre- and Post-Costa-Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021) | Rent Stabilized Units | Number of Units | Percent of Units | Average Rent Ceiling (all units) | Average Rent Ceiling (1-BR units) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Tenancies Starting Before 1999 | 1,858 | 9.6% | $909 | $829 | | Tenancies Starting 1999-2021 | 17,556 | 90.4% | $2,247 | $1,948 | Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”. Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000-2020) | Number of Bedrooms | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | % Change 2000-2010 | % Change 2010-2020 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Studio | $800 | $950 | $1,750 | 18.8% | 84.2% | | One-Bedroom | $1,100 | $1,225 | $2,085 | 11.4% | 70.2% | | Two-Bedroom | $1,500 | $1,660 | $2,895 | 10.7% | 74.4% | | Three-Bedroom | $1,980 | $2,395 | $3,850 | 21.0% | 60.8% | Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”. ### Market Rate Rental Units Table 3.25 summarizes a survey of units listed for rent on Zillow in November 2021; therefore, it contains information for both market rate units and units that are subject to rent stabilization. As shown, median rents from the Zillow survey are significantly higher than the median rents for rent stabilized units listed in Table 3.24. Since the Ordinance applies only to units built before 1980, rent stabilized units are all within older buildings. The survey showed a significant proportion of units available for rent, particularly studios and one-bedrooms, were part of new large multifamily complexes. High rents in these new complexes drive up the median rent for smaller units. Larger units with three or more bedrooms are less common within the City, which may create difficulties for larger households to find affordable, appropriately sized units. Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021) | Number of Bedrooms | Number of Units | Range | Median | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Low | High | | | Studio | 74 | $959 | $3,525 | $2,950 | | One-Bedroom | 179 | $1,500 | $4,145 | $3,125 | | Two-Bedroom | 129 | $2,040 | $6,193 | $3,555 | | Three-Bedroom | 29 | $2,700 | $11,900 | $3,950 | | Four or More Bedrooms | 11 | $4,705 | $16,850 | $5,648 | Source: Zillow.com listings of units for rent in Berkeley, accessed November 11, 2021. ### Homeownership Market 51 Home values in this section are based on the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). The ZHVI is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Figure 3.19 illustrates home values in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area for 2001 through 2020. Although values dropped slightly during the Great Recession, home values have increased steadily in all three geographies since 2011. Home values in Berkeley continue to be significantly higher than regional home values. Between December 2010 and September 2021, there was a 129 percent increase in Berkeley home values. As shown in Table 3.26, the sharpest increase in home values occurred between 2010 and 2015. However, it should be noted that home values increased over 15 percent during the nine-month period between December 2020 and September 2021. In September 2021, the typical value for a single family home in Berkeley was over $1.6 million. The typical value for a condominium was $915,000. Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001-2020) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index). Note: This data includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010-2021) | | Home Value[^p60-1] | Percent Change | | :--- | :--- | :--- | 52 | | Dec. 2010 | Dec. 2015 | Dec. 2020 | Sept. 2021[^p61-2] | 2010-2015 | 2015-2020 | 2020-2021 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | All Homes | $691,769 | $1,057,613 | $1,373,932 | $1,586,269 | 52.9% | 29.9% | 15.5% | | Single Family | $719,997 | $1,102,257 | $1,422,265 | $1,642,326 | 53.1% | 29.0% | 15.5% | | Condominium | $435,601 | $647,001 | $834,586 | $914,967 | 48.5% | 29.0% | 9.6% | Source: Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index. Notes: 1. Zillow Home Value Index 2. Most recent data available ## Housing Affordability The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines housing affordability as paying no more than 30 to 35 percent of the household’s gross income (depending on income and tenure) on housing expenses. In addition to rent or mortgage payments, housing expenses include utilities, taxes, and insurance. Table 3.27 provides an estimate of affordable rents and home prices by income level, based on HCD’s 2021 household income limits for Alameda County. These figures are general estimates only and based on conservative assumptions such as low down-payment, and do not take into account the tax benefits of homeownership. These estimates can be compared to the typical rents and home values in Berkeley as discussed in the previous sections to provide a general picture of affordability. Based on the home values presented in Table 3.26 and the affordable home prices presented in Table 3.27, lower income and moderate income households cannot afford to purchase a single family home or condominium in Berkeley. As indicated in Table 3.24 median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units range from $1,750 for a studio to $3,850 for a three-bedroom rental unit. Based on Table 3.27, extremely low and very low income households cannot afford this level of rent without incurring a significant cost burden. Low, median, and moderate income households may be able to afford a rent stabilized unit with two or fewer bedrooms. Larger units with three bedrooms remain unaffordable, posing an issue for large households. When the entire rental market is considered rather than rent stabilized units only (see Table 3.25), the median rents are unaffordable for all lower income and median income households. Moderate income households may be able to afford some units without incurring a cost burden; however, they may be smaller and result in overcrowded conditions. Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021) | | Annual Income Limits | Affordable Monthly Housing Costs | Rental Utility Allowance (2020) | Ownership Utility Allowance (2020) | Taxes, Insurance, HOA | Affordable Rent | Affordable Home Price | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) | | | | | | | | [^p61-2]: Most recent data available | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-Person (studio) | $28,800 | $720 | $186 | $203 | $252 | $535 | $69,971 | | 2-Person (1 BR) | $32,900 | $823 | $222 | $243 | $288 | $601 | $76,988 | | 3-Person (2 BR) | $37,000 | $925 | $274 | $306 | $324 | $652 | $77,811 | | 4-Person (3 BR) | $41,100 | $1,028 | $349 | $392 | $360 | $679 | $72,705 | | 5-Person (4 BR) | $44,400 | $1,110 | $392 | $463 | $389 | $719 | $68,126 | | **Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)** | | | | | | | | | 1-Person | $47,950 | $1,199 | $186 | $203 | $420 | $1,013 | $151,982 | | 2-Person | $54,800 | $1,370 | $222 | $243 | $480 | $1,148 | $170,776 | | 3-Person | $61,650 | $1,541 | $274 | $306 | $539 | $1,268 | $183,377 | | 4-Person | $68,500 | $1,713 | $349 | $392 | $599 | $1,364 | $190,048 | | 5-Person | $74,000 | $1,850 | $392 | $463 | $648 | $1,459 | $194,891 | | **Low Income (50-80% AMI)** | | | | | | | | | 1-Person | $76,750 | $1,919 | $186 | $203 | $672 | $1,733 | $275,321 | | 2-Person | $87,700 | $2,193 | $222 | $243 | $767 | $1,971 | $311,673 | | 3-Person | $98,650 | $2,466 | $274 | $306 | $863 | $2,193 | $341,833 | | 4-Person | $109,600 | $2,740 | $349 | $392 | $959 | $2,392 | $366,062 | | 5-Person | $118,400 | $2,960 | $392 | $463 | $1,036 | $2,569 | $385,037 | | **Median Income (80-100% AMI)** | | | | | | | | | 1-Person | $87,900 | $2,198 | $186 | $203 | $769 | $2,012 | $323,072 | | 2-Person | $100,500 | $2,513 | $222 | $243 | $879 | $2,291 | $366,491 | | 3-Person | $113,050 | $2,826 | $274 | $306 | $989 | $2,553 | $403,502 | | 4-Person | $125,600 | $3,140 | $349 | $392 | $1,099 | $2,792 | $434,584 | | 5-Person | $135,650 | $3,391 | $392 | $463 | $1,187 | $3,000 | $458,912 | | **Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)** | | | | | | | | | 1-Person | $105,500 | $2,638 | $186 | $203 | $923 | $2,452 | $398,445 | | 2-Person | $120,550 | $3,014 | $222 | $243 | $1,055 | $2,792 | $452,356 | | 3-Person | $135,650 | $3,391 | $274 | $306 | $1,187 | $3,118 | $500,288 | | 4-Person | $150,700 | $3,768 | $349 | $392 | $1,319 | $3,419 | $542,077 | | 5-Person | $162,750 | $4,069 | $392 | $463 | $1,424 | $3,677 | $574,970 | Sources: 2021 HCD Income Limits; Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Veronica Tam & Associates, 2021. Assumptions: 1. Income limits are the 2021 HCD limits for Alameda County. 2. *Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.* 3. *Utility costs are based on Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2021.* 4. *Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.* 5. *Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.* 6. *Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.* ### 3.5.6 UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE HOUSING State Housing Element law requires the Housing Element to include an evaluation of the potential for currently deed-restricted affordable rental units to convert to market-rate housing within the next ten years, or from 2023 to 2033. This section includes an inventory of all deed-restricted rental housing in Berkeley, evaluates their potential for market-rate conversion, and presents potential options for preserving at-risk units. *Assisted Housing Inventory* There are over 2,300 deed restricted affordable rental units within the City of Berkeley. A complete listing of properties containing affordable rental units is contained in Appendix A. In compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, all units constructed to fulfill inclusionary requirements are deed restricted to remain affordable in perpetuity and are not at risk of being converted to market-rate housing. Density bonus units are restricted for a term of 55 years. Therefore, projects that have both inclusionary units and density bonus units may have multiple affordability terms. Table 3.28 provides a listing of the publicly assisted rental units at risk of conversion to market rate housing over the next ten years (through 2033). A total of three projects (92 units) are at-risk for potential conversion to market rate units between 2023 and 2033. See also Appendix A Inventory of Publicly-Assisted Housing. All three of the at-risk projects are reliant on project-based subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that are currently renewable on an annual basis and do not have other known restrictions recorded on the property which would prevent conversion to market rate. These vouchers allow the project owner to collect HUD’s Fair Market Rent, restrict occupancy to lower income residents, and assure that the resident will only be responsible for that portion of rent equal to 30 percent of their income. Because these vouchers are contingent on annual appropriations from the federal government, the vouchers must be renewed annually; therefore, the units are constantly “at risk” from possible federal policy changes. Additionally, all three properties are beyond their original affordability expiration date and the owners could decide not to renew their subsidy in any given year. However, over time, data and experience have shown that many owners continue to renew their contracts beyond the original expiration date, providing evidence that the link between affordability expiration date and conversion is not inevitable. This is particularly true for projects owned by mission-based housing nonprofit organizations. All three of these properties are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations and the City has no indication that the owners intend to convert the units to market rate; therefore, the risk of conversion to market-rate units is low. 55 Table 3.28: Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate | Name Address | # Affordable Units | Owner | Program | Affordability Expiration | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Bonita Grove 1910-1912 Hearst St. | 2 | Bonita House Inc. | 202 | Annual Renewal | | Lawrence Moore Manor 1909 Cedar St. | 46 | Satellite Affordable Housing Assoc. | 236(J)(1) / 202 | Annual Renewal | | Stuart Pratt Manor 2020 Durant Ave. | 44 | Satellite Affordable Housing Assoc. | 202 | Annual Renewal | | Total Units | 92 | | | | ### Preservation Options There are a total of 92 units at-risk of converting to market rate within the next ten years. Preservation of at-risk units can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including provision of rental subsidies to tenants, facilitation of the transfer of units to nonprofit organizations or purchase of similar replacement units by nonprofit organizations, purchase of the affordability covenant, and new construction of replacement units. **Rent Subsidy.** One potential option for preservation of at-risk units is to provide rent subsidies to tenants to cover the gap between the affordable rent and market rent. Assuming availability of funding, the City could provide a voucher to very low income households, similar to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The level of subsidy required is estimated to equal the market rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low income household. Table 3.29 estimates the subsidies required to preserve housing affordability for the units within the three at-risk projects. Based on the assumptions utilized, over $2.1 million in rent subsidies would be needed annually, resulting in a need of $43 million in subsidies over a 20-year period. Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units | Affordable Units | Bonita House | L. Moore Manor | S. Pratt Manor | Total All Projects | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Studio | - | 37 | 28 | 65 | | 1-Bedroom | - | 9 | 16 | 25 | | 2-Bedroom | - | - | - | - | | 3-Bedroom | 2 | - | - | 2 | | 4-Bedroom | - | - | - | - | | Total | 2 | 46 | 44 | 92 | | Total Monthly Rent Income based on Affordable Housing Cost of Very Low Income Households | $2,728 | $47,813 | $46,732 | $97,273 | 56 | Total Monthly Market Rent | $7,900 | $137,275 | $132,600 | $277,775 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Total Monthly Subsidies Required | $5,172 | $89,462 | $85,868 | $180,502 | | Total Annual Subsidies Required | $62,064 | $1,073,544 | $1,030,416 | $2,166,024 | | Average Annual Subsidies per Unit | $31,032 | $23,338 | $23,419 | $23,544 | | Average Monthly Subsidies per Unit | $2,586 | $1,945 | $1,952 | $1,962 | *Sources: See Table 3.25 and Table 3.27.* *Note: The following assumptions were used to estimate subsidies:* 1. *Studio units were assumed to be occupied by a 1-person household; 1-bedroom units by a 2-person household; 2-bedroom units by a 3-person household; 3-bedroom units by a 4-person household; 4-bedroom units by a 5-person household* 2. *Affordable monthly rent for a very low income household is based on the 2021 AMI for Alameda County (found in Table 3.27).* 3. *Market Rent is based on median market rent as present in Table 3.25).* **Transfer of Ownership.** Transfer of ownership from a private owner to a nonprofit housing organization is another potential way to preserve at-risk units. However, all of the at-risk units within Berkeley identified in this analysis are already nonprofit owned. **Extension of Affordability Covenant.** In some cases, affordability can be preserved by providing financial incentives to the project owner to maintain the affordability of the project. For example, the City of Berkeley has historically utilized Housing Trust Fund loans to complete rehabilitation work on affordable units. As part of the loan, the City requires the owner to extend the affordability covenant for an additional 55 years, thereby preserving affordability of the units. This mechanism has been utilized to extend affordability in projects such as Lorin Station and Rosewood Manor. **Replacement Costs.** Many factors contribute to the cost of developing new housing, including project location, density, size and number of units, and type of construction. Based on a report completed by Street Level Advisors[^p65-2], the total construction cost for a new affordable housing unit in Berkeley is approximately $700,000. Utilizing this estimate, approximately $64.4 million would be needed to construct new units to replace all the units at-risk during the planning period. **Preservation Cost Comparison and Resources.** Based on past City practice, utilizing Housing Trust Funds for rehabilitation of older affordable housing developments in exchange to an extension of the affordability term is perhaps the most viable preservation option. This approach was utilized to successfully preserve units in Rosewood Manor, a property that was identified as at-risk of conversion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Approximately $43 million would be required to provide rent subsidies for all at-risk units over a 20-year period. However, these buildings would likely need rehabilitation during that time period due to age and operating a rent subsidy program would require significant administrative resources, adding to the total cost. Based on an estimated cost of $700,000 per unit, it would cost over $64 [^p65-2]: City of Berkeley, City Council Report (April 27, 2021 – Item 31), Attachment 1: Street Level Advisors, “Estimating the Need for Housing Subsidy for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations”. million to construct 92 replacement units. However, factors such as labor and materials costs and land costs can fluctuate significantly. There are several nonprofit organizations operating in Berkeley which own and/or manage affordable housing developments. They include Resources for Community Development, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, BRIDGE Housing, Northern California Land Trust, and the John Stewart Company. The John Stewart Company and BRIDGE Housing are based in San Francisco while the other three organizations are based in Berkeley. In the event that the City was contacted by a property owner or received a Notice of Intent for the conversion of affordable units, the City would make contact with these organizations and others that have expressed interest in acquiring affordable rental housing. Potential funding sources that may be used to acquire and/or rehabilitate at-risk housing include: | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Federal** | Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) | | | HOME | | | Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) | | | Low Income Housing Tax Credits | | | Project Based Section 8 | | | Sections 202 and 811 | | **State** | Mental Health Services Act Housing Program | | | Multifamily Housing Program | | **Local** | General Funds | | | Housing Trust Funds | ## 3.6 HOUSING CHALLENGES Factors including household income, market rents and home prices, available unit sizes, and household size can all contribute to cost burden and/or overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the prevalence of overcrowding and cost burden within the City of Berkeley. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is utilized in this section. The CHAS utilizes data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to provide information on housing problems, including cost burden and overcrowding. The most recent data available is derived from the 2013-2017 ACS. ### 3.6.1 HOUSING COST BURDEN A household is considered to have a housing cost burden if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing expenses. Housing expenses include rent or mortgage payments and utilities. For owner households, housing expenses also include taxes and insurance. Households with a cost burden may have trouble making rent, mortgage or utility payments, keeping up with home maintenance, or may have to forego other non-housing related necessities in order to keep up with housing expenses. A household is considered as having a severe cost burden if housing expenses make up over 50 percent of the household’s gross income. As summarized in Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017), 42 percent of all Berkeley households are cost burdened with 23 percent experiencing a severe cost burden. Cost burden is notably more prevalent among renter households, with over half of renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing expenses. When compared to the region, cost burden is more widespread in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. A total of 37 percent of Alameda County households and 36 percent of Bay area households are cost burdened. As expected, cost burden occurs most frequently for households in lower income categories (see Figure 3.20). 76.2 percent of lower income households (13,485 out of 17,705) pay more than 30 percent of their income towards housing, including 78.5 percent of renter-occupied households (11,345 out of 14,455) and 65.5 percent of owner-occupied households (2,130 out of 3,250). 87 percent of extremely low income households pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 77 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. The proportion of households with a cost burden lessens as incomes increase. However, it is a prevalent issue impacting over half of lower income households, and one third of moderate income households. Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) | | Cost Burden (>30% of Income Used for Housing) | | Severe Cost Burden (>50% of Income Used for Housing) | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | # of Households | % of Households | # of Households | % of Households | | Berkeley | | | | | | Owner Occupied | 5,298 | 27% | 2,398 | 12% | | Renter Occupied | 13,794 | 53% | 8,182 | 32% | | All Households | 19,092 | 42% | 10,580 | 23% | | Region | | | | | | Alameda County | 214,197 | 37% | 96,579 | 17% | | Bay Area | 986,937 | 36% | 447,802 | 16% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017) <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)* ### Overcrowding As defined by HCD, overcrowding occurs when there is more than one person per room in a housing unit (including the living and dining rooms, but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding occurs when there is more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding typically occurs when households cannot afford a housing unit that is the appropriate size or when larger units are not available in the market. Households then either rent a unit that is too small or double up with another family in order to afford housing costs, resulting in overcrowding. Families that choose to live with extended family or in multi-generational living arrangements may also struggle to find units that are large enough at an affordable cost, particularly in a city like Berkeley where housing costs are high and there are fewer large units. Overcrowding in less common in Berkeley than in the region. Just four percent of Berkeley households are overcrowded, which includes the UC student population, compared to almost eight percent in Alameda County and seven percent in the Bay area (Table 3.31). As shown in Table 3.32, the proportion of lower income households living in overcrowded conditions is slightly higher than moderate and above moderate income households. Overcrowding impacts six percent of renter households, but just over one percent of owner households. Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) | | Berkeley | | Alameda County | Bay Area | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number of Households | Percent of Households | | | | Total Overcrowded | 1,813 | 4.0% | 7.9% | 6.9% | | 1.0 to 1.5 Occupants/Room | 929 | 2.0% | 5.0% | 4.2% | | >1.5 Occupants/Room | 884 | 1.9% | 2.8% | 2.7% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)* Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017) | | 1.0 to 1.5 Occupants/Room | More than 1.5 Occupants/Room | Total Overcrowded | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **By Income Group** | | | | | 0%-30% of AMI | 3.3% | 3.6% | 6.9% | | 31%-50% of AMI | 4.5% | 1.4% | 5.9% | | 51%-80% of AMI | 1.6% | 1.5% | 3.2% | | 81%-100% of AMI | 0.5% | 1.6% | 2.1% | | Greater than 100% of AMI | 0.8% | 1.2% | 2.0% | | **By Tenure** | | | | | Owner Occupied | 0.9% | 0.4% | 1.3% | | Renter Occupied | 2.9% | 3.1% | 6.0% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)* # 4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS This section of the Housing Element analyzes potential constraints to housing production in the City of Berkeley. State Housing Element Law requires the Housing Element to analyze two categories of potential constraints: governmental and non-governmental. * **Governmental constraints.** May include factors such as local land use policies and zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and development and impact fees. * **Non-governmental constraints.** May include construction and land costs, financing availability, physical constraints, and availability of infrastructure. If constraints are identified, the City must take action or implement programs to remove or address them. As discussed in further detail below, the City strives to minimize constraints to development and implements numerous programs, policies, and procedures to address identified constraints. ## 4.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Planning policies and zoning regulations establish rules for how land may be developed, including the uses allowed and the intensity of development. Although local ordinances and policies are typically adopted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community’s residents, they may also result in constraints to the development of housing. Permit requirements, fees, and review procedures can also impact the cost, timeline, and approval certainty for residential development. This section discusses potential governmental constraints to housing development that may result from Berkeley’s policies, procedures, and regulations. ### 4.1.1 GENERAL PLAN The City of Berkeley last completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2001. The Land Use Element of the General Plan guides the physical development of the City in conjunction with other Elements, including the Transportation Element, Urban Design and Preservation Element, and the Housing Element. A number of the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element support the production and ongoing maintenance of housing within the City. Specifically, the Land Use Element aims to increase the supply of affordable housing, encourage mixed-use development downtown and along commercial corridors, and increase resilience to natural disasters. The Land Use Element assigns land use classifications to areas throughout the City. Classifications describe the range of land uses and intensities allowed within an area. It is important to note that these intensity guidelines are not used as standards to determine intensity on a specific parcel, providing more flexibility in analysis of individual projects. In the commercial and mixed-use designations, intensity is expressed in terms of floor area ratio (FAR) rather than dwelling units per acre, providing additional flexibility. Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations lists the general plan land use designations which allow for residential development, along with the range of building intensity. Berkeley has four residential land use designations in which residential development is the primary intended use. Residential development is also allowed within three of Berkeley’s commercial designations (Neighborhood Commercial, Avenue Commercial, and Downtown). The Mixed Use – Residential designation is intended to preserve areas of the City for light industrial uses while allowing for residential development where appropriate. Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations | General Plan Land Use Designation | Density (units/acre) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) | | :--- | :--- | | Low Density Residential | 1-10 du/ac | | Low Medium Density Residential | 10-20 du/ac | | Medium Density Residential | 20 -40 du/ac | | High Density Residential | 40-100 du/ac | | Neighborhood Commercial | FAR: <1 - 3 | | Avenue Commercial | FAR: <1 - 4 | | Downtown | FAR: <1 - 6 | | Mixed Use – Residential | FAR: 1 - 1.5 | *Note: These density and FAR guidelines are not used as standards to determine development intensity on a specific parcel.* *Source: City of Berkeley, General Plan Land Use Element, 2001.* Berkeley’s General Plan is not a governmental constraint to the development of housing. Residential development is encouraged through both the stated policies and objectives of the Land Use Element as well as the City’s land use designations and associated development intensities. The City has approved several projects with a density of over 200 dwelling units per acre in recent years, which is further evidence that the policies of the General Plan do not constrain development. ### 4.1.2 ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool by which the City implements the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City is currently completing a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision Project. Phase 1 of the Project included amendments to improve the overall organization, formatting, and style of the Zoning Ordinance to make it more user friendly, clarify existing requirements, and lay the foundation for future substantive revisions. The changes included in Phase 1 became effective on December 1, 2021. Phase 2 of the Project is in progress and includes incremental updates to the City’s processes and procedures. The City is also in the process of developing objective standards for multi- unit development (see next subsection for additional details). Unless otherwise noted, this section discusses the Zoning Ordinance as currently adopted without the planned amendments. Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance provides for a diverse array of housing types, from single-family dwellings that are regulated by typical zoning standards to multiple-family buildings constructed at high densities along the City’s commercial corridors. *Density and Development Standards* Nearly all of Berkeley’s zoning districts allow residential development. The only districts that do not allow residential-only or mixed-use are the MU-LI, M, and MM zones located in West Berkeley that are developed with and planned for manufacturing uses. The majority of opportunities for residential development are within areas zoned for multi-family and mixed-use, and development of new single-family residences is not common, though it is allowed in most districts. A summary of the City’s development standards for residential and mixed-use projects are included in Appendix B of the Housing Element. For most zoning districts, residential development standards, such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. are similar to standards in other nearby cities. Density is a key factor in identifying potential constraints to development. In addition to development being limited by maximum density requirements, other development standards can have the effect of preventing projects from being built at the maximum allowable density. However, in Berkeley the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance have not had this effect. The Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit-per-acre density standards. Other development standards related to setbacks, lot coverage, and open space have not limited high density development within the City. Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 include a sampling of the densities for multi-family and mixed-use projects with ten or more units which have been entitled since 2015. As shown, the average density for multi-family projects is over 160 units per acre and over 200 units per acre for mixed-use projects, and density bonuses are common. A more detailed density analysis by zone is also included in Appendix C: Sites Inventory. Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 | Address | Zone | Number of Units | Density (DU/A) | Density Bonus | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3031 Telegraph | C-1 | 110 | 152 | 35% | | 1950 Addison | C-DMU | 107 | 228 | 20% | | 2012 Berkeley | C-DMU | 142 | 175 | 35% | | 2028 Bancroft | C-DMU | 37 | 223 | 23% | | 2711 Shattuck | C-SA | 22 | 169 | - | | 2542 Durant | C-T | 32 | 150 | - | | 2597 Telegraph | C-T/R-2 | 14 | 53 | 35% | | 2000 Dwight | R-4 | 113 | 173 | 20% | | Average Density | | | 165 | | *Source: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Division, 2022* Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 | Address | Zone | # Units | Density (DU/A) | Density Bonus | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1717 University | C-1/R-2A | 28 | 144 | 35% | | 2124-2126 Bancroft/2121-2123 Durant | C-DMU | 50 | 212 | 25% | | 2072 Addison | C-DMU | 66 | 281 | - | | 2009 Addison St | C-DMU | 45 | 188 | - | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1951 Shattuck | C-DMU | 156 | 390 | - | | 2352 Shattuck | C-DMU | 204 | 189 | 25/35% | | 2176 Kittredge | C-DMU | 165 | 165 | - | | 2210 Harold | C-DMU | 38 | 279 | - | | 2000 University | C-DMU | 82 | 571 | 35% | | 2099 M L K Jr. | C-DMU Buffer | 72 | 257 | 35% | | 2023 Shattuck | C-DMU Core | 48 | 600 | 35% | | 2001 Ashby | C-SA | 87 | 144 | 35% | | 3000 Shattuck | C-SA | 23 | 74 | - | | 2628 Shattuck | C-SA | 78 | 208 | - | | 2701 Shattuck | C-SA | 57 | 210 | 35% | | 2510 Channing | C-T | 40 | 179 | - | | 2556 Telegraph | C-T | 24 | 98 | - | | 2501 Haste | C-T | 55 | 128 | - | | 2580 Bancroft | C-T | 122 | 183 | 35% | | 2590 Bancroft | C-T | 87 | 289 | 35% | | 1740 San Pablo | C-W | 51 | 163 | 35% | | 2100 San Pablo | C-W | 96 | 157 | - | | 2198 San Pablo | C-W | 60 | 289 | 35% | | 3000 San Pablo | C-W | 78 | 243 | 35% | | 2720 San Pablo | C-W | 25 | 114 | 35% | | 1200 San Pablo | C-W | 104 | 182 | 35% | | 739 Channing | MU-LI/M-UR | 14 | 37 | - | | 1601 Oxford | R-3 | 37 | 114 | 35% | | 2539 Telegraph | R-3/C-T | 70 | 183 | 35% | | Average Density | | | 216 | | *Source: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Division, 2022* ### Parking The City has taken significant steps to reduce constraints to development related to parking requirements in recent years. As of 2021, in the majority of the City no parking is required for new residential development of any number of units. In addition, new residential projects with two or more dwelling units on a parcel have an off-street parking maximum if located within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop, or along a transit corridor with service at 15-minute headways during peak periods. Developments on roadways narrower than 26 feet within the Hillside Overlay have minimal requirements due to the physical constraints of this area. Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses | Land Use | Required Off-Street Parking | | :--- | :--- | | Residential Districts | | | Dwellings, including Group Living Accommodations | None required.
Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26' wide in the Hillside Overlay:
-R-3, R-4, and R-5 (1-9 units): 1 space/unit
-R-3, R-4, and R-5 (10+ units): 1 space/1,000 SF of gross floor area
-All other Districts: 1 space/unit | | Dormitories, Fraternity/Sorority Housing, Rooming & Boarding Houses, Senior Congregate Housing | None required.
Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26' wide in the Hillside Overlay: 1 space/5 residents plus 1 space for manager | | Commercial Districts | | | Dwellings, including Group Living Accommodations | None required. Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26' wide in the Hillside Overlay: 1 space/unit | | Hotel, Residential | None required | | Mixed-Use (residential use only) | None required | | Senior Congregate Housing | None required | | Live/Work | If workers/clients are permitted in work area, 1 per first 1,000 sq. ft. of work area and 1 per each additional 750 sq. ft. of work area | | Manufacturing Districts | | | Dwellings/Group Living Accommodations | None required | | Live/Work | MU-LI: 1 space/1,000 SF of work area where clients are permitted
MU-R: 1 space/first 1,000 SF of work area where clients are permitted plus 1 space/each additional 750 sq. ft. of work area | *Source: BMC Section 23.322.030* In order to encourage the most efficient use of space and promote transit use, the City has implemented maximum parking requirements for projects located within one quarter mile of a major transit stop or along a transit corridor with 15-minute headways during peak periods may not develop off-street parking at a rate higher than 0.5 spaces per unit. ### Demolition Controls Chapter 23.326 of the Zoning Ordinance codifies the city's Demolition Ordinance, which regulates the demolition of dwelling units in Berkeley. Demolition of dwelling units is subject to the use permit process and is reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Single dwelling units may be demolished so long as they were not removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years and there was no illegal tenant eviction. To demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 with two or more dwelling units (i.e. subject to local rent control), one of the following findings is required: * The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair. * The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units. * The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community. * The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units. Multi-unit buildings are also restricted where a building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years or “there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.” Applicants for multi-unit buildings are also required to provide relocation benefits, including moving expenses and differential rent payments. In addition, displaced tenants are provided a right of first refusal to rent new units. To mitigate the impact of the loss of housing caused by the demolition, the applicant is required to either provide permanent below market rent replacement units or pay an in-lieu fee. The City is reviewing the demolition ordinance to ensure compliance with State density bonus, SB 330, and other laws, and will amend the fee and replacement requirements accordingly. While the in lieu fee and unit requirements may add to the cost of development for projects which include demolition of existing units, they play an important role in preserving existing housing in the City, which tends to be more affordable than new. ### Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Inclusionary housing was originally adopted as City policy as part of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in 1973. The inclusionary housing requirements (“Inclusionary Ordinance”) originally took effect in February 1987 and have been revised in response to market conditions and various court decisions since that time. The current Inclusionary Ordinance is codified in Chapter 23.328 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City’s inclusionary requirements apply to rental and ownership projects that have a total of five or more units, though the requirements apply differently for each type. Applicants may choose to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing units on-site. The in-lieu fee amount for rental projects is set by Council resolution and in 2021 was $39,746 per unit if paid at issuance of certificate of occupancy or $36,746 if paid at building permit issuance (fees are also subject to an annual adjustment based on the California Construction Code Index). For rental projects, an affordable housing mitigation fee is applied; however, projects can incorporate affordable units as an alternative to paying the mitigation fee. Fees collected through the inclusionary program are deposited in the Housing Trust Fund to be utilized for affordable housing development. New commercial developments are also required to pay an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, which is deposited into the Housing Trust Fund. Although inclusionary requirements do increase the cost of market rate development, they are a key component in the City’s efforts to increase the affordable housing supply in Berkeley. As of December 2021, there are a total of 530 affordable units within market rate developments as a result of this program. Additionally, a total of 1,376 affordable units have been developed with the assistance of Housing Trust Fund monies. Further, the continued level of residential development activity in the City, as evidenced by the projects listed in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, indicates that the inclusionary program does not unduly constrain market rate development. However, the City’s various affordable housing requirements are complex and codified in multiple sections of the Municipal Code and numerous resolutions implement fee amounts and other aspects of the programs. In addition, in 2018, the California legislature passed AB 1505, effectively overturning the Palmer decision (2009) and allows for cities to combine rental and ownership requirements under a single inclusionary housing ordinance. In an effort to update and consolidate the requirements, as well as ensure that they align with State law and City priorities, the City is in the process of considering potential amendments. The City’s overarching goals for updating affordable housing requirements are: 1. Center racial and economic equity by reversing exclusionary zoning 2. Encourage a mix of units and fees 3. Continue Berkeley’s legacy of value capture 4. Continue progress on housing goals 5. Work within the City’s existing administrative capacity Proposed amendments include: consolidating all affordable housing requirements into one Chapter, including inclusionary requirements for ownership, rental, live/work, and group living accommodations; establishing a per square foot in-lieu fee rather than the existing per unit basis and standardizing owner and rental fees; requirements to incentivize units for very low-income households; adding land dedication as a potential alternative to providing on-site units; providing an option to provide family-sized units; removing the exemption for most group living accommodations; reducing fees for small projects; and other administrative changes to facilitate program implementation. Residential units that are constructed to qualify for a density bonus under Government Code §65915 that otherwise meets the City’s proposed requirements for an “Affordable Unit” may also be counted towards the City’s inclusionary requirement. These amendments are anticipated to be completed in June 2023 (see Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements). ### Landmarks Preservation Ordinance The City first adopted a Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) in 1974. The LPO establishes the duties of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPO gives the LPC authority to make landmark, structure of merit, and historic district designations, subject to appeal to the City Council. The LPC also reviews permit applications for alteration, construction, or demolition of landmarks, structures or merit, and structures in historic districts, also subject to Council appeal. Proposals for designation can be initiated by petition application or motion of the LPC itself, or by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Civic Arts Commission. Petition applications must be accompanied by the signatures of at least 50 Berkeley residents. From the time a site is initiated, the LPC has 70 days to open the public hearing and 180 days to act after the public hearing is closed. BMC Section 3.24.110 contains the criteria for site designation, which is briefly summarized below. | Landmarks and Historic Districts | Architectural merit | | :--- | :--- | | | Cultural value | | | Educational value | | | Historic value | | **Structures of Merit (SOM)** | Contemporary of, or compatible with, related City Landmark | | | Exemplar of design | | | Historical Significance | Once a site is designated as a landmark or structure of merit, or as part of historic district, alterations to the exterior of the building are subject to design review by the LPC. The provisions of the designation, such as the character-defining features of the structure, are specified in the designation action by the LPC. In cases where the site subject to initiation is also a site with a pending application for a development project, the landmark review may stay consideration of the development project review process. This could prevent the City from reviewing a project within an expedited timeframe. However, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental review for cultural resources occurs whether a site is locally designated or not. In order to mitigate the uncertainty and delay that may result from the initiation of a site for local designation, the Berkeley Planning Department uses the following procedures to identify potential historic resources early in the project review process: * Requires applicants for development to provide a cultural resources analysis for proposals that include substantial changes to structures that are more than 40 years old, consistent with the standard practices of the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office. * All applications to demolish a structure located in a non-residential district that is more than 40 years old are referred to the LPC for comment prior to consideration of the permit to demolish, in accordance with the Berkeley Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance. * For sites subject to initiation, staff make every effort to facilitate the designation review process as efficiently as possible. * Starting in 2007, the City staffed the LPC with a professional historic preservation planner. The planner provides the Commission with detailed recommendations on historic resource initiations and review of structural alteration permits. For SB 330 preliminary applications, the City receives the project application and confirms the current local register status of the project site. If the proposal requires an LPC demolition referral per BMC 23.326.070, then the referral occurs and any local designation that may result cannot also result in conditions of approval that require preservation of the resource (notwithstanding the designation). ### Density Bonus State density bonus provisions have changed both frequently and significantly in recent years in order to further incentivize the use of this affordable housing tool. AB 1763 (2019) expanded the maximum density bonus and other provisions for projects with 100 percent affordable units, including: * Up to 20 percent of the total units in an affordable project can be for moderate income households * Density bonus of up to 80 percent required; however, no limitations on density are permitted for projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop * Height increase of up to three additional stories or 35 feet Additionally, AB 2345 (effective 2021) increased the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent for projects that are not composed exclusively of affordable units. Berkeley’s density bonus provisions are contained in Chapter 23.330 of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance was last substantively revised in 2019 and consistently references State law for specifics related to density bonus, incentives and concessions, and processes and procedures. In this way, the ordinance has remained compliant with changes to State law without necessitating repeated amendments. As evidenced by Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021and Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021, density bonus is a commonly used tool in Berkeley residential development with over half of larger projects receiving a density bonus. ### Developing at Assumed Densities In summary, the City of Berkeley’s land use controls do not present a barrier to residential development. As mentioned previously, the Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit-per-acre density standards and use permits are commonly granted to exceed development standard limits. As illustrated by Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 and by the Likely and Pipeline sites listed in Appendix C, Tables C-3 and C-6, Berkeley’s development standards do not appear to constrain residential development. It is also important to note that the City has a 20 percent inclusionary requirement, and correspondingly, over 55 percent of applications under review and over 85 percent of anticipated pipeline (pre-application) projects currently utilize State Density Bonus and are afforded waivers and concessions to development standards. While the City demonstrates a successful, and increasing, trend of residential projects constructed at or above maximum permitted development envelopes, Appendix C Sites Inventory conservatively assumes that opportunity sites will develop at the average baseline density (subtracting density bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, and completed mixed-use and residential projects. In order to demonstrate that the existing zoning standards do not constrain development at the assumed average baseline density for zones where lower and moderate income sites are represented, nine prototype projects are described below. The calculated densities for each of the nine prototype projects meet or exceed the assumed densities in the sites inventory. The calculated densities are derived from unit capacity assumptions based on minimum lot size (0.35 acres), average 900 gross square foot unit size, net lot coverage, and either number of stories or floor area ratio, whichever is more constraining. Averages are used where there is a range within the districts. | | Prototype Site Development Projects | | :--- | :--- | | 1. Mid-Density Residential (R-2, R-2A, R-3) | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Lowest Maximum Coverage (%) | 30% | | Maximum Height (ft) | 35 | | Maximum Stories | 3 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 13,725 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 15 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *44* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *40* | | 2. Mid-High Density Residential (R-4) | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Lowest Maximum Coverage (%) | 35% | | Maximum Height (ft) | 65 | | Maximum Stories | 6 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 32,025 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 36 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *102* | | Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) | 75 | | :--- | :--- | | **3. High Density Residential (R-S, R-SMU)** | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | 0 to 10 | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 4 to 19 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 60% | | Maximum Height (ft) | 45 | | Maximum Stories | 4 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 36,600 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 41 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *116* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *75* | | **4. Neighborhood Commercial (C-NS)** | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | 0 to 10 | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 0 to 16 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 50% | | Maximum Height (ft) | 35 | | Maximum Stories | 3 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 22,875 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 25 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *73* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *50* | | **5. Corridor Commercial (C-C, C-DMU Corridor/Buffer, C-T, C-U, C-W)** | | | | | | :--- | :--- | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | 0 to 10 | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 0 to 15 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 80% | | Maximum Height range (ft) | 35 to 75 | | Average Maximum Height (ft) | 55 | | Average Maximum Stories | 5 | | Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 61,000 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 68 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *194* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *160* | | 6. South Area Commercial (C-SA) | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | 4 to 15 | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 6 to 15 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 75% | | Maximum Height range (ft) | 36 to 60 | | Average Maximum Height (ft) | 48 | | Average Maximum Stories | 4.5 | | Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 51,469 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 57 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *163* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *160* | | 7. Adeline Corridor (C-AC) | | | | | | :--- | :--- | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | No min | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | No min | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 100% | | Maximum Height range (ft) | 35 to 90 | | Average Maximum Height (ft) | 63 | | Average Maximum Stories | 6 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio range | 2.0 to 5.5 | | Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio | 4.0 | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * FAR * stories) | 61,000 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 68 | | Calculated Density (units/acre) | 194 | | Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) | 160 | | **8. Downtown Outer Core (C-DMU Outer Core)** | | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | No min | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 5 to 15 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 75% | | Maximum Height range (ft) | 75 to 120 | | Average Maximum Height (ft) | 98 | | Average Maximum Stories | 9 | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 102,938 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 114 | | Calculated Density (units/acre) | 327 | | Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) | 160 | | 9. Downtown Core (C-DMU Core) | | | :--- | :--- | | Lot Size (sf) | 15,250 | | Lot Size (ac) | 0.35 | | Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) | No min | | Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) | 5 to 15 | | Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks | 75% | | Maximum Height range (ft) | 75 to 180 | | Average Maximum Height (ft) | 128 | | Average Maximum Stories | 10 | | Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio | No max | | Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) | 114,375 | | Average Unit Size (sf) | 900 | | Total Units | 127 | | *Calculated Density (units/acre)* | *363* | | *Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre)* | *160* | To further demonstrate that the City’s current land controls do not constraint development, the City retained Street Level Advisors to perform a static pro forma analysis of the current housing development environment[^p83-3] as part of the effort to update the affordable housing requirements (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements). The analysis included existing and proposed inclusionary fees, paired with existing development controls, to estimate the return on investment generated by prototypical rental and for-sale housing development in Berkeley. The February 2022 study found both base and density bonus projects to be feasible, particularly given no maximum density standard, no minimum parking requirement, the ability to pay partial in-lieu fees, and—for density bonus projects—waivers to the height standard. This allows developers to respond to rising construction costs with smaller units (higher density), no or minimal parking spaces, and additional heights on smaller lots. The City is committed to ensuring a realistic development environment by conducting a follow-up development feasibility study by December 2025 (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) and anticipates making several zoning amendments to facilitate additional residential development in Berkeley, even though the existing zoning standards can accommodate the City’s sixth cycle RHNA. Commonly requested waivers and/or concessions include height and setbacks. As a result, the City is in the process of creating multi-unit objective development standards, [^p83-3]: The February 2022 Financial Feasibility Analysis performed by Street Level Advisors used revenue and cost assumptions based on prior studies of prototypical residential development in Berkeley, comparable projects, and other market research. which would include standards to increase development potential, including but not limited to, increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the calculation and configuration of open space, particularly along transit corridors and in the highest resource neighborhoods (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential and Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors). The City is working with BART to comply with AB 2923 and has adopted new zoning standards for a mixed-use district to facilitate residential development at North Berkeley and Ashby BART. The new zoning will primarily permit housing and includes new standards for height, floor area ratio, and minimum density (Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning). Development of objective standards for “missing middle” housing in the lower density residential zones is also in progress and anticipated to be completed by in 2023 (Program 29 -Middle Housing). As part of these amendments, the City is also considering allowing this type of development by-right. ### 4.1.3 PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES Local permit processing procedures have the potential to constrain development by lengthening the time it takes to gain project approval as well as impacting project approval certainty. Currently, the majority of new residential development in the City requires discretionary review through the use permit process. Multiple required use permits for a single project are processed concurrently. The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) was adopted in 1973. The NPO established the requirement for most new residential construction to obtain a use permit, as well as required the “non-detriment” finding for approval (see use permit discussion below). That said, the NPO has been superseded in part by subsequent adoption of the master plan and zoning updates mandated by the initiative, both of which can now be amended by ordinance. Table 4.5 provides the processing times for the permit types required for various residential developments. All projects are reviewed for completeness at the staff level within 30 days of initial paid invoice, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Any subsequent resubmittals are also reviewed for completeness within 30 days. Processing times may vary based on the size and complexity of a project, the required CEQA pathway, the extent of required revisions and the applicant’s responsiveness, and the length of time for an applicant to resubmit. Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times | Permit Type | Processing Time | Reviewing Body | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Zoning Certificate | Over the Counter | Zoning Officer | | Administrative Use Permit | 2 to 8 months | Zoning Officer | | Use Permit | 6 to 24 months | Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) | | Variance | Rarely approved | Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) | | Design Review - Staff Level | 2 months | Zoning Officer | | Design Review - Design Review Committee | 6 months | Design Review Committee (DRC) | | Zoning Ordinance / General Plan Amendments | 12 to 24 months | City Council | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Tentative Parcel/Tract Map | 3 to 6 months | City Manager/Planning Commission | *Source: City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department, 2022* As shown in Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone and Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone, both single-family and multi-family developments generally require use permit approval in Berkeley. However, due to the greater level of complexity, multifamily projects usually require a lengthier processing time (9 to 24 months) when compared to a single-family residence (6 to 12 months). Consistent with SB 330, eligible housing development projects that require discretionary review and comply with applicable general plan and zoning standards are subject only to the development standards and fees that are in effect when the SB 330 Preliminary Application is submitted. Housing development projects include the following uses: residential-only, mixed-use where at least two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing. The City is in the process of creating objective development standards for multifamily developments (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential). These amendments are anticipated to be adopted in within the first three years of the 6th Housing Element cycle (2023-2025) and will streamline project review by providing clear, predictable expectations for buildable envelope and floor area. A by-right approval process is also being considered for smaller “middle housing” residential projects in single- and lower-density residential districts, which would further shorten permit processing times (Program 29 -Middle Housing). ### Zoning Certificate Zoning certificates confirm that a use or structure complies with the Zoning Ordinance objective standards, and establish a record of the initial establishment of a use or structure. Zoning certificates are reviewed and approved ministerially by staff, so the processing time for approval is minimal. The zoning certificate process is utilized for ADU applications, as well as community care facilities, emergency shelters, and live/work units under certain circumstances. For ADUs, a zoning certificate is approved as part of the building permit review workflow. ### Use Permit / Administrative Use Permit Use permits and administrative use permits (AUPs) are discretionary permits intended to ensure that proposed developments do not adversely impact neighboring properties or the general public. Administrative use permits are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Officer and do not require a public hearing. Use permits require a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Board. The required findings for approval are the same for use permits and administrative use permits, which are that the proposed project or use: 1. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or visiting in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use; and 2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. Due to the public hearing requirement, the discretionary process creates the potential for projects to be scrutinized for their impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The process also increases the overall project review time, particularly if multiple public hearings are necessary. That said, since the passage of SB 330 (2019), the City has processed all eligible housing development projects (e.g. residential or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square-footage residential; or transitional or supportive housing) under the five public hearing and meeting limits of Gov. Code §65905.5(a), regardless of whether an SB 330 pre-application has been filed for the eligible project. Additionally, in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), all proposed applications are reviewed for compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards (Gov. Code §65589.5(j)). The City does not deny permits, nor reduce project density, based on subjective findings. The City may only deny the project or approve it with a reduced density if the decision is based on written findings supported by substantial evidence that: 1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. To date, the City has not denied a project or reduced its density under HAA. In addition, the City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential) as well as amending permit processes (Program 34 -Permit Processing) which will reduce entitlement and permit processing timelines and increase certainty for applicants. ### CEQA Determinations For CEQA determinations, the City reviews all applications according to the procedures in the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.030.E, which is consistent with Public Resource Code sections 21080.1 and 21080.2. Once an application is deemed complete, staff recommends the appropriate level of environmental review within 30 days. For complete projects that are categorically exempt from CEQA, staff indicate the exemption recommendation in the 30-day completeness letter. For projects that are *not* categorically exempt from CEQA or if the impacts of the project are not known, or if any anticipated significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to “less-than significant,” an initial study will be prepared. The Zoning Officer (for AUPs) or the Zoning Adjustments Board (for UPs) make the final determination of whether a project has a significant effect on the environment. When a project is exempt from CEQA, the review authority makes the required findings for CEQA exemptions which results in the determination, and approves or disapproves the project at the same meeting, complying with the Permit Streamlining Act’s timeline in Gov. Code Section 65950(a)(5). Information about the status of project applications, particularly once an application has been deemed complete, has often not been readily available to the public including the determination that a CEQA exemption is recommended to the decision-making body. Therefore, changes in the City’s permit processing with regard to the availability of information about pending project applications have been added to Program 34 - Permit Processing. In response to concerns that the permit process was a constraint, the Planning Department hired Zucker Systems in order to improve customer service to the Berkeley community. The final report was issued in May 2017. As described below, the City has taken many steps to improve the development review process with the specific intent to provide more direction and certainty to applicants. To provide greater responsiveness to customers and applicants, the City implemented the following changes: * **Timely Communication.** Return all phone calls and emails within 24/48 hours. * **Plan Check Backlog.** Work to reduce plan check backlog, then set reliable baselines. * **Minor Plans Reviews.** Assign to Permit Service Center (PSC) Plans Examiner to provide faster review for clients with simple projects. * **AUP Timelines.** Using Accela permit software, reduce AUP process timelines and allows for ongoing monitoring and reporting of performance. * **Customer Handouts.** Update all handouts to be more clear and germane, and make them easily available. Provide customers with clear and accessible resources to learn about specific building permit application requirements for themselves. * **Minimum Application Checklists.** Provide customers with clear understanding of what applications must include, so they can submit without undue time spent or unnecessary visits to the PSC. An applicant can request and pay for expedited processing of a Use Permit. By outsourcing some of the project review work, this allows staff resources to be re-allocated fairly among all projects, meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, and also provide an opportunity for faster review. ### Design Review Design review ensures that exterior changes to mixed-use and non-residential buildings largely comply with the City of Berkeley Design Guidelines, which are intentionally generalized, with projects not expected to respond to every guideline. Design reviews are limited in scope to issues of building and site design only (e.g. placement on lot and landscaping, not developable building envelope) and conducted concurrently with land use review processes. Design review is required for: * Projects in all non-residential zones; * Mixed use and community and institutional projects in the R-3 district within the Southside Plan area; and * Commercial, mixed-use, and community and institutional projects in the R-4, R-SMU, and R-S districts (BMC Section 23.406.070). Redesign of the interface between a new building and the adjacent neighbors can mitigate land use conflicts inherent in the transition between medium-density residential neighborhoods and high-density mixed-use buildings. For this reason, design review is important in an urban city that encourages citizen participation, as well as excellence in building and site design. *Staff level review.* For projects requiring a Zoning Certificate or an AUP, the Zoning Officer may add conditions of approval related to project design, and projects are reviewed for conformance with the conditions during issuance of the building permit. Staff level review must be completed within 60 days of the date the application is deemed complete (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)). *Design Review Committee.* For projects requiring ZAB approval, design review is conducted by the Design Review Committee (DRC), which is an advisory subcommittee of the ZAB and not an approval body. In this case, a preliminary design review is held prior to the ZAB making a decision on the Use Permit and is typically completed within the time frame of Use Permit preparation and review processes. Design review must be completed within 60 days of submittal of complete final Design Review plans or within the time limit required by the Permit Streamlining Act, whichever is less (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)). Under recent legislation, the City limits the total number of public hearings and meetings to five, which include DRC meetings, so the City has further streamlined the project review process and closely coordinates the various review bodies, making sure that there is one hearing reserved for possible appeal to the City Council. As mentioned in previous sections, the City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential) as well as amending permit processes (Program 34 -Permit Processing). *State Streamlining* Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of Berkeley has made insufficient progress toward its very low and low income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings. Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days. Since 2018, four projects have been approved through SB 35 ministerial approval. In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low-Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower income households on-site. As shown in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, AB 1397 streamlined review will be applied to 13 opportunity sites with an estimated capacity of 1,215 lower income units, primarily located along Berkeley’s commercial corridors adjacent in transit-rich locations. ### 4.1.4 PROVISION FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES State Housing Element Law requires local jurisdictions to identify adequate available sites through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the population as well as housing types that serve special needs groups such as persons with disabilities, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness. The City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide variety of residential uses in its residential zones as well as its commercial zones. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 summarize the permit requirements for various residential uses in each zone. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a discretionary use permit for the majority of residential development in Berkeley. The use permit process is discussed in further detail in the Permit Processing section of this Chapter. The remainder of this section includes further discussion on various housing types, their permit requirements, and any other specific standards that apply to them. Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone | Housing Type | R-1 | R-1A | ES-R | R-2 | R-2A | R-3 | R-4 | R-5/R-S/ R-SMU | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Single-family Detached | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | | Duplex | NP | UP | NP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | | Multi-family | NP | NP | NP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | | Accessory Dwelling Units¹ | ZC | ZC | NP | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | | Community Care Facilities⁶ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP⁴ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP³ | ZC/UP³ | | Emergency Shelters | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | ZC/UP⁵ | ZC/UP⁵ | | Senior Congregate Housing | NP | NP | NP | NP | ZC/AUP/ UP² | ZC/AUP/ UP² | ZC/AUP/ UP² | ZC/AUP/ UP² | | Mixed-Use Projects | NP | NP | NP | UP | UP | UP | UP | UP | | Group Living Accommodations | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | UP | UP | UP | ZC=Zoning Certificate, AUP=Admin. Use Permit, UP=Use Permit, NP=Not Permitted Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022. Notes: 1. Provided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306. 2. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H). 3. ZC required for change of use; UP required for new construction. 4. ZC required for change of use from a legally established single family dwelling; maximum of 6 residents. All others prohibited. 5. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020. 6. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing. Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone | Housing Type | C-C/C-N/ C-E/C-NS/ C-T/C-SO/ C-AC/C-DMU | C-U | C-SA | C-W | MU-LI | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Single-family Detached | UP | UP¹ | UP | UP | NP | UP² | | Duplex | UP | UP¹ | UP | UP | NP | UP² | | Multi-family | UP | UP¹ | UP | UP | NP | AUP/ UP²,³ | | Accessory Dwelling Units⁴ | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | NP | ZC | | Community Care Facilities⁵ | AUP | AUP | AUP | ZC | NP | ZC⁶ | | Emergency Shelters | ZC/UP⁷ | ZC/UP⁷ | ZC/UP⁷ | ZC/UP⁷ | NP | NP | | Single Room Occupancy Units | UP | UP¹ | UP | UP | NP | NP | | Senior Congregate Housing | ZC/AUP/ UP⁸ | ZC/AUP/ UP⁸ | ZC/AUP/ UP⁸ | ZC/AUP/ UP⁸ | NP | ZC/AUP/ UP⁸ | | Live/Work Units | ZC | ZC | UP | AUP/UP⁹ | AUP/UP¹⁰ | AUP/UP¹⁰ | | Mixed-Use Projects | UP | UP¹ | ZC/UP¹¹ | ZC/AUP/ UP¹² | NP | AUP/ UP²,³ | | Group Living Accommodation | UP | UP¹ | UP | UP | NP | UP² | | ZC=Zoning Certificate, AUP=Admin. Use Permit, UP=Use Permit, NP=Not Permitted | | | | | | | Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022. Notes: 1. Residential uses must be part of a mixed-use development within University Avenue Node Areas; outside of Node Areas exclusively residential projects are permitted with a use permit. 2. UP required within 150’ of M or MM district or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.8. 3. AUP required for 3-4 units; UP required for 5 or more units. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.7. For mixed use projects see also Section 23.206.090.B.9. 4. Provided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306. 5. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing. 6. Change of use only. New construction of a community care facility is not permitted. 7. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020. 8. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H. 9. AUP required when project has 9 or fewer live/work units and does not involved conversion of an existing dwelling unit. All other live/work projects require a use permit. See BMC Section 23.312.030.C.3. 10. Permit required dependent on floor area, number of units, and other factors. See BMC Section 23.312.030.D. 11. ZC required for projects under 5,000 square feet in gross floor area with only residential above ground floor, provided the project complies with applicable standards. Use permit required for all other mixed-use projects. See BMC Section 23.204.100.B.4. 12. Permit required dependent on project size and other factors. See BMC Section 23.204.140.B.2. ### Single Family Housing As defined by the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance, a single-family dwelling is a building designed for and occupied exclusively by one household. Detached single family housing is permitted with approval of a use permit in all residential zones and all commercial zones within the City. Mobile homes or manufactured homes, as defined in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and consistent with State law, are considered dwelling units if they are mounted on a permanent foundation and connected to all utilities. Therefore, mobiles homes intended for single family occupancy are subject to the same permit requirements and development standards as conventional single-family housing. ### Multi-Family Housing Multi-family housing developments of three or more units are permitted with a use permit in Berkeley’s multi-family residential zones (R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU) and all commercial zones. In the MU-R zone, smaller multi-family projects of three to four units are permitted with an administrative use permit provided they are not within 150 feet of the M or MM zones or a manufacturing use. Multi-family projects with five or more units in the MU-R zone or those not meeting the distance requirements described require use permit approval. The Zoning Ordinance also allows duplexes with use permit approval in all zones where larger multi-family projects are permitted. Additionally, duplexes are permitted with a use permit in the R-1A zone. The City is actively working on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow for by-right development of “missing middle” multi-unit residential projects in the lower density residential zones to encourage a mix of unit types and affordability in the lower density zones (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R). See Program 29 -Middle Housing. ### Mixed-Use Development The Zoning Ordinance defines mixed-use residential as “a development project with both residential and non-residential uses which are either 1) located together in a single building; or 2) in separate buildings on a single site of one or more contiguous properties.” Mixed-use residential developments are permitted with a use permit in all zones that allow multi-family residential uses (R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU). A use permit is also required for mixed-use development within the majority of the City’s commercial zones. However, in the C-SA zone, mixed-use projects can be approved administratively with a zoning certificate if they have less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area and the residential component is located above the ground floor. In the C-W zone, certain mixed-use projects can be approved administratively. Mixed-use projects less than 5,000 square feet in size are subject only to zoning certificate approval. Additionally, projects which are less than 20,000 square feet and where the retail space comprises 15-33 percent of the gross floor area can also be approved with a zoning certificate. Projects that are 5,000 to 9,000 square feet in size can be approved with an administrative use permit. All other mixed-use projects in the C-W zone are subject to use permit approval. ### Accessory Dwelling Units The State legislature has passed numerous bills in recent years with the goal of facilitating the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These bills, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13, limit how local jurisdictions can regulate ADUs and JADUs with provisions related to development standards, application and approval process, and fees. The City’s provisions related to ADUs are located in Chapter 23.306 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and were most recently updated in 2022. ADUs and JADUs which comply with the standards set forth in State law are permitted with zoning certificate approval on any lot with at least one existing or proposed dwelling unit. Chapter 23.306 states that the purpose is to implement California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and ensures that the City’s provisions are compliant with State law and will remain in compliance even if the Legislature makes changes to ADU regulations. ### Group Living Accommodations The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance defines group living accommodations as “a building or portion of a building designed for or accommodating a residential use by persons not living together as a household. This use includes dormitories, convents and monasteries, and other types of organizational housing, and excludes hospitals, nursing homes and tourist hotels. Group living accommodations typically provide shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. Residential hotels and senior congregate housing are separately defined types of group living accommodations each with their own permit requirements.” Note that student housing that is not available for rent to non-students may be considered noninstitutional group quarters and is not counted towards meeting the City’s RHNA. With the University of California located within the City, group living accommodations are an important housing type in Berkeley. Group living accommodations are permitted with a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones. Additionally, they are allowed with use permit approval in the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU. ### Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Single room occupancy (SRO) units are small units intended for occupancy by a single individual and differ from studio apartments or efficiency units in that they may have shared kitchen or bathroom facilities. SRO units provide an affordable housing option for extremely low income or formerly homeless individuals because they are typically rented on a monthly basis and do not require a rental deposit. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance permits SRO units within residential hotels. Residential hotels are defined by the Zoning Ordinance as “a type of group living accommodations which provides room for rent for residential purposes, including single residential occupancy (SRO) rooms.” Residential hotels are permitted with approval of a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones. ### Emergency Shelters SB 2 (2007) requires local jurisdictions to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right if adequate capacity in existing shelters is not sufficient to serve the population in need of emergency shelter. This determination is based on the number of individuals experiencing homelessness identified in the most recent point in time count. In 2019, the State Legislature passed AB 139, which limits the development and performance standards that a local jurisdiction can impose on emergency shelters. Local provisions can only impose standards that apply to other commercial or residential uses in the same zone along with the following standards: * Maximum number of beds * Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff, provided that this standard does not require more parking for shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone * Size and location of onsite client waiting and intake areas * Proximity to other shelters, provided that shelters are not requires to be more than 300 feet apart * Length of stay * Lighting * Provision of onsite management * Securing during operating hours Chapter 23.308 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance contains the City’s regulations pertaining to emergency shelters. The City permits emergency shelters ministerially by-right with approval of a zoning certificate in several zones based on the number of beds provided in the facility, as shown in Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone. Shelters with 60 or fewer beds are permitted by right in the C-DMU zone. Within all other commercial zones, facilities with 25 or fewer beds are permitted by right. Additionally, shelters with 15 or fewer beds are permitted by right within the R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU zones. In addition to underutilized sites identified in the sites inventory, some of the existing older hotels/motels largely located along the University Avenue corridor and commercial surface parking that are not included in the City’s sites inventory, may be repurposed or redeveloped to emergency shelters. The C-DMU zone spans over 168 acres on 265 parcels, including 35 sites identified for 5.2 acres in the sites inventory, and one existing hotel site (2045 University) located outside of the sites inventory. The C-DMU zone allows for 100 percent coverage, no lower story setbacks, and building heights of 50 to 180 feet depending on location. The C-DMU zone is located in the most transit accessible area of the City, and is within walking distance to ample services (e.g., the Dorothy Day House at 1931 Center, Berkeley Food and Housing Project at 2140 Dwight). These characteristics indicate the feasibility for either redevelopment or potential conversion of existing structures to shelter use in this zone. Furthermore, the commercial zoning districts encompass approximately 1,900 parcels, including 96 sites identified for 33.4 acres in the sites inventory. The majority of the other commercial zones located close to services and major transit (C-C, C-U, C-W, C-T, C-AC) allow for 90 to 100 percent coverage for mixed-use residential uses, no minimum setbacks when adjacent to other commercial districts, and maximum heights of 36 to 90 feet depending on location. All of the commercial districts are proximate to transportation and services, being located along major corridors that either currently contain and/or allow a wide range of service uses. For example, the C-AC zone is located along the South Shattuck corridor, which is served by AC Transit local, all-nighter and transbay lines, as well as the Ashby BART station. Further east, the C-T and C-C zones located along the Telegraph corridor are served by several AC Transit lines and are within walking distance to services such as Bay Area Community Services (2809 Telegraph), Suitcase Clinics (2407 Dana and 2236 Parker), Bonita House (1802 Fairview) and the Berkeley Drop-In Center (3234 Adeline). Within the western portion of the City, the C-W zone is located along the San Pablo transit corridor, as well as the North Berkeley BART station, and is located within walking distance of the Women’s Daytime Drop-in and North County Housing Resource Center (2218 Acton Street), as well as the West Campus Pool at 2100 Browning, which includes a City-operated drop-in shower program. Based on the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, an estimated 1,057 homeless persons are located in Berkeley. At 200 square feet per bed, 1,057 beds could be accommodated in multiple facilities totaling approximately 211,400 square feet of floor area to accommodate the City’s estimated unsheltered need. The shelters can be accommodated in one or a combination of the following locations: * In C-DMU, where building heights of 50 to 180 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate five stories totaling approximately one acre and containing up to 60 beds each. * In transit-rich commercial zones, where building heights of 36 to 90 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate three stories totaling approximately two acres and containing up to 25 beds each. Outside of the sites inventory, the commercial zoning districts contain 22 surface parking parcels on five acres, as well as several hotels/motels located along the University Avenue corridor that can be converted to emergency shelters via adaptive reuse: * C-W District hotels/motels: 920, 975 University * C-U District hotels/motels: 1175 (split zoned with R-4), 1619, 1761, 1820, 2045 University. Therefore, the City has complied with the requirements of SB 2 by providing opportunities for the by right development of emergency shelters in various zones throughout the City, particularly throughout higher density residential and commercial districts which are located close to services and major transit. As demonstrated in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, the City has many underutilized commercially designated properties where emergency shelters are permitted by right. Furthermore, adaptive reuse of existing structures is another option for establishing shelter facilities without redevelopment of the properties. The City has sufficient properties in these zones to accommodate its unsheltered homeless. Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone | Zones | Permit Required | | :--- | :--- | | Residential Zones - R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU | | | 15 beds or fewer | Zoning Certificate | | More than 15 beds | Use Permit | | :--- | :--- | | Commercial Zones | | | C-C, C-U, C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SA, C-T, C-SO, C-W, C-AC | | | 25 beds or fewer | Zoning Certificate | | More than 25 beds | Use Permit | | C-DMU | | | 60 beds or fewer | Zoning Certificate | | More than 60 beds | Use Permit | *Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, Table 23.308-1* For larger emergency shelters approval of a use permit is required, as indicated in Table 4.8. In addition to the required findings for approval for all use permits, the Zoning Adjustments Board must also make the following required findings specifically for emergency shelters: 1. A larger shelter facility will help meet the City’s goals pertaining to emergency housing of the homeless; 2. The circumstances of the subject property make the larger facility appropriate; and, 3. Design features will minimize impacts on the surrounding area. Separate from the permit approval process, shelter providers are required to conduct a community meeting for a proposed shelter after providing notification of the meeting to owners and occupants within a 100-foot radius of the proposed shelter location (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.9). However, the purpose of the community meeting is informational and does not impact the decision of the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board to approve or deny an application. The development and performance standards for emergency shelters are contained in Section 23.308.030.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The City’s requirements include: * A client intake area equal to one-quarter of the area provided for client beds. The area may be multi-use. * Shower and restroom facilities. * Lighting shall be provided in all exterior areas and must be directed in a manner that does not cast light onto neighboring properties. * Provision of on-site management during all hours of operation and at least one hour before and after facility operation hours. * Preparation and implementation of a Shelter Safety and Management Plan which addresses aspects of shelter operations, including staffing levels, security, procedures for client queuing and enforcement of rules, and others. There are no parking requirements for emergency shelters and the provision of vehicle and/or bicycle parking is stated as optional (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.5.g). The City’s standards are in compliance with AB 139 and therefore, do not constrain the development of emergency shelters within the City. With the most recent changes to State law regarding emergency shelters, the City will identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size. AB 2339 makes two changes to Housing Element law. AB 2339 provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential uses are permitted or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services. The law also seeks to ease constraints on the development of emergency shelters by requiring that any development standards applied to emergency shelters be "objective." This Housing Element includes an action to evaluate the City's compliance with AB 2339 and if modifications may be necessary (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). ### Low Barrier Navigation Centers AB 101 (2019) defines “low barrier navigation centers” and requires local jurisdictions to permit them by right in zones that allow mixed-use development and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses, provided the facility meets certain standards. Per AB 101, a low barrier navigation center is “a Housing First, low-barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Housing First refers to an overall approach to serving individuals experiencing homelessness where a decent, safe place to live is provided before addressing any other barriers or factors that may have resulted in the person’s homelessness. Low barrier shelters may also provide additional flexibility, such as allowing partners to share living space or allowing pets. In addition to requiring local jurisdictions to permit low barrier navigation centers by right in certain areas, AB 101 requires jurisdictions to act on applications for these facilities within a specified timeframe. The provisions of AB 101 are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed. Low barrier navigation centers are not addressed in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Housing Programs chapter of this Housing Element includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit low barrier navigation centers as required by AB 101 (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning. ### Transitional and Supportive Housing Pursuant to State law (SB 2 of 2007 and SB 745 of 2013), transitional and supportive housing are residential uses that shall only be subject to the same permitting requirements and development standards as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The Zoning Ordinance defines transitional housing as follows: *From Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2: Any dwelling unit or a Group Living Accommodation configured as a rental housing development, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted units to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time.* The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify transitional housing as a use in the Allowed Uses table for the residential or commercial zones (BMC Tables 23.202.1 and 23.204-1). However, based on the definition above, the Zoning Ordinance permits transitional housing in the same manner as the housing type in which it is located (i.e., single-family home, multi-family residence, or group living accommodation). Therefore, the City’s requirements pertaining to transitional housing are compliant with State law and do not constrain their development. Supportive housing is included in the definition of community care facility, which is allowed in the residential and commercial zones. In all zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are permitted, applications for supportive housing facilities which involve the creation of a new facility or conversion of an existing dwelling unit(s) are permitted by-right with zoning certificate approval. AB 2162 (2018) introduced new regulations to facilitate the development of supportive housing. For cities with a population of less than 200,000, supportive housing projects with 50 or fewer units must be permitted by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed-use residential development is permitted, provided the project meets other specified criteria. Additionally, local jurisdictions may not require parking for supportive housing projects located within one half mile of a public transit stop. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing. In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning. ### Employee and Farm Employee Housing The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) requires local jurisdictions to consider employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees as a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows unrelated individuals to live together as a household, but does not include any specific provisions related to employee housing; therefore, an implementation program proposes to make necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments to address employee housing (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use. There is no agricultural land located in Berkeley and the 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimated just 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries residing in the City. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers. Therefore, specific zoning regulations for farmworker housing are not necessary. ## 4.1.5 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Individuals with disabilities may have special housing needs related to restricted mobility, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to live independently. State law requires the Housing Element to analyze the City’s zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and building codes to identify any potential constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities. ### Definition of Family Zoning Ordinance definitions of “family” or “household” may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities, specifically group homes or care facilities, when they limit the number of members of a family or household or require that family or household members be related. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance definitions for “family” and “household” are provided below. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a separate definition for family, and instead references the definition for household. The definition for household is not restrictive based on relation or number of household members and, while it states that household arrangements are “usually characterized” by shared living expenses and single leasing contracts, the City does not require a single lease or rental agreement nor does the City monitor and enforce shared living expenses. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance definitions do not limit communal, inter-generational, or other forms of caregiving household arrangements and do not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. *Family. See Household.* *Household. One or more persons, whether or not related by blood, marriage or adoption, sharing a dwelling unit in a living arrangement usually characterized by sharing living expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, food costs and utilities, as well as maintaining a single lease or rental agreement for all members of the household and other similar characteristics indicative of a single household* However, the City will simplify the definition of “Household” to be characterized by one or more persons with common access and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas, while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). ### Residential Care Facilities The State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) requires that licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer individuals be treated as residential uses and permitted by right in all zones where residential use is permitted. Berkeley Zoning Ordinance Section 23.502.020 (Defined Terms) includes residential care facilities in the definition for community care facility. These definitions are compliant with state law and are provided below: *Residential Care Facility. See Community Care Facility.* *Community Care Facility. A state-licensed facility for the non-medical care and supervision of children, adolescents, adults or elderly persons. This use includes community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 1500 et seq, residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.), facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped (California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq.), alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11834.02), supportive housing (California Government Code Section 65582), and other similar facilities. This use excludes medical care institutions, skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, foster homes, family day care homes, child care facilities, and transitional housing.* Section 23.202.040(A) includes the permit requirements for community care facilities, including residential care facilities, in the residential zones. Conversion of an existing dwelling into a community care facility is permitted through the zoning certificate process, regardless of the number of residents the facility serves. If a facility serves more than six people, the community care facility requires approval of a use permit, which is the same review procedure applied to other residential development. There are no specific development standards that apply to community care facilities that do not also apply to other residential development in the same zone, except for parking. The parking requirement for community care facilities in the residential and manufacturing zones is one space per two non-resident employees. There are no parking requirements specific to community care facilities located in commercial zones. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing. In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning. ### Reasonable Accommodation In some circumstances, development standards which may otherwise be acceptable may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. For example, wheelchair access to a dwelling may not be able to be constructed without a ramp encroaching into the front yard setback. In such cases, state and federal law require local jurisdictions to provide relief from specific requirements or standards to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. The City of Berkeley first added reasonable accommodation procedures to the Zoning Ordinance in 2001. Section 23.406.090 contains the application and review requirements for reasonable accommodations. Applications for reasonable accommodations are reviewed by the Zoning Officer is, unless the reasonable accommodation application is submitted concurrently with another permit application reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Under these circumstances, the reasonable accommodation is reviewed by the ZAB. There is no required fee to apply for a reasonable accommodation and independent accommodation requests are processed within 45 days of receiving the application. The review authority considers the following factors in the approval findings: 1. Need for the requested modification. 2. Alternatives that may provide an equivalent level of benefit. 3. Physical attributes of and proposed changes to the property. 4. Whether the requested modification would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. 5. Whether the requested modification would constitute a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning or subdivision regulations. 6. Whether the requested accommodation would result in a concentration of uses otherwise not allowed in a residential neighborhood to the substantial detriment of the residential character of that neighborhood. 7. Any other factor that may have a bearing on the request. The City supports equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and promotes reasonable accommodations to property owners (see Program 17 -Accessible Housing). Since 2012, the City has received eight requests for reasonable accommodations and all have been approved. ### Building Codes The City of Berkeley is adopting—and enforcing—the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) including local amendments. The City actively enforces CBC provisions that regulate access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City has adopted no local amendments to the CBC which constrain development of housing for persons with disabilities. ## 4.1.6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Cities charge permits fees to recover the costs associated with reviewing and processing applications for development. Cities also charge impact fees, which are intended to mitigate the impact of a development on local facilities or infrastructure. Common examples of impact fees include school fees and utility connection fees. Berkeley’s planning fee schedule was last updated in May 2022. State law requires that these fees are true cost recovery fees and may not exceed the cost to the City to review and process the permit. As part of fee schedule updates, the City reviews the staff time and other resources necessary to process permits to ensure that fees are set at an appropriate level in compliance with state requirements. Table 4.9 shows a comparison of planning fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond. As shown, all three cities are in a similar range for use permit fees. Berkeley’s fees for design review are generally lower than Fremont and Richmond. Table 4.9: Comparison of Planning Fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond | Permit Type | Berkeley | Fremont | Richmond | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Administrative Use Permit | $1,840-$5,520[^p100-6] | $4,600 | $2,112 | | Use Permit | Tier 1: $5,520
Tier 2: $5,520[^p100-1] | $7,000 | A/C[^p100-2] ($5,000 deposit) | | Variance (Tier 1) | $3,680 | $4,000 | A/C[^p100-2] ($3,500 deposit) | | Zone Change/Zoning Amendment | A/C[^p100-2] ($9,200 deposit)[^p100-3] | Amendment: $9,360
Rezone: $10,000 | A/C[^p100-2] ($13,000 deposit) | | General Plan Amendment | A/C[^p100-2] ($9,200 deposit)[^p100-3] | $16,000 | A/C[^p100-2] ($13,000 deposit) | | Design Review | | | | | Staff Level | $1,840-$3,680[^5, 6] | $4,000 | $2,376 | | Design Review Committee | $2,760-$5,520[^5, 6] | $20,000 | A/C ($4,400-$15,00 deposit)[^p100-6] | | Environmental | | | | | Initial Study/Negative Declaration | $5,520⁴ | $5,400 | 30% of consultant contract cost | | Environmental Impact Report | $9,200⁴ | $5,400 | 30% of consultant contract cost | Sources: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Fees, Effective July 1, 2022; City of Fremont, Planning Division, 2022; City of Richmond, Planning Division Fee Schedule, Effective August 20, 2020. Notes: 1. Base fee. Staff time in excess of 24 hours charged at rate of $230/hr. 2. A/C = Actual Cost 3. Excess staff time charged at $230/hr. 4. Or, at City’s discretion, cost of consultant contract plus $200/hr. for staff time for contract management 5. Base fee, excess staff time charged at $230/hr. 6. Where a cost range is given, the cost generally increases as project size/complexity increases based on defined thresholds. Since some fees are based on project valuation (i.e. building permit fees) and some are charged on a per unit or per square foot basis, it is difficult to generalize the total fees which apply to residential projects. Therefore, Table 4.10 provides a comparison of the applicable fees for several recent developments. 2035 Blake was entitled prior to the current affordable housing fee and 1950 Addison provided four very low income units on site and paid a pro-rated in-lieu fee. 2628 Shattuck provided no on-site affordable units and paid the full inclusionary fee amount. Table 4.10: Fee Comparison for Sample Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Development | | Single Family Residential | Multi-family Residential | Mixed-Use Residential | Mixed-Use Residential | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Project Details and Assumptions | | | | | | Address | 455 Vincente | 1950 Addison | 2628 Shattuck | 2035 Blake | | Certificate of Occupancy Issue Date | 10/26/17 | 10/16/17 | 7/16/21 | BP Issued 8/10/17 | | Building Permit Valuation | $470,000 | $16,649,000 | $11,106,567 | $15,800,000 | | Sq Ft/unit | 2,758 | 970 | 703 | 1020 | | Units | 1 | 107 | 89 | 82 | | Value per sq. ft. | $476.42 | $721.52 | $996.26 | $686.38 | | Value per unit¹ | $1,313,974 | $700,000 | $700,000 | $700,000 | | Full value | $1,313,974 | $74,900,000 | $62,300,000 | $57,400,000 | | Full sq ft (incl. parking)² | 2,758 | 128,308 | 73,024 | 106,873 | | Building Permit Fees | | | | | | Plan Check and Filing Fees | $6,809 | $238,170 | $162,923 | $234,380 | | Fire & Life Safety / Fire Plan Check Fees | $726 | $25,642 | $17,501 | $25,510 | | Traffic Plan Check Fee | $864 | $102,959 | $62,509 | $97,440 | | Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical Permit Fees | $10,935 | $407,176 | $266,374 | $370,243 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | State Fees[^p102-3] | $2,570 | $90,746 | $62,216 | $88,488 | | Zoning Certificate | $360 | $360 | $460 | $360 | | Community Planning Fee | $519 | $18,316 | $12,221 | $17,382 | | Technology Fees | $519 | $18,934 | $13,300 | $18,420 | | Sustainable Development Fee | $622 | $21,979 | $14,665 | $20,858 | | Subtotal | $23,924 | $924,282 | $612,168 | $873,081 | | Planning Fees[^p102-4] | | | | | | Use Permit | $16,780 | $19,261 | $14,075 | $25,939 | | Design Review | - | $3,684 | $3,734 | $4,550 | | Subtotal | $16,780 | $22,945 | $17,809 | $30,489 | | Impact Fees | | | | | | Art | N/A | Provided on site | $88,879 | $126,400 | | Affordable Child Care[^p102-5] | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | | Affordable Housing – Commercial[^p102-5] | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | | Affordable Housing Mitigation | N/A | $1,260,000 | $2,720,952 | $760,000 | | SOSIP (Downtown only) | N/A | $231,492 | N/A | $189,673 | | Schools | N/A | $361,252 | $218,822 | $218,822 | | Sewer Connection Fee | $3,536 | $193,117 | $191,590 | $182,911 | | Subtotal | $3,536 | $3,305,861 | $5,941,195 | $2,237,807 | | Total Project Fees | $44,240 | $4,230,143 | $6,553,363 | $3,110,888 | | Total Fees Per Unit | $44,240 | $39,534 | $73,633 | $37,937 | *Source: City of Berkeley, Building and Safety Division, 2022* Notes: 1. *For SF: Zillow Spring 2021 median home price. For MF, based on following analysis: City of Berkeley, City Council Report (April 27, 2021 – Item 31), Attachment 1: Street Level Advisors, “Estimating the Need for Housing Subsidy for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations”.* 2. *Assume 350 sq. ft. per parking space.* 3. *State of California fees include: Title 24: Energy Fee; Title 24: Disabled Access Fee; SMIP Fee; and, Building Standards Fee.* 4. *Fees associated with environmental review were not included because infill housing is often exempt from CEQA.* 5. *The Affordable Child Care and Affordable Housing – Commercial fees apply to commercial development, including the commercial component of mixed-use developments. However, the threshold for these fees is net new commercial square footage of 7,500 sq. ft. or more. Neither mixed use project included in the Table meets this threshold; therefore, these fees did not apply.* ## Impact Fees [^p102-3]: State of California fees include: Title 24: Energy Fee; Title 24: Disabled Access Fee; SMIP Fee; and, Building Standards Fee. [^p102-4]: Fees associated with environmental review were not included because infill housing is often exempt from CEQA. [^p102-5]: The Affordable Child Care and Affordable Housing – Commercial fees apply to commercial development, including the commercial component of mixed-use developments. However, the threshold for these fees is net new commercial square footage of 7,500 sq. ft. or more. Neither mixed use project included in the Table meets this threshold; therefore, these fees did not apply. The City of Berkeley charges several impact fees to ensure that new residential development pays its fair share of funding for its impact to the City's services, facilities, and infrastructure. Residential development in Berkeley is subject to the following impact fees: 1. **Public Art.** Public art requirements apply to multifamily residential projects of five or more dwelling units. Projects must include on-site publicly accessible art valued at 1.75 percent of the construction cost. Alternatively, applicants can pay an in-lieu fee equal to 0.80 percent of the construction cost. Projects where at least 60 percent of units are affordable are exempt from public art requirements. 2. **Street, Open Space and Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Fee.** The SOSIP fee applies to the Downtown area only and is intended to ensure that new development contributes to the street and open space needs and demands of additional residents and businesses. The fee applies to all development greater than 1,000 square feet and is calculated at $2.23 per square foot of new residential use. 3. **Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF).** As previously discussed, projects can reduce or eliminate their AHMF obligation by providing up to 20 percent affordable units within the project. In addition to the fees listed above, Berkeley has an Affordable Child Care fee and Affordable Housing Linkage fee which apply to commercial development. These fees also apply to the commercial portions for mixed-use projects. As part of ongoing efforts to improve and consolidate the City's affordable housing requirements, amendments to impose on-site affordable housing requirements with an in-lieu fee alternative (rather than a mitigation fee) are proposed for both rental and ownership projects. Additionally, changing the fee from a per unit basis to a per square foot basis is proposed. See also HP-3 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. This proposal is supported by a 2019 fee comparison analysis conducted by Street Level Advisors, which compared fees amongst Berkeley and a number of other jurisdictions. The study also compared Berkeley's fees as they applied to various housing products (i.e., microunit projects versus large units). One notable finding was that projects consisting of higher density microunits were paying a significantly higher proportion of total construction costs in fees when compared to a lower density project with the same square footage. Changing the affordable housing in-lieu fee to a per square foot fee basis should help to address this issue. Initially, the fee is proposed to be set at $45 per gross residential square foot and would be adjusted annually based on change to an established index, such as the California Construction Cost Index. This change is currently under consideration by the City Council, to take effect in Spring 2023. In addition to City fees, fees are charged by outside agencies that provide services within Berkeley, including school fees charged by the Berkeley Unified School District and sewer connection fees charged by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The City of Berkeley does not have control over the fees charged by outside agencies. ### 4.1.7 BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT The City of Berkeley’s Building and Safety and Code Enforcement Divisions adopted the 2022 California Building Standards Code, together with local amendments, with an effective date of January 1, 2023. When development plans are submitted for plan check, they are reviewed by the Building and Safety Division for compliance with the CBC. Inspections at various milestones throughout project construction ensure that the project is built according to the approved plans. The City has adopted several local amendments to the CBC. Most notably, the City has incorporated additional restrictions for structures within the City's designated fire hazard zones, including limitations on roofing materials, requirements for spark arrestors on appliances using solid fuel, and undergrounding of utilities. While these requirements may add to the cost of construction of residential units, they are necessary to help mitigate the risk of damage by wildfire in these areas. Building code enforcement is handled primarily on a complaint-basis by building inspectors; neighborhood complaints are handled by the City's Code Enforcement staff. In addition, housing inspectors respond to housing code complaints initiated by Berkeley tenants or by other City programs; however, if substandard conditions pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of the tenant, they are referred to the City's Building Official for immediate follow up. City policy is to resolve residential code violations without displacing residents whenever possible; however, when tenants must move, the Municipal Code requires the owner to provide relocation assistance. In accordance with State law, the City also enforces statutory and code restrictions related to Fire Protection Plans and vegetation management. ### 4.1.8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TRANSPARENCY The City of Berkeley strives to be transparent in its development review process by providing as much information as possible related to the City's regulations, processes, procedures, and fees on the City website. The Municipal Code (including Zoning Ordinance), application forms, fee schedules, and other information are all readily available for viewing on the website. The City uses the Accela permitting system, which facilitates not only internal routing and plan check review, but also has an externally facing Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal where applicants can submit online and community members can search for project status and download project materials and correspondences. The City's Building Eye interactive mapping page links to Accela building and planning permit data to show the spatial location of recent projects. Table 4.11: Development Information Provided on Berkeley's Website | Information | Link | | :--- | :--- | | General Plan | https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted-plans/general-plan | | Zoning Ordinance | https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23 | | Zoning Map | https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/community-gis-portal?config=config_PlanningandProperty.json | | Forms / Applications | https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/permits-design-parameters/permit-types/permit-forms | | Planning Fee Schedule | https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Fee%20Schedule%20Residential%202013.pdf | | Other Adopted Plans | https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans | | Accela Citizen Access | https://aca.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Welcome.aspx | | :--- | :--- | | Building Eye | https://berkeley.buildingeye.com/ | ### 4.1.9 ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Berkeley is a highly urbanized community where most on- and off-site improvements are already in place, such as sewer, water, and utility lines. Typical on- and off-site improvements which may be required for new development on infill sites include improvements to the adjacent traffic signals and sidewalks and sanitary sewer and storm water connections. In cases where water or wastewater infrastructure may need to be enlarged or repaired to accommodate new construction, developers are responsible for paying the direct costs of improvements. Although requirements for on- and off-site improvements do add to the overall cost of development, they are necessary to ensure provision of vital infrastructure services to residents. Based on the recent proposals submitted and entitled citywide for a range of housing types—see Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021)—the City’s site improvement requirements do not create an undue constraint on development. ## 4.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Non-governmental constraints include those caused by market conditions, environmental hazards and limitations, and infrastructure operated by outside agencies. ### 4.2.1 INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS The availability of infrastructure and services to meet new demands created by new residential development is another potential constraint to housing development. Although Berkeley is highly urbanized with most of the necessary infrastructure in place, increases in demand along capacity and supply factors are monitored and analyzed to ensure adequate provision of services in the future. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides water and wastewater treatment for all properties located within Berkeley. The primary water source for the EBMUD water system is the Mokelumne River, and the Mokelumne Aqueduct conveys this water to local storage and treatment facilities in the EBMUD service area. EBMUD completed development of a revised Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 in April 2012[^p105-4], which is the District’s plan for providing water to its customers through 2040. According to the WSMP, EBMUD’s water supplies are estimated to be sufficient during the planning period (2010-2040) in normal and single dry years. The WSMP 2040 emphasizes maximum conservation and recycling, with a total of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of future supply to be provided from those two strategies. EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan [^p105-4]: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Supply Management Program 2040. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/water-supply-management-program-2040 2020 (UWMP)[^p106-5] concludes that EBMUD has, and will have, adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected demand during normal years, and may require significant customer water use reductions and supplementing supplies—which are in the planning phases—during multi-year droughts. While the number of accounts within EBMUD’s service area has increased steadily since 1970, the average daily water demand remains relatively stable outside of drought periods, and dropped significantly due to rationing during drought periods. In addition, EBMUD’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan[^p106-6] provides an analysis of water demand, including water supplies for fire suppression, and supplies over the next 30 years. While the analysis is for EBMUD’s entire service area and does not provide a breakdown for the City of Berkeley, it provides helpful information on the availability of water through the 2023-2031 planning period. According to the Plan, water demand for the service area was 181 MGD in 2020. The total projected demand for EBMUD’s service area is 190 MGD in 2030 and 194 MGD in 2035. In the Base Condition Scenario analyzed, EBMUD will have sufficient supply to meet demand over this time period. For wastewater treatment, Berkeley is within EBMUD’s Special District No. 1 and is served by EBMUD’s largest wastewater treatment plant, located in Oakland. According to EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan[^p106-7], wastewater treatment demand for Special District No. 1 is projected to be 56 MGD in 2030 and 58 MGD in 2035, well below the treatment plant’s capacity of 168 MGD. Development under the proposed Housing Element period is estimated to generate 765,688 gallons of wastewater per day. This will be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) and therefore the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated residential development. While adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity is available for the 2023-2031 planning cycle, SB 1087 (2006) further prioritizes the development of affordable housing by requiring service providers to grant priority to development that includes housing affordable to lower income households. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electrical and gas service for the City. New construction in Berkeley is required to be designed without natural gas infrastructure per the City’s Natural Gas Prohibition adopted in 2019. As of Jan 1, 2020, the State of California began requiring solar on newly constructed low-rise residential buildings (single family homes, duplexes, and townhouses of 3 stories or less, including ADUs) through the 2019 California Building Standards Energy Code (also known as the Energy Code or Title 24, Part 6). In addition, Berkeley adopted local amendments (also known as “reach codes”) to the Energy Code which requires the installation of solar PV systems in the “solar ready zone” required by the Energy [^p106-5]: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Urban Water Management Plan 2020. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan [^p106-6]: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan/ [^p106-7]: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Urban Water Management Plan 2020. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan/ Code. As a result, Berkeley also currently requires solar PV systems on newly constructed hotel/motels and high-rise multifamily buildings with 10 habitable stories or fewer, and nonresidential buildings with three habitable stories or fewer. These requirements also have exceptions as described in Title 24, Part 6, Section 110.10. Berkeley’s adoption of these solar PV system requirements is in the reach code, Berkeley Energy Code, BMC Chapter 19.36. Building codes are updated every three years, with increasing energy efficiency requirements. The 2022 Energy Code will expand solar and introduce battery storage standards to new high-rise multifamily (apartments and condos). ## 4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Geologists warn repeatedly of the high risk of a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the northern section of the Hayward Fault that runs through the Berkeley Hills east of the University of California. The effects of a strong earthquake along any portion of the Hayward fault would severely affect the area. The Housing Element includes policies and programs to mitigate the risk of damage to existing units (see Seismic Preparedness Programs). The Berkeley Hillside area is the most vulnerable to seismic impacts and landslides. However, no multifamily development is currently permitted in this area and the amount of vacant land is limited; therefore, seismic hazards are not a significant constraint to development in the Hillside area. Portions of the ground along Berkeley’s western edge, including west of the railroad tracks, could liquefy in a major quake. Additionally, all new development, including single family and multifamily units, are subject to the stringent requirements of the CBC related to seismic safety. Some areas of the City (near the waterfront and near Codornices Creek) are within the 100-year floodplain. Chapter 17.12 of the Berkeley Municipal Code contains the City’s Flood Zone Development Ordinance, which complies with FEMA flood plain management requirements. None of the areas within the 100-year floodplain are zoned for high density residential development; therefore, flooding is not a significant constraint to residential development in the City. Fires are a significant threat in the wildland urban interface (WUI) in the hillside communities along the City’s eastern border. The City has implemented a comprehensive strategy[^p107-8] to mitigate Berkeley’s WUI fire hazard, which includes annual property inspections, more restrictive local building code amendments, vegetation management and defensible space, improvement of access and evacuation routes, and infrastructure improvements to support firefighting efforts. Two areas of the City have particular environmental or physical constraints which make them unfeasible for new housing development. The waterfront area west of Interstate 80 has been designated for open space and low-density waterfront-oriented commercial development. Housing development is not environmentally feasible in this area due to a combination of environmental sensitivity and seismic/soil stability problems in an area composed mostly of landfill materials. [^p107-8]: City of Berkeley, 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/disaster-preparedness/local-hazard-mitigation-plan The Panoramic Hill area, designated as the Environmental Safety-Residential District (ES-R) on the Zoning Map, has significant constraints due to its proximity to the Hayward Fault and vegetated wildlands, limited vehicular access, inadequate water pressure, and steep slopes. After a two-year moratorium on construction, in 2010 the City passed an ordinance prohibiting any new residential units in this district until the City Council has adopted a specific plan in compliance with all applicable law that shows the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses in the ES-R zone and the location and extent of the public facilities and services required to serve the land uses described in the Panoramic Hill Specific Plan (the Plan). There is no specified timeline for development of the Plan. However, there are only 14 vacant lots affected by the building prohibition, a negligible percentage of housing production opportunities citywide. The City of Berkeley is a highly urbanized community. The majority of sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory are infill sites. Existing uses on site are also consistent with the trend of redevelopment into residential and mixed-use projects. In selecting sites to be included in the inventory, locations with site design constraints such as irregular shapes or utility easements were eliminated, or only included if opportunities for lot consolidation exist to create a buildable site. No major environmental conditions that would preclude redevelopment were identified. As mentioned earlier, all residential development and retrofits, including identified sites, within existing seismic zones would be required to meet the stringent seismic building codes. In addition, the City implements, and supports, a number of programs to address seismic preparedness (see Program 22 -Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs). In addition, redevelopment of gas stations into other uses has proven to be a trend as fuel efficiency and prevalence of electric/hybrid vehicles has continued to impact the financial viability of older gas stations. One example is 2176 Kittridge Street, which received its entitlement in 2020 and is currently under construction to redevelop, in part, a one-story former gas station, carwash, and convenience store into a mixed-use building with 165 units. Another example is 3000 Shattuck, also an existing gas station and smog inspection site, where the City received an expanded permit application in 2022 to increase from the previous 2017 entitlement for 23 units to a mixed-use building with 156 new units utilizing a 50% State Density Bonus. The need for remediation does not usually constrain their redevelopment. ### 4.2.3 MARKET CONSTRAINTS *Cost and Availability of Land* The cost of land is a significant contributor to the overall cost of housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions and have generally been increasing since the Great Recession, and substantially increasing since 2012. The City of Berkeley has little vacant land, particularly land that is appropriate for higher density development. An informal survey of vacant land listed for sale on Zillow and Loopnet in January 2022 found three vacant lots for sale within hillside areas of east Berkeley at a price per square foot ranging between $30 to $40. Due to the physical constraints of this area, these lots would not be appropriate for multi-family development. Vacant lots within higher density areas of the City are very rare and are sometimes advertised with approved entitlements, adding to their list price. The majority of sites in areas zoned for high density development are infill sites that may have existing structures, further adding to the cost of development. For example, one 0.24-acre lot with an existing triplex is entitled for 11 condominium units and listed for $190 per square foot (1915 Berryman St.). Another listing for a 0.3-acre vacant lot indicates that it is in the entitlement process for 66-units and has a list price of $420 per square foot (1201 San Pablo Ave.). As shown in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, lot consolidation and infill small lot development at high density is the primary strategy for housing development. The cost per square foot of land varies greatly in the City and lots located in denser areas, with more development potential, can cost significantly more. However, the per-unit land cost is directly impacted by density. Higher density allows the cost of land to be spread across more units and ultimately reduces the per unit cost. While land costs are high, the densities permitted in the City’s high density residential and commercial districts allow a developer to distribute this cost amongst a greater number of units. ### Construction Costs The cost of construction, including labor and materials, has a significant impact on the overall cost of new housing units and can be a significant constraint to development. According to a report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation[^p109-9], construction costs for apartment buildings in the Bay Area are the highest in the State and have increased more dramatically than costs statewide. Construction costs in the Bay Area increased 119 percent between 2008 and 2018, compared to an increase of 25 percent statewide. According to the Report, construction costs for apartment buildings in the Bay Area averaged $380 per square foot in 2018, compared to about $225 per square foot statewide. Higher wages for construction related jobs in the Bay Area, along with a lack of construction workers that can afford to live in the region due to the high cost of living, may contribute to higher costs in the region. The Terner Center Report also found that construction costs are an average of $48 per square foot higher for affordable housing projects, when compared to mixed affordability and market rate projects, likely due to prevailing wage, local hire, and other requirements. ### Timing Many factors outside of the local jurisdiction’s control can constrain the timing between project approval and when the developer requests building permits. Potential reasons for a delay between these milestones include inability to secure financing for construction or availability of design professionals to complete construction documents or make corrections. For projects with two or more units approved over the previous planning cycle, the average time between project entitlement and building permit issuance was 604 days. For larger projects, the average is about three years. [^p109-9]: Raetz, H., Forscher, T., Kneebone, E., & Reid, C. (2020). (rep.). The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Based on this average time lapse, the City’s strategy for meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assumes only projects entitled since 2018 would proceed to issuing building permits (see Appendix C: Sites Inventory). Older entitlements are likely to require resubmittal sometime in the future with product types that would more appropriately reflect the current market conditions. Monitoring measures will be put into place to assess development progress throughout the 6th cycle - see Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring. ### Density In some regions, market factors such as the demand for a single-family product or larger high-end condominiums can lead to properties being developed below the maximum allowable density. However, due to high land and construction costs in Berkeley, paired with 20 percent inclusionary requirements, projects are typically developed at high densities, and density bonuses are common. As mentioned previously, over 55 percent of applications under review and 85 percent of anticipated pipeline (pre-application) projects currently utilize State Density Bonus. In addition, none of Berkeley’s higher density residential districts (R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU) have a maximum density standard. Only one commercial district has a maximum density standard: C-AC has maximum densities of 120 to 250 units per acre depending on affordability levels. Developments are largely regulated by form, which ensures that density itself is not a constraint to development. Actual base densities (subtracting out density bonus units) from projects entitled in the current planning period (2015-2023) largely exceeded the density assumptions made in the 5th cycle RHNA by zoning district. For example, in the Downtown Plan Area (C-DMU zone), Southside Plan Area (C-T, R-SMU), and Commercial Corridors (C-SA, C-C, C-U, C-W), the average base densities of actual projects were all higher than assumed in the 5th cycle. Where actual development trends demonstrated a lower density than previously assumed, primarily in neighborhood commercial districts (C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO), the 6th cycle Housing Element reduces the assumed density to reflect a lower realistic yield. Sites in the neighborhood commercial districts are typically smaller and under separate ownership, and therefore more constrained. In addition, projects in neighborhood commercial districts are typically infill or smaller additions to existing structures, which would characteristically yield a lower density. For projects located in high density residential and commercial zones entitled over the previous planning cycle, the average density was 183 units per acre. As mentioned in Section 4.1.2 Zoning Ordinance (Cumulative Impact), commonly requested waivers and/or concessions include height and setbacks. As a result, the City is in the process of creating multi-unit objective development standards and proposing minimum density standard to ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential). The City is also evaluating zoning and development standards to accommodate housing capacity and growth on transit and commercial corridors, particularly in the highest resource neighborhoods (Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors). ### Availability of Financing The City of Berkeley does not vary greatly from other communities with regard to the availability of home financing. The Great Recession and impacts to the housing and mortgage industry had the effect of limiting the availability for real estate loans and increasing the rate of foreclosure for some time. At present, mortgages are generally available for qualified buyers. Table 4.12 provides information on home mortgage applications for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA. In 2020, 69 percent of purchase loan applications were approved and 10 percent were denied. The denial rate was highest for home improvement loans at 33 percent. In a housing market such as Berkeley’s, the down payment requirement may be a greater obstacle to homeownership for many households. With condominium values over $900,000 in Berkeley, a household would need to save $90,000 to provide a 10 percent down payment. Table 4.12: Home Mortgage Application Data for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD (2020) | Loan Type | Total Applications | Percent Approved | Percent Denied | % Withdrawn/ Incomplete | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Conventional Purchase | 253,916 | 69% | 10% | 20% | | Government Backed Purchase | 18,190 | 62% | 12% | 26% | | Home Improvement | 8,890 | 51% | 33% | 16% | | Refinance | 165,588 | 69% | 9% | 22% | | Total | 446,584 | 69% | 10% | 21% | Source: www.ffiec.gov, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD, 2020. # 5 HOUSING RESOURCES This chapter summarizes the sites inventory and strategies to meet the RHNA and the City's state policies, including housing programs and measurable actions for implementation. ## 5.1 SUMMARY OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING ### 5.1.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction for the eight-year period. Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Element of the General Plan. Under state law, regional councils of governments are required to develop housing needs plans for use by local governments in their Housing Element updates. The regional housing needs analysis is derived from the statewide growth forecast, which is then allocated to regions, counties, and cities. The statewide determination is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance and the application of specific adjustments to determine the total amount of housing needs for the region. The adjustments are a result of recent legislation that sought to incorporate an estimate of existing housing need by requiring the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to apply factors related to a target vacancy rate, the rate of overcrowding, and the share of cost-burdened households. The new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHNA resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan, compared to previous RHNA cycles. The RHNA for Bay Area jurisdictions was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in December 2021. The 6th cycle Housing Element for the ABAG region covers an eight-year planning period from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. However, the RHNA uses June 30, 2022 as the baseline for projection. Specifically, the RHNA projection covers from June 30, 2022 through December 15, 2030, an 8.5-year period. For the purpose of assessing adequate sites for RHNA, state law allows jurisdictions to credit units approved, entitled, permitted, and under construction, that are not expected to become available ("finaled") until after June 30, 2022. For the purpose of reporting accomplishments in the Housing Element APR, only permitted units are credited as RHNA accomplishments. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element, ABAG assigned the City of Berkeley a RHNA of 8,934 units. This RHNA is divided into four income categories. The sections below assess the City's progress and strategies toward meeting its RHNA. Detailed information is provided in Appendix C to the Housing Element. Table 5.1: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031 | Berkeley | Extremely /Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | RHNA | 2,446 | 1,408 | 1,416 | 3,664 | 8,934 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | % Total | 27.4% | 15.8% | 15.8% | 41.0% | 100.0% | The RHNA does not include the extremely low category. It is estimated to be ½ of the very-low-income need, per Government Code §65583.a.1. The total very-low-income RHNA is 2,446; therefore, 1,223 units are designated as extremely-low-income and 1,223 units are designated as very-low-income. However, the sites inventory purposes, no separate accounting is required for the extremely low income category. Source: ABAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, adopted December 2021. Note, ABAG's methodology for calculating the Regional Housing Need Determination (region-wide) included a population adjustment of -169,755 total persons to reflect the Department of Finance projections for persons in dormitories, group homes, institutes, military, etc. that do not require residential housing. ## 5.1.2 PROJECTED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS) Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Between 2018 and 2021, the City issued 419 building permits ADUs with an average of 105 ADUs per year over this period. Specifically, ADU permit activities accelerated significantly within the last two years. Figure 5.1 shows approved entitlements and building permits in the City from 2018 to 2021, including ADUs in high resource areas, of which 17 percent of ADU permits were in the Hillside Overlay zone. Of the 419 ADU permits, only one project within the Hillside Overlay (0.2 percent of all ADUs permitted) contained both an ADU and a JADU. In addition, there is no specific prohibition of ADUs in the ES-R district. In 2008, in consideration of urgent life safety issues, the City of Berkeley established that no new dwelling unit of any kind may be established in the ES-R until the City adopts a new specific plan for the area that addresses issues including emergency access, routes of egress, geologic risks, and other risk factors related to the natural environment and public infrastructure (BMC section 23.202.070). In February 2022, the City revised its ADU ordinance to limit the number of units allowed per lot in the Hillside Overlay District to one ADU or JADU to balance the construction of accessory units with regulating based on the “adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts of traffic flow and public safety” (Gov. Code 65852.2). The City will be reassessing its vulnerabilities with a 2024 update to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and as part of a comprehensive Safety, Land Use, and Environmental Justice Element update in 2026 (see Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors). Assuming this trend continues, with a 28.5 percent reduction to conservatively account for the City's revised 2022 ADU ordinance in the Hillside Overlay District, the City expects to produce around 75 ADUs per year or 600 ADUs over the eight-year planning period. Based on the ADU rent survey conducted by ABAG, the affordability distribution of ADUs in the region is: 30 percent very low income; 30 percent low income; 30 percent moderate income; and 10 percent above moderate income. Therefore, the 600 ADUs projected for January 2023 through January 2031 can be allocated toward the RHNA as follows: 180 very low income; 180 low income; 180 moderate income; and 60 above moderate income. 105 Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021) <
> ### 5.1.3 BART STATION SITES The City of Berkeley is working collaboratively with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to convert surface parking lots at two of the City’s three BART stations (Ashby and North Berkeley) into transit-oriented development. The City and BART have signed an MOU on the potential development of these lots and the entities are actively working together to release RFQs for private developers for each station. The BART station RFQ for North Berkeley has been issued, and interviews of five developers are underway in October 2022. The Ashby station RFQ will be issued in 2023 when additional development parameters have been defined. BART’s development of these parcels is permitted under AB 2923, which allows BART to enable TOD through land-use zoning on BART-owned property in collaboration with local jurisdictions. Each station can accommodate up to 1,200 units and the expectation is that 35 percent of these units will be affordable in the Very Low and Low income categories. The mechanism holding these units affordable is the City’s financing and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and BART approved in June 2022. The MOA includes specific requirements about affordability of the future housing units. See also Program 4 -Housing Trust Fund and Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning. This Housing Element takes a more conservative approach in its estimate for what is 106 expected to be constructed during the eight-year planning period and assumes 600 units at each station (Table 5.2: BART Station Sites). Table 5.2: BART Station Sites | Station | Extremely /Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | North Berkeley | 105 | 105 | 0 | 390 | 600 | | Ashby | 105 | 105 | 0 | 390 | 600 | | Total | 210 | 210 | 0 | 780 | 1,200 | ## 5.1.4 LIKELY SITES While the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period covers from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, the RHNA projection period begins June 30, 2022. Housing units that have been entitled for construction but do not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until after June 30, 2022 can be credited towards the 6th cycle RHNA. In total, the City has approved 2,101 units (133 very low, 166 low, 9 moderate, and 1,793 above-moderate) since 2018 that are expected to be constructed during the 6th Cycle planning period. The affordability of the units was determined based on the affordability specified on the project proposal as approved by the City. See Appendix C: Sites Inventory for a list of these projects. Of the 2,101 units in the 48 Likely Sites, 13 sites are reused from the 5th Cycle, accounting for a total of 866 anticipated units (79 very low, 33 low, 9 moderate, 745 above moderate). The City conducted an analysis of 47 permitted projects between 2018 and 2021 and found the average time between entitlement and permit issuance to be approximately three years to accommodate the preparation of construction documents and time needed for securing financing for higher density residential and mixed-use projects. ## 5.1.5 REMAINING RHNA Accounting for projected ADUs, units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, and entitled projects, the City has a remaining RHNA of 5,033 units (1,923 very low income; 852 low income; 1,227 moderate income; and 1,031 above moderate income units). The City must identify adequate sites capacity for this remaining RHNA. Table 5.3: Remaining RHNA | Station | Extremely / Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | RHNA | 2,446 | 1,408 | 1,416 | 3,664 | 8,934 | | Projected ADUs | 180 | 180 | 180 | 60 | 600 | | BART Station Sites | 210 | 210 | 0 | 780 | 1,200 | | Entitled Projects since 2018 | 133 | 166 | 9 | 1,793 | 2,101 | | Subtotal | 523 | 556 | 189 | 2,633 | 3,901 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Remaining RHNA | 1,923 | 852 | 1,227 | 1,031 | 5,033 | ### 5.1.6 AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO ADDRESS REMAINING RHNA Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis of land resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. The analysis of potential to accommodate new housing growth considered physical and regulatory constraints, including lot area and configuration, environmental factors (e.g., slope, sensitive habitat, flood risk), allowable density, existing density, building age, and improvement-to-land ratio among others. In addition, parcels owned by the University of California were not included, since college and university student housing may be considered noninstitutional group quarters and not a housing unit for purposes of meeting RHNA, particularly facilities that are not available for rent to non-students. Prepared with the Infill-First strategy in mind, the housing sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period demonstrates that new housing growth in the City of Berkeley over this eight-year period will largely conform to these patterns. The 6th Cycle Sites Inventory is made up of two types of sites: * **Pipeline Sites.** These pending projects include applications submitted for entitlement or building permit and are currently under review. Pipeline sites also include anticipated projects based on pre-application submittals ("pre-app") and expressed developer interest. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known; where affordability levels are unknown at this time, all units have been placed in the above moderate income category. * **Opportunity Sites.** Include vacant or underutilized sites with near-term potential for residential or mixed-use development, including some sites used in the 5th cycle Housing Element but remain available for development. Full lists of the sites are available in Appendix C, in Table C-6: Pipeline Sites-Applications Under Review or Anticipated and Table C-10: Opportunity Sites-No Rezone Required The housing sites inventory includes both vacant and nonvacant (underutilized) land with the potential for additional housing during the 6th Housing Element cycle. The analysis of nonvacant properties included only those properties with realistic potential for additional development or “recycling,” in light of: * Existing uses on the site * Prevailing market conditions * Recent development trends over the past decade * Expressed interests in housing development from property owners or developers * Regulatory and/or other incentives to encourage recycling or intensification of existing development 108 The sites inventory assumes that sites between 0.35 acres and 10 acres whose zoning allows 30 units per acre or more are feasible for lower income units. The City of Berkeley has smaller parcel sizes compared to other jurisdictions and affordable housing projects have been developed on sites smaller than 0.5 acre. Appendix C, Table C-8: Affordable Housing Projects on Sites Smaller than 0.5 acre lists some such projects. Specifically, these projects average a small lot size of only 0.25 acre. As a conservative assumption, only parcels or sites (groups of parcels with common ownership) that are larger than 0.35 acre are considered adequately sized for lower income housing. Based on the 2002 General Plan, plans adopted since 2002, objective criteria, and local knowledge used to identify available sites with near-term development potential pursuant to State adequate sites standards, combined with units from pending projects, the City’s sites inventory offers capacity for approximately 11,100 units, excluding the two BART sites. This capacity can fully accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA of 5,033 units for the 6th cycle without rezoning. Importantly, this excess capacity means the City is also able to satisfy the needs of different income categories, as more fully discussed below. The City estimated development potential for opportunity sites by calculating the average baseline density (without density bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects by zoning district. A detailed sites inventory and explanation of the methodology and assumptions for estimating the development capacity is provided in Appendix C. Table 5.4: Summary of 6th Cycle Opportunity Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA | Project Status | Units by Income Category | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **Extremely / Very Low** | **Low** | **Moderate** | **Above Moderate** | **Total** | | Pipeline Sites: Applications under Review | 84 | 29 | 11 | 1,424 | 1,548 | | Pipeline Sites: Anticipated Applications (pre-app) | 353 | 113 | 30 | 2,567 | 3,063 | | Opportunity Sites: Vacant | 37 | 36 | 36 | 213 | 322 | | Opportunity Sites: Underutilized | 1,571 | 1,557 | 1,831 | 1,208 | 6,167 | | Total Capacity | 2,045 | 1,735 | 1,908 | 5,412 | 11,100 | ### 5.1.7 SUMMARY OF RHNA STRATEGIES Overall, the City is able to accommodate its RHNA, with a 26 percent buffer for the lower income RHNA and a 48 percent buffer for the moderate income RHNA, and a 68 percent buffer to accommodate the overall RHNA. Identifying a larger buffer in the City’s sites inventory ensures that the City is able to comply with SB 166 (No Net Loss Law) – see also Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring. While the City is not required to rezone or up-zone to meet its RHNA, as a pro-housing community, the City is pursuing a rezoning project to increase its residential capacity. The rezoning programs are described in Section 5.4 Housing Programs within this chapter. Table 5.5: Summary of RHNA Strategies | Project Status | Units by Income Category | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Extremely /Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | RHNA | 2,446 | 1,408 | 1,416 | 3,664 | 8,934 | | Likely Sites | 313 | 346 | 189 | 1,853 | 2,701 | | ADU Trend | 180 | 180 | 180 | 60 | 600 | | Entitled Projects | 133 | 166 | 9 | 1,793 | 2,101 | | Pipeline Sites | 647 | 352 | 41 | 4,771 | 5,811 | | BART Sites | 210 | 210 | --- | 780 | 1,200 | | Applications under Review | 84 | 29 | 11 | 1,424 | 1,548 | | Anticipated Projects (pre-applications) | 353 | 113 | 30 | 2,567 | 3,063 | | Opportunity Sites | 3,201 | | 1,867 | 1,421 | 6,489 | | High Priority (>0.5 acre) | 2,225 | | 338 | 340 | 2,903 | | Medium Priority (0.35-0.5 acre) | 976 | | 345 | 248 | 1,569 | | Low Priority (<0.35 acre) | 0 | | 1,184 | 833 | 2,017 | | Total Capacity (Likely + Pipeline + Opportunity) | 4,859 | | 2,097 | 8,045 | 15,001 | | *Surplus* | *1,005* | | *681* | *4,381* | *6,067* | | *% Buffer over Remaining Lower Income RHNA* | *26%* | | *48%* | *120%* | *68%* | AB 725 requires that at least 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate and above moderate income RHNA be satisfied on sites that can accommodate at least four units. The City of Berkeley satisfies its RHNA for all income categories primarily through high density residential uses and therefore fully complies with AB 725. ### 5.1.8 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) A detailed analysis of the City’s fair housing issues and assessment of how the sites inventory meets the criteria for AFFH—including identification of goals and actions—is provided in Appendix E. Key findings of the sites inventory AFFH analysis include: * **Income Level.** Approximately 55 percent of all RHNA units are located in Low and Moderate Income (LMI) tracts where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. A larger proportion of above moderate units (57.8 percent) and moderate income units (59.7 percent) are in LMI areas compared to lower income units (49.1 percent), indicating the City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in LMI areas. * **Race/Ethnicity.** The City’s RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley, including zoning districts, and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity. Most RHNA units are located in block groups where between 41 percent and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group; approximately 47 percent of Berkeley residents are non-white (see Section 3.2.3 Racial and Ethnic Composition). There are no RHNA units in block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81 percent. * **Persons with Disabilities.** The City’s RHNA strategy distributes units throughout Berkeley, but areas where higher density housing is feasible, especially West and South Berkeley, tend to have larger populations of persons with disabilities. Of the 33 tracts in the City, 13 (39.4 percent) have populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent. Topographically, South and West Berkeley is flatter compared to the Northeast and Eastern parts of the City, and also is in proximity to several major transit lines and street corridors, which supports accessibility for persons with disabilities. * **Familial Status.** Approximately 48 percent of income units are in tracts where 60 to 80 percent of children live in married couple households, compared to only 31 percent of moderate income units and 43 percent of above moderate income units. Another 37 percent of lower income units, 48 percent of moderate income units, and 39 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts where only 40 to 60 percent of children live in married couple households, since tracts with lower populations of children tend to correlate with zoning districts where high density housing is more feasible. In Berkeley’s RHNA sites inventory, there are also more lower income units in tracts where more than 40 percent of children live in single-parent female-headed households. The addition of housing units in these tracts, specifically lower income units, will increase housing opportunity for current residents. Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory <
> Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory is a map showing the parcels identified for Likely, Pipeline, and Opportunity Sites. The Likely Sites are shaded blue and represent projects that have been entitled since 2018. A table with a list of the Likely Sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C.3 Likely Sites - Entitled Projects since 2018. The Pipeline Sites are shaded purple and represent development applications which are currently under review or anticipated based on pre-application submittals. A table with a list of the Pipeline Sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C-6 Pipeline Sites - Applications Under Review or Anticipated. For purposes of the sites inventory analysis, the two BART sites are considered “Pipeline Sites” because the City and BART have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement on the development of these lots and are actively working together to select potential developer teams for the two sites. The Opportunity Sites are shaded red, with darker red for sites in categories High (greater than or equal to 0.5 acres), medium red for Medium (0.25 to 0.49 acres), and light red for Low (less than 0.35 acres). A table with the list of the opportunity sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C-10: Opportunity Sites - No Rezone Required. 112 ## 5.2 RESOURCES FOR HOUSING PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, AND PRODUCTION ### 5.2.1 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD The Berkeley voters passed the Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance in 1980 (Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 13.76). In 1982, the voters passed a Charter Amendment establishing an elected Rent Stabilization Board (Berkeley Charter, Article XVII, section 121). From 1980 to 1998 rents in units built prior to 1980 were controlled permanently, so that the rent did not change when a tenant moved out and new tenants moved in. Since the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act went into full effect in California in 1999, landlords have been able to establish initial rents for new tenancies at whatever price the market will bear (Civil Code sections 1954.50 through 1954.535). Under the law, the initial rent for new tenancies is not controlled but subsequent rent increases are controlled. This system is usually called “vacancy decontrol” although it is really “vacancy decontrol, recontrol.” The law also removed single-unit properties first re-rented after 1996 from rent control, including single-family houses and most condominiums. The Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance provides a stable housing environment for tenants while assuring that landlords are able to receive a fair return on their investment. It assures tenants in rent stabilized units that once they move in their rents will not drastically increase, a situation similar to that of homeowners who are protected from rapid cost increases by the state property tax limitation and fixed-rate mortgages. Annual rent increases (the Annual General Adjustment or AGA) are set at 65 percent of the increase in the Consumer Price Index and landlords can apply for individual rent adjustments if the increases they receive through tenant turnover and the AGA are not sufficient to provide them with the legally required rate of return. The ordinance also protects tenants from arbitrary evictions through a system of eviction controls and twelve defined just causes for eviction. Good cause for eviction requirements apply to virtually all rental units, including those built after 1980, condominiums and single-family houses. The good cause for eviction provisions of the Ordinance govern nearly the entirety of the approximately 27,000 rental units in Berkeley, while the rent stabilization provisions apply to approximately 21,000 units in multi-family properties built before 1980. About 19,000 of these units are required to register at any given time and the other 2,000 units are temporarily exempt. The most common reason for temporary exemption is that the unit is rented to a tenant who participates in either the Section 8 Portable Voucher or Shelter Plus Care programs. Permanently exempt units include those built after 1980 and most single-family and condominium units. Vacancy decontrol took effect during the “dot.com” boom in the mid-90s, which rapidly increased rents and home prices throughout the Bay Area and peaked in 2001. From 2001 to 2004 market rents in Berkeley declined somewhat and then began to rise again. By 2008 the market rents for registered units in Berkeley had increased beyond the 2001 peak levels. After the 2008 financial crisis, market rents decreased slightly and then remained stable through 2011. Beginning in 2012, rents in Berkeley began a steady increase, making new highs each year from 2012 to 2018. Overall, market rents for units subject to rent control increased by over 70% in units with between 0-3 bedrooms. Rents in Berkeley began to show signs of stabilizing in 2019, and then declined in 2020 by between 1.45 percent and 6 percent, due to the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic and associated shelter in place orders. Approximately 90 percent of registered rental units have had a new tenancy since 1999 while 10 percent have long-term tenants. The approximately 1,800 tenant households that have remained in place since the beginning of vacancy decontrol are usually paying a rent that is significantly below current market rates. The Rent Board engages in public education about the importance of the rent stabilization and good cause for eviction ordinance and works to educate both tenants and landlords about their respective rights and responsibilities under the law. Rent Board counselors typically provide information to landlords and tenants at 40 to 50 different events each year, but most recently outreach events have been reduced to online webinars due to Covid-19 safety concerns. Over the course of the year Rent Board counselors generally had more client contacts with property owners and property managers than with tenants. The Rent Board monitors foreclosures to ensure tenants are notified that they do not have to move simply because a financial institution has taken over ownership of the property, and works with owners to help them stave off foreclosure by informing the lending institution that they will not be able to simply evict all the tenants and vacate the property, but rather will need to take on the responsibility of property management. In addition, SB 1079, signed into law in 2020 and funded through the state’s Foreclosure Intervention and Housing Preservation Program, provides loans to tenants, nonprofits and community land trusts to purchase foreclosed properties. The Rent Board monitors all filings by owners evicting tenants on the grounds that they are going out of the rental business to ensure that the owners make the required relocation payments and follow all the notice requirements of state and local laws. The Berkeley City Council adopted the Ronald V. Dellums Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.106) in 2020. The Ordinance prohibits housing providers from advertising, directly or indirectly, that they will not consider applicants with criminal histories except as required by state or federal law. Rent Board staff implements the ordinance on behalf of the City by counseling landlords and tenants on the Ordinance, working with the City Attorney's Office to draft administrative regulations related to the implementation of the hearings process, including an administrative review process, and holding full evidentiary hearings. In 2020, Berkeley voters passed Measure MM which required owners register rental units that are partially covered by the Rent Ordinance (not subject to rent control but covered by good cause for eviction protections and security deposit interest provisions). Registration allows the Rent Board staff the ability to provide more comprehensive housing services to both tenants and landlords. As of March 2022, approximately 4,750 rental units have registered due to Measure MM. ## 5.2.2 CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND The City of Berkeley also has a number of funding sources available to implement its housing programs, including the preservation of housing units at risk of converting to market-rate housing. The City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) was established in 1990. The purpose of the HTF is to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Berkeley. Federal funds such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) are combined in the HTF with local funds such as revenue from mitigation fees on commercial development (Resolution 66,617-N.S.), new market rate housing (BMC 22.20.065 Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and BMC 23C.12 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance), and condominium conversions (BMC 21.28). The City Council may approve additional sources of funding for the HTF at any time, such as the 2018 Measure O bond measure, or state and federal sources. The Council may allocate general funds such as those generated through Measure U1. The City’s Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) advises the City Council on HTF allocations. A significant source of the HTF is the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. As of March 2022, the fee is set at $36,746 per unit if paid at building permit issuance, or $39,746 per unit if paid at Certificate of Occupancy. The City also allocates a portion of the HOME funds to the HTF it receives annually as an entitlement jurisdiction under HUD’s Community Planning and Development programs. As of March 2022, the City has $108.8M reserved or in contract for affordable housing projects, representing over 700 units in 19 projects. The City is committed to continuing to support projects in predevelopment and future development opportunities as additional HTF revenue becomes available. ### 5.2.3 SB 2 PLANNING GRANT AND PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate. The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. Berkeley received $310,000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. This funding is primarily used to develop zoning standards for both Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations for transit-oriented development. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the SB 2 funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of subsequent years’ allocation will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate CDBG funds. SB2 PLHA funds can be used to: * Increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60 percent of AMI * Increase assistance to affordable owner occupied workforce housing * Assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness * Facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households * Promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation The City of Berkeley adopted a five-year PLHA allocation plan as required by HCD in July 2020. The City received a PLHA allocation of $1,293,584 in year-one (FY2021) and will receive an allocation of $2,010,631 in year-two (FY2022). The City’s PLHA allocation over the next five years is projected at $7,761,504. However, initial projections for the transaction fees were created by the State prior to COVID-19. The actual amounts in years three through five may be lower and therefore result in different, possibly lower, disbursements. In December 2021, the City amended its allocation plan to support a Project Home Key homeless housing acquisition project in Year 2. The plan for years three to five will support new affordable housing construction initiatives via two avenues: 1) operating subsidies for homeless households and 2) supplementing the Housing Trust Fund program. ### 5.2.4 PROJECT HOMEKEY HCD offers grant funding for local entities to support a variety of housing types for persons experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. For FY 2021-2022, HCD set aside $1.4 billion in grant funding and is accepting applications on a rolling basis until funds are exhausted or May 2, 2022, whichever comes first. The various housing types it supports include multifamily and single-family housing, hostels, motels, hotels, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing. The funding can also support adaptive reuse of projects into permanent or interim housing for this population. The City is pursuing the acquisition of the Golden Bear Inn for Project HomeKey. ### 5.2.5 COVID-RELATED FUNDING The City received additional funding from HUD to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the City received $2.5 million in CDBG-CV and $6.7 million in ESG-CV (Emergency Solutions Grant) in FY 2020. An additional $2.7 million in American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds was also made available to the City in FY 2021. The funds were used to respond to and address economic effects of COVID-19, including assistance to households and small businesses, as well as balance budget deficits. ## 5.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public/private partnerships are arrangements between a public agency and a private-sector organization, and can be used to finance, build, and operate projects that serve a public good—such as the development and management of affordable housing. The City of Berkeley partners with several organizations to provide and administer a variety of housing programs, including rental vouchers, energy incentives, fair housing support, and legal services. ### 5.3.1 BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY Established in 1966, BHA provides rental assistance to a total of 1,939 low-income households units through the Section 8 and Moderate Rehabilitation Program. BHA administers two basic types of housing programs: tenant-based assistance (that is, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8)) and project-based assistance. ### 5.3.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BERKELEY The BHA Board has established a non-profit entity - Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) – as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley. BHA’s former low income public housing properties were sold to a developer in 2014. The proceeds from the sale will be used by AHB Inc. to develop the new deed-restricted units. The BHA board also serves as the Board of AHB. ### 5.3.3 BAY AREA REGIONAL ENERGY NETWORK The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) is a coalition of local governments in the Bay Area’s nine counties partnering to promote resource efficiency at the regional level, focusing on energy, water and greenhouse gas reduction. BayREN provides technical assistance, rebates, financing for energy efficiency and electrification projects. These BayREN resources are used for projects which are recommended by the City’s Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) assessments to support voluntary upgrades. ### 5.3.4 EDEN COUNCIL FOR HOPE AND OPPORTUNITY (ECHO) ECHO was established by community volunteers dedicated to equal housing opportunities and the prevention and elimination of homelessness. Established as a fair housing agency, ECHO has expanded to a full-service housing counseling organization providing services to very low and moderate income clients. The City of Berkeley contracts with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing services in the community. ### 5.3.5 EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER (EBCLC) EBCLC seeks to promote justice by providing: * Legal services and policy advocacy that are responsive to the needs of low income communities; and * Law training that prepares future attorneys to be skilled and principled advocates who are committed to addressing the causes and conditions of racial and economic injustice and poverty. The City partners with EBCLC to provide no cost legal advocacy help to low income tenants. ## 5.4 HOUSING PROGRAMS The City of Berkeley is committed to implementing the goals and policies in Chapter 2, addressing the housing needs identified in Chapter 3, and responding to the constraints in Chapter 4 through the housing programs listed in this section to facilitate the development of housing to meet RHNA. The following programs have been developed through an extensive public engagement process and in concert with staff from departments and divisions throughout the city in order to identify specific programs that would realistically facilitate implementation of the City’s goals and achieve the stated policies. Many of the housing programs reflect City Council referrals that are funded and/or staffed and are already included in the future workplans for departments. While the City is not required to rezone or up-zone to meet its RHNA (described in Section 5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing and Appendix C Sites Inventory), as a pro-housing community, the City is pursuing several rezoning programs to increase its residential capacity. # Program 1 - Affordable Housing Berkeley The Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) was recently selected by HUD to be a Move to Work Agency (MTW) that allows for programmatic flexibility. The cohort for which BHA was selected is “Landlord Incentives,” allowing BHA to attract additional landlords to participate with BHA to house voucher holders in Berkeley. Some of the flexibilities include: A Payment Standard above 110 percent; one-month contract rent signing bonus for brand new landlords; and funds for accessibility unit modifications. Additional programmatic flexibilities will focus on expansion of the Project-based Section 8 program. BHA is currently working on the process, including future public hearings, to be able to fully implement these flexibilities, and it is expected that will happen by mid-2023. Furthermore, the BHA Board has established a non-profit entity - Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) - as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley. BHA’s former low income public housing properties were sold to a developer in 2014, and those units were converted to Project-based Section 8. The proceeds from the sale will be used by AHB Inc. to develop the new units. The BHA board also serves as the Board of AHB and has just hired Mosaic Urban Development to assist with its Strategic Planning Process. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Complete Strategic Plan for Affordable Housing Berkeley Inc. by December 2023 | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | BHA/AHB | | **Funding Source(s)** | BHA Low Income Public Housing Disposition proceeds | | **AFFH** | n/a | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-2 Funding Sources
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
H-19 Regional Housing Needs | # Program 2 - Housing Choice Vouchers BHA provides a range of rental housing assistance to very low income, and low income households through a number of programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers, and Moderate Rehabilitation (SROs). BHA also operates several Special Purpose Voucher programs including: * Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV): 51 EHVs awarded by HUD to house homeless households. * Mainstream Voucher Program: 91 vouchers to house non-elderly and disabled homeless or at-risk households. * Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH): 40 VASH vouchers for homeless veterans. BHA provides all disabled households the opportunity to apply for Reasonable Accommodations so that they can fully participate in its programs. Some examples of Reasonable Accommodations include an extra bedroom for a 24-hour Live in Aide, or an extra room to store bulky medical equipment. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Continue to assist up to 2,000 households during the 2023-2031 period through:
Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program - 98 units
Housing Choice Vouchers - 1,500 households (and growing)
Project-Based Vouchers - 400 households
Emergency Housing Vouchers - 51 households
Mainstream Voucher Program - 91 households
VASH - 40 households | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | BHA | | **Funding Source(s)** | HUD | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility; BHA will work to expand all areas of Berkeley with rental housing units.
Provide targeted outreach to educate the community on Source of Income protection with the goal of increasing acceptance of HCVs in high resource areas.
Increase baseline by 200 households by January 2031. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-2 Funding Sources
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention
H-24 Homeless Housing
H-27 Persons with Disabilities
H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing
H-30 Accessible Housing | # Program 3 - Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements The City is revising its Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements to enhance the effectiveness of the program in delivering affordable housing, especially for extremely low-income households. Proposed changes include: * **Rate of Rent Increases.** Cap the annual rate of rent increases for the Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) using both Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Area Median Income (AMI). Currently rent increases are based on AMI alone. Recent trends have resulted in sharper increases in AMI due to a greater share of higher-income earners moving to the county rather than from increases in wages, resulting in the existing approach having unintended adverse impacts to tenants. While changes in CPI-U have traditionally been more stable than changes to AMI, this may change in the current, more inflationary cycle. The overall goal of this proposed program is to ensure that rent increases do not result in high housing cost burden or displacement of existing tenants. * **Extremely Low Income Units.** Incentivize the provision of extremely low income (ELI, 30 percent of AMI) units by offering low income units to voucher holders prior to other income eligible households. * **In-Lieu Fee Based on Unit Size.** Establish a per-square-foot in-lieu fee, instead of the existing per-unit basis for fees. * **Alternative Housing Types.** Alternative affordable housing types, including live/work units, would qualify for meeting the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. * **In-Lieu Options for Compliance.** Add land dedication as a potential alternative to providing on-site units. In addition, City staff will be initiating a new residential financial feasibility study starting 2023, in accordance with the recommendations of both the Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions. This new study will analyze the feasibility of smaller building development types (e.g., middle housing), monitor the effects of the newly adopted fees and inclusionary requirements, and establish whether adjustments should be made to the development controls, including fee level or cost structure. Adjustments may be made to raise or lower the per square foot fee, to adjust the sliding scale for smaller projects, to better align the developer cost of the inclusionary versus fee options, or to make other changes to reflect market conditions as the city emerges from the pandemic and faces inflationary, recessionary, and other market influences. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2023, amend Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23.38, updating the Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) in the Zoning Ordinance.

By June 2023, adopt a Resolution addressing regulations for a voucher program and establishing an in-lieu fee pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.020(A)(2).

By December 2025, conduct a follow-up residential financial feasibility study to inform modifications to the City's affordable housing fees and continue to ensure a realistic development environment. (See also Program 35 -Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus) | | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund; SB 2 Grant Funding; Enterprise Fund – Community Planning Fee | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Disproportionate Needs | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2 Funding Sources
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | # Program 4 - Housing Trust Fund Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) pools funds for affordable housing construction from a variety of sources with different requirements, and makes them available to developers through a single application process. Affordable housing developers and land trusts can find funding opportunities on this page as they become available. The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee/Inclusionary fee is the primary driver of the HTF program. The HTF is also regularly supported by fees collected from condo conversions and new commercial development, as well as federal HOME funds. The City has significantly expanded its capacity since the adoption of the Measure O bond for affordable housing in 2018. The City's funding commitments typically leverage federal tax credits and State funds to complete 100 percent affordable projects. During the upcoming cycle, the City will complete over 500 units across seven projects currently in the pipeline – as well as future opportunities. The City will also commit $53 million in HTF - $40 million of Measure O and $13 million in local funds – to fund a minimum of 35% affordable units at North Berkeley and Ashby BART. The program targets funding a minimum of 500 units of nonprofit affordable housing and a minimum of 35 percent affordable housing at Ashby and North Berkeley BART sites. Funding recipients will follow the standard Loan Terms, requiring 55-year development loans, unless variations are granted by the City Manager or City Council. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Homekey
• December 2023. Homekey 2 project completion
• December 2023. Homekey 3 RFP process (target selection and funding of project)
Housing Trust Fund Program | * December 2023. Funding awards for pipeline projects. * December 2024. Project completion for funded affordable projects: Maudelle Miller Shirek Community (2001 Ashby) and Blake Apartments (2527 San Pablo) * December 2025. Issue Housing Trust Fund RFP Small Sites Program * December 2023. North Berkeley project completion to preserve and renovate 13 units (1685 Solano Ave) BART - See also Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning. * February 2023. Predevelopment funding award. * December 2025. Initial development funding award. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | Measure O, AHMF, Condo Conversion Mitigation Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, HOME | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Disproportionate Needs | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2 Funding Sources
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | # Program 5 - Preservation of At-Risk Housing The City will monitor and assist in preserving deed-restricted housing. There are over 2,300 deed restricted affordable rental units within the City of Berkeley. Three projects (92 units) are at risk for potential conversion to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033. These are Bonita House (two affordable units), Lawrence Moore Manor (46 affordable units), and Stuart Pratt Manor (44 affordable units). These projects are subject to annual renewal of its project-based Section 8 certificates with HUD. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | During the 2023-2031 period, continue to implement the City's affordable housing policies and administer the Housing Trust Fund and Small Sites Programs that subsidize both new affordable housing development and rehabilitation of existing projects to preserve and extend their affordability.

Annually monitor status of the at-risk project with the goal of preserving the 92 at risk units | Ensure tenants are properly noticed by the property owners should a Notice of Intent to opt out of low income use is filed. Notices must be filed three years, one year, and six months in advance of conversion. Pursue acquisition of the affordable units through Affordable Housing Berkeley should conversion to market rate housing | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | Housing Trust Fund | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-5 Rent Stabilization | ## Program 6 - Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement The City contracts with ECHO Housing for Fair Housing services and ensure the public has access to information through the City’s website, and other modes of communication, including newsletters and through local Community-Based Organization (CBO) partners. The City also partners with East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) to provide no cost legal advocacy help to low income tenants. The City’s approach is to be collaborative with landlords through the Berkeley Property Owners Association (BPOA) to provide trainings to rental property owners. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | During the 2023-2031 period, continue to provide fair housing services to residents, landlords, and housing professionals. Increase outreach and education to Homeowners Associations.
Annually: Conduct nine education/training workshops for tenant-focused CBOs and property owner associations.
Annually: Provide 70 Fair Housing Counseling sessions on fair housing information, respond to information alleging potential discrimination, and provide basic information on State and Federal fair housing laws to tenants and landlords.
Annually: Conduct 22 outreach events to inform Berkeley residents of their rights.
Annually: Conduct 10 tenant/landlord mediation sessions to resolve disputes and/or legal problems.
By December 2025, conduct an Equity Study to target program marketing | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | CDBG | Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement: ECHO is tasked with reaching specific target demographics including people with disabilities, female heads of households, homeless households, and chronically homeless households. Echo records income and demographic data for each client served to ensure the City is consistent with AFFH goals. ECHO’s counselor will respond to all inquiries and complaints from City of Berkeley regarding illegal housing discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, familial status, physical and mental disability, religion, source of income, and all other arbitrary forms (immigration status, LEP, personal characteristics) of discrimination as defined in state and federal fair housing law. ECHO will deliver services to any Berkeley renter who feels they have experienced illegal housing discrimination or any housing provider requiring education or training with regard to federal, state, and local fair housing laws and ordinances. AFFH | As a Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (QFHO), ECHO continues to coordinate and collaborate with cooperating attorneys, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on cases we have investigated and referred for litigation. | Education/Training – tenant-focused CBOs and Property Owner Associations: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where LMI households and cost burdened renters are concentrated Education/Training – rental property owners: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus. Outreach Events – Berkeley residents: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley where protected groups and sensitive communities at risk of displacement are concentrated. Policies Implemented | H-5 Rent Stabilization H-29 Fair Housing # Program 7 - Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection The Rent Stabilization Board (RSB) works closely with other City departments to ensure that tenants are protected from retaliation when they complain about code violations and to assist landlords in following the requirements of the law when they need to temporarily relocate tenants in order to make repairs. The Board also assists with the enforcement of the Fair Housing Ordinance (BMC Section 13.30.050) by providing funding for the East Bay Community Law Center and the Eviction Defense Center, which provide legal services to the low-income community. Rent stabilization provisions apply to approximately 21,000 units in multi-family properties built before 1980. About 19,000 of these units are required to register at any given time and the other 2,000 units are temporarily exempt. The City currently has over 3,500 long-term tenants who have continuously resided in their rent controlled units since 1980 when the Rent Board and Rent Stabilization Ordinance was created. The most common reason for temporary exemption is that the unit is rented to a tenant who participates in either the Section 8 Portable Voucher or Shelter Plus Care programs. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Continue to enforce the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Maintain rent stabilization on approximately 21,000 units and monitoring the effect of the Ellis Act.
Pursue new affordable housing to replenish units removed due to Ellis. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | RSB | | **Funding Source(s)** | Fees | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-4 Economic Diversity
H-5 Rent Stabilization
H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing | # Program 8 - Rental Housing Safety The City of Berkeley performs inspections of rental units to ensure they meet safety requirements defined by the California Building Standards Code. Both tenants and property owners can request inspections by the City. The program focuses on tenant-occupied housing and is both complaint-driven and proactive. Code enforcement inspections respond to requests for service from tenants, and also conduct proactive inspections on a regular cycle. Units where tenants have submitted a complaint to Housing Code Enforcement will be prioritized. If the inspector finds any code violations, the City will provide a written report of the issue and set a timeline for correction. The property owner is responsible for correcting the violation before the City returns for a re-inspection. If the re-inspection finds that the property owner resolved the violation, the City will not charge a fee. If the re-inspection finds that the violation remains, the City will charge an inspection service fee, with costs increasing with each additional re-inspection. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | The City is currently working on expanding the proactive inspections program, with the goal of inspecting every building during a 5-year cycle as part of the Rental Housing Safety Program.
By December 2022, complete the Housing Inspector Manual.
By December 2023, hire five additional staff, including two inspectors and one administrative staff person, and two additional inspectors
By December 2023, rewrite and adopt the Berkeley Housing Code | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Building and Safety | | **Funding Source(s)** | Program Fees: Annual, Inspection Service and Penalty Fees. | | | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements | | :--- | :--- | | **AFFH** | Proactive Inspections Program – Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley neighborhoods where there are higher concentrations of renters and aging housing units. | | | | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-11 Code Requirements
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance | ## Program 9 - Tenant Survey The City has issued an RFP to conduct a Tenant Survey to gather a representative sample of tenants’ experiences in Berkeley today. The data collected will be used to ensure the City’s elected Rent Stabilization Board adopts legislation that promotes policies and services stated in the Berkeley Rent Ordinance. Based on data from Tenant Survey, the Board will make changes to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, conduct Tenant Survey
By December 2023, provide summary of data to the Rent Stabilization Board | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | RSB | | **Funding Source(s)** | Fees | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-5 Rent Stabilization
H-9 Housing Preservation
H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing | ## Program 10 - Housing Preference Policies Currently, the BHA Housing Choice Voucher waitlist provides preference points for households or families that—at the time of selection from the waiting list—reside in the City of Berkeley, or formerly resided in Berkeley, or include a member who works or has been hired to work in the jurisdiction. Use of this preference will not have the purpose or effect of delaying or otherwise denying admission to the program based on the race, color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability, or age of any member of an applicant family. The City is developing a housing preference policy to assist residents at-risk of displacement and those who have already been displaced to receive priority for new, local affordable housing units. The City intends for this policy to apply to units created via its HTF and BMR programs to the extent permissible by Fair Housing law. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, the City will adopt a housing preference policy. The City plans to conduct outreach on an ongoing basis, coordinate preferences with the Alameda County Housing Portal for applications, and collect data and monitor annually to asses impact. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | BHA and HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
H-29 Fair Housing | ## Program 11 - Rental Assistance The City utilizes CDBG and local Measure P funding to contract with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to provide supportive services. These services help stabilize households in rental assistance programs and to move unhoused community members into permanent supportive housing. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually: Provide rental assistance to 50-75 new households (or 400-600 new households over eight years) | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | CDBG; local Measure P | | **AFFH** | Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley neighborhoods and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where cost burdened renter populations are most prevalent. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-2 Funding Sources
H-5 Rent Stabilization
H-24 Homeless Housing | ## Program 12 - Workforce Housing The City of Berkeley is dedicated to supporting local efforts to expand the construction of workforce housing that is affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI). The availability of affordable housing to moderate income residents is important to attract and retain workers, reduce commute time and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for workers to live in the communities they serve. Workforce housing targets middle-income households who work within the City of Berkeley, such as teachers, health care workers, retail clerks, artists and young professionals. In 2018, Berkeley voters passed Measure O, a $135 million bond to develop affordable housing, that includes a priority for education workers. In December 2021, the City Council approved $24.5 million for a Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) sponsored low-income and workforce housing project. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2023, entitle construction of 110 affordable units, with a preference for Berkeley Unified School District employees. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | Measure O, AHMF, Condo Conversion Mitigation Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Disproportionate Needs | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-8 Workforce Housing
H-15 Publicly-Owned Sites | # Program 13 -Homeless Services The City of Berkeley is committed to addressing homelessness and is working on a large variety of new and potential homeless programs, including: * Acquisition of the Golden Bear Inn for Project HomeKey * Leasing with the Rodeway Inn to provide sheltering for people currently living at People’s Park * A drop-in center for the unhoused in People’s Park and Telegraph Ave district jointly funded by UC Berkeley Preliminary discussions are underway to assist Berkeley Food and Housing Project in acquiring Russell Street Residence. The City is also working to implement a new rental assistance program (“Shallow Subsidies”) for people who are unhoused but do not need supportive services, and the City is administering a County contract to place unhoused people in motels to provide respite from the streets. Finally, the City is also assisting Larkin Street to purchase the property at 3404 King Street, currently owned by Fred Finch and operated as transitional housing for homeless youth, for the same purpose. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2022, establish programs and services with the goal of assisting: | * Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at Golden Bear Inn * Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at the Rodeway * Serve an average of 15-25 unhoused persons the drop-in center daily * Maintain transitional housing for 12 transition aged youth at 3404 King Street * Maintain capacity for housing persons experiencing homelessness by 27 beds/households at the Berkeley Inn | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS and CMO | | **Funding Source(s)** | Local (Measure P, general fund); State HomeKey; State Encampment Resolution Fund grant; City of Berkeley - University of California Settlement Payment funds | | **AFFH** | Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
Place Based Strategies for Neighborhood Improvement
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Housing Mobility | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-21 University of California
H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention
H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing | # Program 14 - Housing for Homeless Persons with Disabilities The City plans to provide local subsidy to Resources for Community Development (RCD) for a 119-unit very low income development for households earning between 10 and 50 percent AMI (Supportive Housing in People’s Park) with at least 50 percent of the units dedicated to previously unhoused residents with mental health conditions. This project has been allocated 27 project-based vouchers by BHA. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, approve and assist in the construction of a 119-unit very low-income housing project. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS Mental Health | | **Funding Source(s)** | MSHA funding and others to be determined | | **AFFH** | Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-21 University of California
H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention | 129 H-27 Persons with Disabilities H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing # Program 15 -Shelter Plus Care Shelter Plus Care is a housing subsidy program for individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled in Berkeley. Participants pay approximately 30% of their income towards rent, and receive ongoing supportive services. Shelter Plus Care participants must have a disability due to mental illness, drug or alcohol dependence, physical disability, or chronic medical condition, and meet the following criteria for homelessness: * Continuously homeless on the streets or in shelters for last 12 consecutive months * Currently on the streets or in a shelter for less than 12 months, with at least four separate occasions of being homeless and on the streets/in shelters during the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months; OR * Staying in an institutional care facility for fewer than 90 days and prior to that met the above criteria for being chronically homeless (Institutional care facilities include jails, substance abuse or mental health treatment facilities, hospitals or other similar facilities) * Residing in transitional housing and prior to that met the above criteria for being chronically homeless (Persons in transitional housing do not meet HUD criteria, but may qualify for City of Berkeley program on a limited basis). The City continues to administer 300 Shelter Plus Care vouchers for the homeless, along with supportive services. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually: Enroll 10 new clients as vouchers become available due to existing clients exiting the program | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | Federal S+C Funding | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility
Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention
H-27 Persons with Disabilities | # Program 16 -Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety The City partners with nonprofit providers to fund home modifications for lower income households. Both organizations bring volunteers and communities together to provide free repair services for low-income homeowners. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually: Assist home modifications for approximately 13 homes (a total of 104 homes over the 2023-2031 period) | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund and CDBG | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility
Targeted outreach to areas identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) map as low or moderate resource census tract. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-11 Code Requirements
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
H-30 Accessible Housing
H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing | ## Program 17 -Accessible Housing The City promotes housing accessibility for persons with disabilities. The City also promotes its reasonable accommodation to property owners. The City also requires community-based organizations to conduct outreach throughout the community targeting the low and moderate income households, including seniors and people with disabilities, served by these programs. As part of Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential, the City will also modify standards for ground floor uses to incorporate first floor residential that facilitate accessible housing. The intent is to increase the number of accessible dwelling units in the local housing supply, particularly in transit and service-rich neighborhoods. BHA has a robust Reasonable Accommodation program for all of its program participants who are disabled – each time they conduct a new voucher holder intake, and in annual recertification packets, clients receive the Notice of Right to Request a Reasonable Accommodation, and a Form to Request a Reasonable Accommodation. All disabled households have the right to request a Reasonable Accommodation at any time, and BHA staff are trained to respond properly, adhering to Fair Housing Law. All Project-based Voucher long term contracts have a requirement to adhere to current Section 504/ADA designs in the number of units. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2025, develop and amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed-use developments to facilitate first floor residential | 131 and live/work uses that encourages accessible design in higher density districts (e.g. R-3, R-4, and commercial districts). By December 2026, promote residential units to be developed with universal design and visitability principles in future PBV Master Contracts or exemptions for requiring a modified unit to be returned to its original state upon vacating the unit. As part of BHA's MTW application addressed in Affordable Housing Berkeley, the fiscal flexibilities include the ability to spend up to $500 per unit to help landlords pay for unit modifications. This benefit cannot be combined with the CIL program addressed in Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | BHA, Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility
Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement | | **Policies Implemented** | H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
H-27 Persons with Disabilities
H-30 Accessible Housing
H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing | ## Program 18 - Senior / Disabled Home Improvement Loan The purpose of the Senior and Disabled Home Rehabilitation Loan Program is to assist low and moderate income senior and disabled homeowners in repairing/modifying their homes, to eliminate conditions that pose a threat to their health and safety and to help preserve the City's housing inventory. Qualified borrowers can receive interest-free loans of up to $100,000. The building to be rehabilitated has to be located within the City of Berkeley boundaries. The property will contain no more than two units. Only the unit occupied by the senior or disabled homeowner is eligible to receive assistance. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually: Provide two interest-free loans up to $100,000 for a total of 16 loans over eight years. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | CalHome Reuse Account (program income) and CDBG | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility | | **Policies Implemented** | H-26 Senior Housing
H-27 Persons with Disabilities | H-30 Accessible Housing H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing # Program 19 - Housing Condition Standards The City will develop an Amnesty Program for Unpermitted Dwelling Units (UDUs). The amnesty program will promote legalization of unpermitted or undocumented dwelling units—including Accessory Dwelling Units—while ensuring safe, healthy and habitable living conditions, resulting in an increased number of legal dwelling units within the Berkeley community. The program would provide tenants a means of getting potentially substandard or unsafe conditions abated in their homes, while providing property owners a pathway to legalization without fear of punitive action. The program would pertain solely to existing unpermitted dwelling units, and not to newly constructed dwelling units. For Housing Choice Voucher holders, BHA implements HUD’s housing inspection protocol, called Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to ensure safe and decent living conditions.. Each assisted unit is inspected before a contract is approved, and at least once every 12 months thereafter. The inspection is performed to determine compliance with HUD’s HQS. The program withholds rental subsidies to landlords if the property fails inspection twice, as an incentive for landlords to make repairs. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2024, adopt and commence implementation of a Building and Safety Amnesty Program for Unpermitted Dwelling Units.

Under BHA’s Housing Quality Standards Program:
  • Conduct an Annual Inspection approximately 9 months after the initial inspection, and every 9-10 months thereafter.
  • Written notice of the inspection is mailed to the tenant and landlord approximately 2 weeks prior to the scheduled inspection. A person 18 or older must be present to grant the inspector permission to enter the unit.
  • Minor repairs to be conducted on the spot if a maintenance person is available in order to avoid the need for a reinspection.
  • If all deficiencies noted at the inspection are not repaired and confirmed by the scheduled reinspection date, rental subsidies will be withheld effective the first day of the month following the failed inspection. Payments will resume effective upon confirmation of all required repairs.
| | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Building and Safety, BHA | | **Funding Source(s)** | HUD | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility
Anti-Displacement through legalization of unpermitted units | | **Policies Implemented** | H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
H-9 Housing Preservation | 133 H-11 Code Requirements H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance # Program 20 -Livable Neighborhoods As established in the City of Berkeley’s 2018 Strategic Plan[^p142-10], the City is committed to equitable and affirmative opportunity in all its work, including housing, services, and capital projects. To prioritize strategies in historically underserved neighborhoods in South and West Berkeley, and the Southside, the City pledges to: * Expand rental housing safety programs, particularly in central and southern Berkeley neighborhoods where there are higher proportions of renters and aging housing units. (see Program 8 -Rental Housing Safety and Program 21 -Lead-Poisoning Prevention). * Encourage climate equity by promoting sustainable home retrofitting, including in rental properties, and especially in South and West Berkeley (see Program 23 -Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund and Program 24 -Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy). * Initiate the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Specific Plan with the express intent of providing community amenities as part of the land use planning and housing intensification efforts (see Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors) and continue to implement measures in the recently adopted Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, which specifically includes community amenities, services, and facilities. * Continue neighborhood code enforcement with a focus in the Southside neighborhood where there are higher proportions of student group living accommodations and relatively lower incomes, and high ethnic and racial diversity. * Prioritize infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation in historically underserved neighborhoods in South and West Berkeley, including target pedestrian safety and bikeway projects in Equity Priority Areas in South and West Berkeley and the Southside. * Improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in access to programming and employment for the City's parks, recreation, and capital initiatives through increased outreach, and focus park and planting improvements in South and West Berkeley. **Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Livable Neighborhoods** - The City Manager's Office (CMO) provides guidance and resources to make neighborhoods safer and more livable for residents through its Livable Neighborhoods program. The Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement (NSCE) unit responds to requests for traffic calming, street lighting, and mediates complaints of noise and wood smoke disturbances, sewage releases, rodent and pests, and abandoned vehicles. The NSCE leads on complex code enforcement cases that require multi-departmental response. The program is [^p142-10]: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/strategic-plan also updating the protocols by which such cases are referred and handled, which will lead to more efficient response times. Currently there are three NSCE officer staff, who work closely with one zoning code enforcement officer in Planning. The City is in the process of updating its implementation of the Group Living Accommodations (GLAs) ordinance and has created an online registry system for GLAs or mini-dorms, as well as short-term rentals. Eligible GLAs may apply to receive a functionally equivalent exemption from certain requirements of the GLA ordinance. Mini-dorms are buildings in residential districts that are occupied by six or more adults. Sororities, Fraternities, and Student Co-ops are not considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager. GLAs are buildings or units that are occupied by individuals, and are characterized by separate sleeping rooms without individual kitchen facilities, and containing congregate bath and/or dining facilities or rooms. **Equity Priority Area Improvements** – It is a policy of the City of Berkeley to maintain its infrastructure in safe, good condition that protects the environment and invests in its existing assets. The City commits to place-based actions beyond housing improvements, such as infrastructure, streetscapes, active transportation, and other community enhancements. The following documents and policies provide guidance in prioritizing the City’s capital improvements in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing: * *Berkeley Bicycle Plan (Update adoption anticipated December 2023).* The vision of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan is to make Berkeley a model city for bicycling for people of all ages and abilities. The Plan is currently being updated to reflect the Vision Zero focus on eliminating all severe injury and fatality traffic crashes involving people riding bicycles, with traffic safety improvements prioritized in the Equity Priority Area identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan. * *Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy (Adopted January 25, 2022).* Prioritize paving projects in the Equity Zone, where residents experience more pressing need and would receive benefits sooner. The Equity Zone aligns with underserved neighborhoods (West of San Pablo and South of University between Spaulding and San Pablo) and have historically experienced decades of underinvestment. * *Pedestrian Plan (Adopted January 26, 2021).* The City’s vision is to be a model walkable city where traveling on foot or with an assistive device is safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, ages and abilities. The Pedestrian Plan documented that black pedestrians are twice as likely to experience traffic violence compared to white pedestrians and uses redlining maps to prioritize safety improvements in historically underserved neighborhoods. Priority projects segments include South Berkeley (Adeline from Ashby to southern city limits, Ashby from San Pablo to Shattuck, Alcatraz from Sacrament to Adeline) and West Berkeley (San Pablo from University to Dwight, Cedar from Sixth to Stannage). Priority projects were identified using the Equity Priority Area identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan. * *Vision Zero Action Plan (Adopted March 10, 2020).* The City’s Vision Zero policy document aims to eliminate fatal and severe traffic crashes by 2028 and a guiding principle is to remedy the racial and economic inequities associated with traffic enforcement by prioritizing infrastructure improvements in Equity Priority Areas. Equity Priority Areas are areas primarily West of San Pablo Avenue, or South of University between San Pablo and Martin Luther King Junior Way. The Equity Priority Areas takes into account historic federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “redlining” practices, racial/ethnic composition, property value, and cultural centers. The Vision Zero Action Plan identifies two ways to implement projects: Quick Build Projects and Capital Intensive Projects. The Equity Priority Area is used to prioritize funding and construction of traffic safety projects identified in the Pedestrian Plan, BeST Plan, and other City Council adopted Plans. * *Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan (Adopted June 1, 2016, Updated January 2021).* The BeST Plan is about preparing for and prioritizing the physical enhancement of Berkeley’s transportation network to improve access and mobility for all communities and users. A key goal is to increase transportation choices for disadvantaged communities and the Plan prioritizes projects in West Berkeley and the Southside. * *Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (Adopted December 8, 2020).* The Specific Plan articulates a community vision and planning framework for approximately 1.3 miles of Adeline Street in the southern portion of the City and identifies right-of-way design objectives and requirements to improve intersection safety and access, particularly for those with disabilities. * Reduce Barriers to Access City Recreation Programs and Employment Opportunities. By simplifying application processes for scholarships and employment opportunities, and conducting targeted outreach with BUSD, the City intends to diversity participation, particularly to lower income households and to students identified by the state as in need of Supplementary Educational Services (SES). * Increase investment in the City’s community gardens and tree canopies, and maintenance of existing parks and open space facilities with a focus in South-West and North-West Berkeley. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2022: Create an updated registry of GLAs.
By December 2023: Expand NSCE capacity by adding additional staff and/or outsourcing administrative functions.
By December 2023: Fund and complete Quick Build pedestrian improvements on Martin Luther King Jr Way (South) Dwight to Adeline and Sacramento Street from Dwight to Southern City Limits. (Pedestrian Plan and Vision Zero)
By December 2023: Add 2 new Community Gardens that give priority to low SES students and residents that live in apartments.
By December 2023: Work collaboratively with BUSD to authorize joint registration for scholarships to City Recreation Programs.
By December 2023: Develop and provide 6 Low SES 11th grade Berkeley students with the opportunity to learn career skills through project-based internships. Effort will include development of outreach network, communication with BUSD, and training opportunities.
By January 2024: Return to Council for review and adoption of the 5-Year Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan.
By December 2024: Finalize construction of the Southside Complete Streets project.
By December 2024: Plant 200 trees in the right of way for South and West Berkeley Residents through the City’s Make Life Better program, established to inform residents of free tree planting and watering opportunities. | By June 2025: Fund and complete the design phase of a permanent pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvement strategy on Adeline from Ashby to Southern City Limits. (Pedestrian Plan and Vision Zero, Capital Intensive Project, Adeline Corridor Specific Plan) By December 2027: Fund and complete a permanent pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvement strategy on San Pablo from University to Dwight. (Pedestrian Plan and Vision Zero, Capital Intensive Project) Annually: Report to City Council on the progress of the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan Every two years: Bring updated BeST Plan to City Council for approval. Every three years: Bring updated Vision Zero Action Plan to City Council for approval. Every five years: Bring updated Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans to City Council for approval | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | City Manager’s Office – Neighborhood Service Code Enforcement (NSCE) Unit
Public Works
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund
Alameda County Measure BB, State SB 1, other State grants | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements, with particular focus in South and West Berkeley, and the Southside. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing
H-11 Code Requirements
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance | # Program 21 -Lead-Poisoning Prevention The City of Berkeley’s Environmental Health Division will incorporate “Proactive Lead-Based Paint Inspections” as part of the Childhood Lead Prevention Program (CLPP), and will continue documenting these types of inspectional activities throughout the 2023-2031 period. CLPP contains three levels: Tier I: Response to elevated blood-lead levels in children; Tier II: Proactive inspections; and Tier III: Contractor enforcement. Conducting proactive lead-based paint inspections satisfies State requirements as part of the CLPP program. These inspections (in coordination with Housing Code Enforcement staff) also provide a community service by responding to tenant concerns, particularly those with toddlers and young children. The City will inspect the presence of lead in the residential environment, especially where peeling lead paint has been identified. These inspections also provide documentation on lead levels in soil before and after any remediation. Annually: Continue to assist approximately 12 households (or more, as needed) during the 2023-2031 period by: Conduct an Environmental Investigation (EI) for presence of lead when peeling lead paint has been identified or if/when a child has elevated blood lead levels. Proactive inspections will be conducted in high-risk areas citywide, which include a visual assessment and notifications to homeowners and landlords. The average inspection process from start to finish should take approximately 30 days to complete. **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Environmental Investigation timeframes – If blood lead level is: --- | --- | 9.5 – 14.4 mcg/dL → Perform EI within four weeks of PHN referral. | 14.5-19.4 mc/dL → Perform EI within two weeks of PHN referral | 19.5-44.4 mcg/dL → Perform EI within one week of PHN referral | 44.5-69.4 mcg/dL → Perform EI within 48 hours of PHN referral | Greater than 69.4 mcg/dL → Perform EI within 24 hours of PHN referral **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | HHCS – Environmental Health **Funding Source(s)** | California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) Childhood Lead Poisoning and Prevention Program (CLPP) Annual Grant **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements Environmental Investigations will target neighborhoods which have been identified as having one or more cases of toddlers or young children with elevated blood lead levels, presumably linked to environmental sources. **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation H-11 Code Requirements H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance # Program 22 -Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs The City implements and supports a number of programs to address seismic preparedness: * **Soft Story Program.** Continue program management for buildings newly added to the soft story inventory, as well as code enforcement for non-compliant soft story buildings subject to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.39. [Soft Story Ordinance (Ord. No. 7,318-N.S.) adopted December 3, 2013.] * **Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Ordinance.** Continue code enforcement for non-compliant URM buildings subject to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.38 (Ord. 6604-NS § 2, 2000) as of November 15, 1991. * **Retrofit Grants Program.** In early 2017, the City launched its first Retrofit Grants Program to incentivize individual property owners to retrofit their seismically vulnerable buildings. This ground-breaking program leveraged both federal and state hazard mitigation grant funding from FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to reimburse property owners for a portion of their design and construction costs. In May 2020, the City received approval for additional hazard mitigation grant funding, enabling the City to launch a second round of the Retrofit Grants Program. The City will continue to seek additional hazard mitigation grant funding throughout 2023-2031, in an effort to provide further financial assistance to building owners, and encourage retrofit of additional Berkeley buildings. * **Seismic Retrofit Transfer Tax Rebate Program.** This program provides refunds of Berkeley transfer taxes for seismic upgrades to residential properties that are completed within one year of property transfer. Up to 1/3 of the base 1.5% transfer tax rate may be refunded on a dollar-for-dollar basis, for all expenses incurred on or after October 17, 1989, for seismic upgrades to residential property. This program applies to structures that are used exclusively for residential purposes, or any mixed-use structure that contains two or more dwelling units. Between 2013 and 2019, 702 rebates have been distributed, amounting to over $4M. * **Earthquake Brace and Bolt.** Earthquake Brace and Bolt, a program of the California Residential Mitigation Program, provides rebates of up to $3,000 for homes that make qualifying seismic safety upgrades. For the first time, in 2022, this program also provided grants for up to 100% of the costs for low-income homeowners. Berkeley is proactively making residents aware of the Brace and Bolt program through news releases, distribution of flyers in the Permit Service Center, and workshops during annual registration to answer questions and encourage participation. The City actively promotes and tracks participation in the Earthquake Brace and Bolt rebate program. *** | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | **Soft Story Program:** By December 2025, facilitate the compliance of the remaining 14 soft story buildings. As of March 1, 2022, out of 360 soft-story buildings, 265 buildings (containing approximately 2,995 units) have complied with the soft story program requirements, and 35 soft story buildings (containing ~306 dwelling units) must still come into compliance with mandatory retrofit requirements. Of the remaining 35 buildings, eight owners have obtained building permits, 13 have applied for permits and 14 have yet to apply. Identify additional buildings may be added to the inventory for improvements.

**Unreinforced Masonry Ordinance:** By December 2025, facilitate the retrofitting of the remaining four unreinforced masonry (URM) building. Of the approximately 600 buildings originally included in the City's URM inventory, roughly 99 percent have been seismically retrofitted, demolished or demonstrated to have adequate reinforcement. As of March 1, 2022, four buildings remain on the city's URM list and are required to retrofit in order to avoid further penalties. Two of the four building owners have applied for retrofit permits, and two have expired permit applications.

By December 2023, provide Retrofit Grants to 50 property owners.

**Seismic Retrofit Transfer Tax Rebate Program:** Continue to issue building permit seismic upgrades and facilitate transfer tax rebates for qualifying properties.

**Earthquake Brace and Bolt program:** Annually, the City's goal is to help at least 50 homeowners complete seismic retrofits and obtain rebates. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Building and Safety | | **Funding Source(s)** | Transfer Tax Rebate Program
Retrofit Grants Program
California Residential Mitigation Program | | | | | :--- | :--- | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-11 Code Requirements
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
H-13 Seismic Reinforcement | # Program 23 - Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund The Resilient Home Retrofit portion of the Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund Program seeks to support building decarbonization that enhances resilience, supports occupants and reduces GHG emissions. Many lower and moderate income (LMI) units would benefit from health, safety, efficiency, and electrification upgrades. While there are some resources to support these repairs for income qualified households, it is difficult for low income residents to access multiple programs that have different application processes and eligibility requirements. The Resilient Home Retrofit aspect of the new Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund Program seeks to demonstrate how retrofit funding available to income-qualified households can be combined with other programs to leverage greater benefits, and achieve meaningful home improvements for LMI residents. This initial funding ($250,000) for this program will be used to retrofit approximately 12 LMI units (multi-family and single-family), and the hope is to get additional funding after this initial pilot funding is exhausted. The City selected contractors in 2022 to establish and implement this program. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | June 2023, commence program implementation, with the goal of retrofitting 12 low and moderate income units.

Depending on program effectiveness, pursue additional funding to continue program. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | OESD | | **Funding Source(s)** | City Council authorized $600,000 from the General Fund in FY22 for the Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund Program (2022-2024); $250,000 of this fund will support resilient retrofits for LMI units. Will add additional funding as it becomes available. | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Homes for this Program may be anywhere in Berkeley, but are most likely to be in formerly red-lined areas in South and West Berkeley.
Goal with existing funding is to retrofit 12 low and moderate income units between 2022-2024. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation | H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience # Program 24 - Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy The BEBE Strategy identified home repair and maintenance needs that accompany building electrification as a major challenge to decarbonizing existing residential buildings in Berkeley. The strategy seeks to transition existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives in a way that benefits all residents, especially members of historically marginalized communities. The strategy focuses on how to equitably electrify all of Berkeley’s low-rise residential buildings. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, complete Energy Equity for Renters Technical Assistance program with ACEEE and receive its research results. This is one implementation of BEBES that is tied to housing preservation.

Within two years of receiving research results, develop programs and policies that promote energy efficiency while protecting tenants from displacement.

By December 2025, explore funding opportunities for equity programs, including integration of electrification measures into housing protection and preservation programs, such as the City's Senior and Disabled Home Loan Program or Section 8 housing voucher program. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | OESD | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund
ACEEE-funded program, with foundation support | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
Neighborhoods most targeted would be those with the largest proportion of renters in older buildings: Southside, Central Berkeley, and West and South Berkeley. Goal with existing funding is to retrofit 15 low and moderate income homes between 2022-2024 | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience | # Program 25 - Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) Berkeley’s Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) requires building owners and homeowners, at the time of listing a property for sale, to complete and publicly report comprehensive energy assessments with tailored recommendations on how to save energy, eliminate fossil fuels and link building owners to incentive programs for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually: On average, around 400 buildings complete BESO assessments each year.
By December 2025, amend ordinance to update requirements for building upgrades. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | OESD | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
Disproportionate Housing Needs
BESO applies to homes anywhere in the City of Berkeley; distribution of eligible homes is dependent on the geography of home listings. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience | # Program 26 - BayREN Single-Family Homes and Multi-Family Homes Programs The City of Berkeley actively promotes participation in this technical assistance, rebate, and financing program for renovation projects improving health, comfort, utility costs, and resilience. Higher energy burdens have real implications on the health and wellbeing, and housing stability for families and individuals. These programs include energy efficiency measures that reduce energy burden on low and moderate income residents. BayREN provides technical assistance, rebates, financing for energy efficiency and electrification projects that are recommended by BESO assessments and currently promoted by Berkeley for voluntary upgrades. Berkeley tracks BayREN rebate receivers as a performance metric. The City has program influence and has been successful in recruiting participants for the program, particularly through BESO. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Annually during the 2023-2031 period:
Continue to assist in recruiting participants to BayREN’s rebate programs through BESO and other outreach, with the goal of assisting at least 75 single-family homes and 125 multi-family dwelling units annually in receiving BayREN incentives for qualifying renovations (or 600 single-family homes and 1,000 multi-family dwelling units over eight years). | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | OESD | | **Funding Source(s)** | BayREN is funded by utility ratepayer funds through the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as other sources. | 142 | | | | :--- | :--- | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Targets neighborhoods with the greatest proportion of homes in need of energy efficiency, health, and safety retrofits; most likely to be in areas with older, less maintained homes, such as Southside, Central, West, and South Berkeley. Goal is to get 75% of total BayREN projects in these neighborhoods (so 450 single-family homes and 750 multi-family dwelling units over eight years) | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience | # Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors **San Pablo Avenue PDA Specific Plan** – The City will be developing a San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA Specific Plan, which will increase allowed densities and/or development capacity, and study design standards, public improvements, and mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing. The Housing Element sites inventory identifies 64 sites completely or partially within the San Pablo Avenue PDA, accounting for a total of 3,429 anticipated units (665 very low income, 599 low income, 353 moderate income, and 1,812 above moderate income units). As part of the San Pablo Specific Plan, the team will also study live/work or other innovative “all-use building” strategies. The specific plan process kicks-off in December 2022. **Southside Plan Area** – The City will also be pursuing zoning map and development standard amendments in the Southside Plan Area, which comprises a portion of the Telegraph PDA. These proposed zoning modifications are intended to increase housing capacity and production in the Southside through changes in a targeted number of zoning parameters: building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. Under existing zoning, the Housing Element identifies 21 sites in the Southside Plan area, accounting for a total of 752 anticipated units (44 very low income, 38 low income, 150 moderate income, and 520 above moderate income units). This Southside zoning modification program proposes amendments that could facilitate an additional 1,000 units compared to existing zoning and sites inventory capacity. **Land Use, Safety, and Environmental Justice Element Update** - The City will update zoning map and development standards to accommodate housing capacity and growth on transit and commercial corridors, particularly in the highest resource and higher income neighborhoods pursuant to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirement. These updates will increase allowed densities and/or development capacity with the goal of achieving consistency among all transit and commercial corridors, especially between formerly red-lined areas and higher-resource areas of Solano Avenue, north Shattuck Avenue, and College Avenue. An update to the City’s Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element will be conducted in tandem with this 143 effort. See also Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential, in which the City commits to applying minimum densities to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units by June 2024. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2024, complete Telegraph PDA/Southside Plan Area zoning map amendments and up-zoning.

By December 2025, develop and adopt the San Pablo PDA Specific Plan. Conduct analysis, public and stakeholder engagement, and policy options, including zoning and General Plan amendments.

By December 2026, update Land Use, Safety, and Environmental Justice Elements of the General Plan to increase new housing opportunities by at least 2000 units on commercial and transit corridors, particularly in the highest resource and higher income neighborhoods, to achieve consistency among all transit and commercial corridors, and revise the City's zoning map and development standards to be consistent. The City commits to initiate this work within one year of certification of the Housing Element. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund, ABAG/MTC PDA Planning Grant | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas

Targeted outreach to Southside Area residents and UC students | | **Policies Implemented** | H-16 Medium and High-Density Zoning

H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction

H-19 Regional Housing Needs

H-22 Inter-Jurisdictional and Regional Coordination

H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints

H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | ## Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning The City and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) are collaborating to advance equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART station areas. The development of the Ashby and the North Berkeley BART station sites is a multi-year, multi-phase process, including ongoing community engagement. The preliminary planning stage has focused on milestones outlined in the March 2020 MOU to prepare to issue Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) for potential developer teams for the two sites. These milestones include: a provisional reservation by the City Council to reserve $53 million of City affordable housing funding for the two sites (completed April 2021), adoption of zoning consistent with AB 2923 (completed June 2022) and a City-BART Joint Vision and Priorities document based on City and BART adopted policies and plans and a community process that included a Council-appointed Community Advisory Group. **List of City Actions:** The City of Berkeley’s roles, responsibilities and actions throughout the development process for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART station areas include: * Review project applications and process entitlements * Commit funding from the City’s bond measure revenues and Affordable Housing Trust Fund toward affordable housing pre-development and development costs * Assist the selected developer teams to secure additional funding for affordable housing * Work with BART to secure grants to advance Adeline Street roadway redesign * Conduct and/or support robust community engagement during the development process * Support the Berkeley Flea Market through the planning and construction process at Ashby BART station The City is relying on private and non-profit developers and BART to ensure that the project proceeds within the expected schedule. If for any reason the development of either site is halted during the 6th cycle period, or insufficient progress is made by January 2026, the City will identify alternative opportunity sites by January 2027 to ensure the City complies with SB 166 (No Net Loss) – see Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | June 2022, the City adopted zoning and associated General Plan amendments consistent with AB 2923; adopted City - BART Joint Vision and Priorities for Transit-Oriented Development at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station Areas and certified EIR on these documents. The goal for development for both stations is by 2031.

As stipulated in the June 2022 City and BART MOA, the next milestones include:
• July 2022 - Complete. Developer Request for Qualification (RFQ) and City of Berkeley Notice of Affordable Housing Funding (NOFA)
• November 2022. Right-Of-Way Redesign Options for Adeline Street at Ashby BART Station to City Council
• December 2022. Developer selection for the North Berkeley BART station area.
• February 2023. City Affordable Housing Funding (Predevelopment Funding Award)
• April 2023. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) execution with North Berkeley BART selected developer team.
• June 2023. An amended Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Ashby BART Station. The amended MOA will include a refined timeline for the developer solicitation process. Structure of the developer solicitation process and project requirements and community benefits are currently in process of being negotiated between the City and BART.
• August 2023. City and BART issue a solicitation for developer selection for Ashby BART.
• December 2023. Development and adoption of Objective Design Standards for North Berkeley BART.
• December 2027. Entitlement for development project(s) at North Berkeley BART. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
BART’s TOD Performance Targets prioritize below market rate units for low and very low income households and transit dependent populations. Complete streets and active transportation improvements are underway at North Berkeley BART. | | **Policies Implemented** | H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-22 Inter-Jurisdictional and Regional Coordination
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | # Program 29 -Middle Housing The City is currently in the process of amending the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill and converted existing housing in high resource neighborhoods, as described in Section E3 and E4 of Appendix E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. The zoning updates would allow for by-right multi-unit development on single lots to encourage housing for middle- and moderate-income households, and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden. While not included in the City’s sites inventory (because the placement of future Middle Housing is unknown), modeling conducted by the Terner Center[^p154-11] indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 new market-feasible units through SB 9. Using HCD’s 70th percentile methodology, the Housing Element assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the lower density residential districts for the 2023-2031 period. Additionally, based on current development trends and anticipated zoning changes, 975 additional units are projected throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts for a total of 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period. To facilitate middle housing and encourage more affordable units, the City will also introduce a reduced inclusionary housing fee for middle housing projects with less than 12,000 residential square feet (SF), with a sliding scale increase for projects with floor areas between 0 and 12,000 SF. To facilitate the by-right development of middle housing, the City will consider eliminating the requirement of a use permit to demolish single-family homes for applications that 1) add net density and 2) have not been occupied by tenants within the past five years and in which Ellis Act eviction did not occur within the preceding five years. This policy will be referred for consideration to the 4x4 [^p154-11]: July 21, 2021. Terner Center. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Terner-Center-SB9-model-jurisdiction-output.xlsx 146 Committee of the City Council and Rent Board. Further, explore the effect on local and state laws relating to the demolition of historic resources. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2023, amend Affordable Housing Fee schedule to introduce a sliding scale for projects with less than 12,000 square feet (see also Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements).

By December 2023, amend Zoning code to allow multi-unit development on one lot in the lower density districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts.

By December 2023, consider amending the Demolition Ordinance to provide a by-right pathway for demolition of single-family homes for projects that add density and are not tenant-occupied within the past five years and in which Ellis Act eviction did not occur within the preceding five years. This policy will be referred for consideration to the 4x4 Committee of the City Council and Rent Board. Further, explore the effect on local and state laws relating to the demolition of historic resources. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas

Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection

Targeted outreach in lower density Residential districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R | | **Policies Implemented** | H-4 Economic Diversity

H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing

H-32 Middle Housing

H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints

H-34 Streamlined Review Process | # Program 30 -Accessory Dwelling Units The City will continue to implement Chapter 23.306 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to allow accessory dwelling units by right Citywide. The City will monitor the latest hazard and risk science and assessments for natural and manmade hazards in Berkeley. The City will amend the local ADU ordinance based on revised statutory requirements, such as AB 2221 and SB 897, and may modify ADU development standards based on changing understanding of conditions of risks and hazards. The City will facilitate ADU production by: * Prioritizing accessory dwelling unit permit applications * Promote ADU standards by including information on the City’s website and making fact sheets available at the City’s permit counter * Providing one dedicated ADU planner to respond to questions and offering office hours and other educational programs for those interested in creating ADUs * Monitoring ADU permit progress annually to ensure that anticipated RHNA progress is being met (average 75 ADUs or JADUs per year, or 600 units over eight years) | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2023, provide contact info for dedicated ADU planner on the City's ADU webpage.
By December 2023, amend the City's local ADU ordinance based on revised statutory requirements.
By December 2025, assess if ADU production is on the trajectory to meet RHNA assumptions. If not, by January 2026, the City will initiate additional efforts needed (including, but not limited to, rezoning or pre-approved building plans) to incentivize ADUs, to be completed by January 2028.
Annually: Update ADU webpage to ensure information addresses questions raised by applicants
Annually: Provide update on ADU permit progress to Planning Commission and City Council
Throughout the 2023-2031 period: Coordinate ADU policies with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and Fire Department Standards of Coverage assessment. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing
H-18 Accessory Dwelling Units
H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress
H-34 Streamlined Review Process | # Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing The City will update the Zoning Code to align with required State laws for special needs housing: * **Lanterman Act.** Remove minimum parking requirement for non-resident employees to ensure that development standards do not constrain the development of residential care facilities. * **AB 101.** Low Barrier Navigation Center must be permitted by-right where multi-family residential land use is permitted. * **AB 2162.** Supportive housing must be permitted by-right where multi-family and mixed-use residential development is permitted, if: * At least 25% of the units in a development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population; or 148 * If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population. * **Health and Safety Code Section 17021.** Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees is deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing cannot be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. * **AB 2339.** Identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size, subject to the following regulations: * Sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential use is permitted or otherwise suitable, and connected to services * Emergency shelters meeting objective standards shall be approved * **Household (Family) Definition.** Revise the definition to simplify that households are characterized by one or more persons with common access and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within a dwelling unit, while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, review and adopt new zoning provisions and definitions to align land use standards with State law requirements for special needs housing. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-27 Persons with Disabilities
H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing
H-34 Streamlined Review Process | # Program 32 - By-Right Approval on Reused Sites for Affordable Housing Pursuant to AB 1397 passed in 2017, the City will amend the Zoning Code to provide by-right approval of housing development in which the project includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower income households, on sites being used to meet the Sixth Cycle Housing Element RHNA that represent "reused opportunity sites" from previous Housing Element cycles. The "reused" 149 sites are specifically identified in the inventory and will be identified and monitored in a publicly accessible map. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, amend the Zoning Code to provide by-right approval of projects with 20 percent lower income units on opportunity sites that are reused from the previous Housing Element cycles. In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.
By December 2023, create an additional GIS layer in the public facing Community Map portal to identify all Sites Inventory sites, with a color to identify the reused opportunity sites that must be approved by-right for 20 percent lower income units. As projects are entitled, permitted, and constructed, the GIS layer must be updated, by unit count and affordability categories. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Housing
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
H-34 Streamlined Review Process
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | # Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential The City will study and establish residential objective standards to provide clarity and predictability and reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings by replacing them with new objective standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would create or modify objective standards to increase residential development potential, including increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the calculation and configuration of open space. In addition, the Berkeley zoning code currently does not contain a minimum or maximum density standard expressed in “units per acre” for the majority of its residential and mixed-use zoning districts. While the zones have no density caps, a minimum density threshold can ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance. The City will also evaluate and modify the standards for ground floor uses to address commercial living situations, such as live/work artist space, in order to add vibrancy along commercial corridors and incentivize vacant space conversion for residential use. 150 | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2024, as part of the Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards project, minimum densities will be applied to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units.

By December 2025, develop and amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed use developments in order to reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings for larger (e.g. 10+ units) housing projects in higher density districts (e.g. R-3, R-4, and commercial districts), and commercial living situations, such as live/work units. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
H-34 Streamlined Review Process | ## Program 34 - Permit Processing Delays in processing development applications can increase the costs of development. The City plans to update its Planning and Building technology systems, including digital permitting software and inspections software, to allow access to all applications and processes online and reduce time and cost for the applicant and the City. To provide additional transparency regarding project permit status, the City will maintain its permit tracking software so that permit status and completeness determination are available publicly and kept up-to-date. In August 2022, for applications where a CEQA exemption or other form of CEQA environmental review is recommended to the decision-making body, the City has revised and implemented a new Application Completeness template to inform applicants of their applicable CEQA pathway, including whether the project meets the criteria for Categorical Exemption or requires additional analysis to determine the level of CEQA review needed. The letter states that staff will recommend the level of CEQA review for the project within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. In addition, in conjunction with Program 33 - Zoning Code Amendment: Residential to create or modify residential objective development standards, the City will analyze and develop permitting processes that seek to reduce entitlement and permit processing time, increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals, and reduce administrative costs and burden associated with qualitative justifications for discretionary review. Ordinance amendments include increasing the thresholds for discretionary review and eliminating post entitlement hearings, such as a Final Design Review. 151 | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By June 2023, functionality will be added to the permit tracking software and the Planning Department website to provide on-demand reporting of project status, which will include up to date completeness, CEQA and other actions.

By June 2024, the City will conduct a needs assessment, develop an RFP for the Planning and Building permit and records management systems, and hire a consultant to implement a software upgrade.

By December 2025, as part of the Objective Design Standards effort (Program 33 - Zoning Code Amendment: Residential), City staff will also develop Zoning Ordinance amendments to reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings, and increase the thresholds for discretionary review of residential and mixed-use residential projects for City Council consideration.

By December 2027, the City will implement the updated permit tracking software and continually maintain permit statuses and monitor project progress. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | n/a | | **Policies Implemented** | H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints | # Program 35 - Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus The City will analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of an Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus. A local density program in the Southside would allow a project sponsor to meet the affordable housing requirement by paying an in-lieu fee into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. As proposed in a May 2017 City Council Referral, the funds raised by such projects would be used to fund housing for extremely low-income households (30% AMI or less), who may not qualify for typical inclusionary units, while encouraging much-needed student housing near campus. An Affordable Housing Overlay would streamline approval of 100 percent affordable development projects and permit increases in achievable floor area and density through raised height limits, lot coverage, and/or floor area ratio (FAR) in higher density residential and commercial zoning districts. As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus project, City staff will conduct targeted outreach in neighborhoods where the incentives would apply, including areas around downtown and the UC Berkeley campus, and along and adjacent to major commercial corridors. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2024, adopt a local density bonus program in the Southside, concurrent with the Zoning Ordinance amendments proposed for the Southside in Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors.

By December 2025, adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay Density Bonus, concurrent with the residential financial feasibility study (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements), Residential Objective Design Standards (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential), and the General Plan Land Use Element Update | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas

Targeted outreach in downtown, Southside, and major commercial corridors | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2 Funding Sources
H-3 Permanent Affordability
H-4 Economic Diversity
H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers
H-16 Medium and High-Density Zoning
H-21 University of California
H-24 Homeless Housing
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
H-34 Streamlined Review Process
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing | # Program 36 - Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring The City of Berkeley has been allocated 8,934 units (2,446 very low income, 1,408 low income, 1,416 moderate income, and 3,664 above moderate income units). Based on projected ADUs, BART station area planning (Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning) and entitled projects, the City has met 4,090 of its RHNA. An additional 4,773 units are included in projects currently under review for anticipated based on pre-application submittals. Based on existing uses, zoning and development standards, the City has identified an inventory of sites with potential for redevelopment over the eight year planning period to accommodate 6,290 units (3,002 lower income, 1,867 moderate income, and 1,421 above moderate income units), adequate to address the remaining RHNA. As part of Program 34 - Permit Processing, the City will be investing in its Planning and Building technology systems. The updated permit tracking software will enable the City to more easily monitor project progress, as well as identify approved projects that have not advanced to construction within the typical 3-4 year timeframe. To ensure that the City comply with SB 166 (No Net Loss), the City will monitor the consumption of residential and mixed use acreage to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City's RHNA obligations. To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income households, the City will identify and if necessary, rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure no net loss in capacity to accommodate the RHNA. To ensure that sufficient progress is made towards AFFH, the City will conduct a mid-term evaluation of progress and effectiveness of the actions identified in Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions and commit to analyzing and making adjustments, if necessary, to meet target metrics for the 2023-2031 planning period. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | Within 3 months of a certified Housing Element, the City will publish an inventory of the available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers.

Annually: The City will publish a list of entitled projects to facilitate market-driven transactions to advance development.

By January 2026: Assess the 3-year development progress of entitled and pipeline sites, and implement a formal evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 to monitor the development of vacant and nonvacant sites in the sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remaining RHNA by income category. Should resulting development capacity be below assumed potential, the City will identify and complete additional efforts by January 2028, including but not limited to rezoning or streamlined processes, to accommodate the shortfall of sites to meet the RHNA.

By January 2026: Assess the progress and effectiveness of AFFH actions identified in Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions. Should progress on the AFFH metrics be below the rate assumed, the City will identify and make adjustments, as appropriate, by January 2028. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-9 Housing Preservation
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress | # Program 37 - Replacement Housing / Demolition Ordinance Development on nonvacant sites with existing residential units is subject to a replacement requirement, pursuant to AB 1397. Specifically, AB 1397 requires the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in State Density Bonus Law. The City of Berkeley is currently working on a revised Demolition Ordinance in partnership with the Rent Board, that would go beyond the protections afforded by State and Federal legislation. Once adopted, all future development projects will be subject to these regulations. | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions and Timeline** | By December 2023, update the Zoning Code to address the replacement requirements in a revised Demolition Ordinance. | | **Lead Department(s)/Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-4 Economic Diversity
H-5 Rent Stabilization
H-9 Housing Preservation | ## 5.5 AFFH ACTIONS SUMMARY The following table summarizes the various housing program actions that have direct or indirect beneficial impacts in furthering fair housing choice. Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement (Medium Priority)** | | | | | | Program 6 -Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement | Continue to provide fair housing services to residents, landlords, and housing professionals. Increase outreach and education to Homeowners Associations. | Citywide | Annually | Outreach to 100 residents, housing providers, and housing professionals | | | Conduct education/training workshops annually for tenant-focused CBOs and property owner associations. | Citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where there are higher proportions of LMI households and cost burdened renters. | Annually | Conduct nine workshops | | | Provide annual training sessions on fair housing rights and requirements to rental property owners. | Citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus. | Annually | Provide 70 training sessions | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Conduct outreach events to inform Berkeley residents of their rights. | Citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley where there are higher proportions of protected groups and sensitive communities at risk of displacement. | Annually | Conduct 22 outreach events | | | Conduct tenant/landlord mediation sessions to resolve disputes and/or legal problems. | Citywide | Annually | Conduct 10 mediation sessions | | | Conduct an Equity Study to target program marketing | Citywide | By 2028 | Complete study and develop targeting | | **Housing Mobility (High Priority)** | | | | | | Program 2 -Housing Choice Vouchers | BHA will work to expand all areas of Berkeley with rental housing units. | Provide targeted outreach to educate the community on Source of Income protection with the goal of increasing acceptance of HCVs in high resource areas. | By 2031 | Increase baseline by 200 households | | Program 15 -Shelter Plus Care | Enroll new clients as vouchers become available due to existing clients exiting the program | Citywide | Annually | 10 new clients | | Program 16 -Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety | Assist home modifications. | Targeted outreach to areas identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) map as low or moderate resource census tract | Annually | 13 homes | | Program 17 -Accessible Housing | Encourage residential units to be developed with universal design and visitability principles in future PBV Master Contracts or exemptions for requiring a modified unit to be returned to its original state upon vacating the unit. | Citywide | By 2026 | Achieve two projects designed with universal design and/or visitability principals | | | As part of BHA’s MTW application addressed in Program 1 -Affordable Housing Berkeley, the fiscal flexibilities include the ability to spend up to $500 | Citywide | By 2031 | Assist 20 rental units for unit modifications | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | per unit to help landlords pay for unit modifications. | | | | | Program 18 -Senior / Disabled Home Improvement Loan | Provide interest-free loans up to $100,000. | Citywide | Annually | Provide two loans | | Program 19 -Housing Condition Standards | Conduct an Annual Inspection approximately nine months after the initial inspection, and every 9-10 months thereafter. | Citywide | Annually | All Housing Choice Voucher units | | Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing | Review and adopt new zoning provisions to align land use standards with State law requirements for special needs housing. | Citywide | By 2023 | Achieve 5% of new housing units as special needs housing in eight years | | **New Opportunities in High Resource Areas (Medium Priority)** | | | | | | Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors | Develop San Pablo PDA Specific Plan. | San Pablo PDA | By 2025 | Increase new housing opportunities by at least 2000 units on commercial and transit corridors, particularly in the highest resource and higher income neighborhoods. | | | Complete Telegraph PDA/Southside Plan Area zoning map amendments and up-zoning. | Telegraph PDA/Southside Plan Area | By 2023 | | | | Update Land Use, Safety, and Environmental Justice Elements of the General Plan to accommodate greater housing capacity on commercial and transit corridors | Citywide | By 2026 | | | Program 29 -Middle Housing | Amend Affordable Housing Fee schedule. | Citywide | By Spring 2023 | Achieve 15% of new units in higher resource areas in eight years | | | Amend Zoning code to allow two- to four-unit development on one lot. | Citywide | By Summer 2023 | | | Program 30 -Accessory Dwelling Units | Facilitate development of ADUs | Citywide | Annually | 75 ADUs or JADUs | | Program 32 -By-Right Approval on Reused Sites for Affordable Housing | Amend the Zoning Code to provide by-right approval of projects with 20 percent lower income units on sites that are reused from the previous Housing Element cycles. | Citywide | By January 2024 | Achieve 20% of new units in higher resource areas in eight years | | | As part of the Multi-Unit Residential Objective | Citywide | By 2024 | Achieve 20% of new units in higher | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential | Standards project, minimum densities will be applied to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units. | | | resource areas in eight years | | | Develop Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed-use developments. | Citywide | By 2026 | | | Program 35 -Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus | Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay Density Bonus, concurrent with the residential financial feasibility study, Residential Objective Design Standards, and the General Plan Land Use Element Update | Targeted outreach in downtown, Southside, and major commercial corridors | By 2026 | Achieve 20% of new units in higher resource areas in eight years | | Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring | Provide an adequate inventory of sites for RHNA | Citywide | By 2024 | Implement a formal evaluation procedure to monitor the development of opportunity sites and provide it to prospective residential developers. | | Place-Based Strategies for Neighborhood Improvements (High Priority) | | | | | | Program 8 -Rental Housing Safety | Expand proactive inspections program. | Citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley neighborhoods where there are higher proportions of renters and aging housing units. | By 2023 | Inspect every building during a 5-year cycle | | Program 13 -Homeless Services | Establish programs and services | People’s Park Telegraph Avenue District | By 2025 | Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at Golden Bear Inn Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at the Rodeway Serve an average of 15-25 unhoused persons the drop-in center daily | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | Maintain transitional housing for 12 transition aged youth at 3404 King Street | | Program 20 -Livable Neighborhoods

(see also Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors under New Opportunities for High Resource Areas) | Expand Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement. | Southside | By 2023 | One additional office | | | Update implementation of the Group Living Accommodations (GLAs) Ordinance. | Citywide | By 2022 | Implement new process | | | Quick Build pedestrian improvements. | Martin Luther King Jr. Way (South) Dwight to Adeline; Sacramento Street from Dwight to Southern City Limits | By December 2023 | Fund and complete construction | | | Community Gardens | Low SES students, and residents who live in apartments | By December 2023 | Add 2 new Community Gardens | | | Southside Complete Streets | Southside | By December 2024 | Finalize construction | | | Increase Tree Canopy | South and West Berkeley | By December 2024 | Plant 200 trees in the right of way | | | Improve Adeline Corridor | Adeline from Ashby to Southern City Limits | By June 2025 | Complete design phase | | | Permanent Pedestrian improvement strategy | San Pablo from University to Dwight | By December 2027 | Fund and complete improvement strategy | | Program 21 -Lead-Poisoning Prevention | Conduct an Environmental Investigation (EI) for presence of lead when peeling lead paint has been identified or if/when a child has elevated blood lead levels. The average inspection process from start to finish should take approximately 30 days to complete. | Target neighborhoods which have been identified as having one or more cases of toddlers or young children with elevated blood lead levels, presumably linked to environmental sources | Ongoing | Perform EI within 24 hours of Public Health Nurse (PHN) referral | | Program 22 -Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs | Soft Story Program: Facilitate the compliance of the remaining. Identify additional buildings may be added to the inventory for improvements. | Targeted buildings | By 2025 | 14 remaining buildings | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Unreinforced Masonry Ordinance: Facilitate the retrofitting of the remaining buildings | Targeted buildings | By 2025 | Four remaining buildings | | Program 23 -Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund | Establish and implement program. | Homes for this Program may be anywhere in Berkeley, but are most likely to be in formerly red-lined areas in South and West Berkeley. | 2022-2024 | Retrofit 12 low and moderate income homes | | Program 24 -Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy | Develop programs and policies that promote energy efficiency while protecting tenants from displacement. | Neighborhoods most targeted would be those with the largest proportion of renters in older buildings: Southside, Central Berkeley, and West and South Berkeley | 2022-2024 | Retrofit 15 low and moderate income homes | | Program 25 -Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) | Complete BESO assessments. | Citywide | Annually | 400 buildings | | Program 26 -BayREN Single-Family Homes and Multi-Family Homes Programs | Continue to assist in recruiting participants to BayREN's rebate programs through BESO and other outreach. | Targets neighborhoods with the greatest proportion of homes in need of energy efficiency, health, and safety retrofits; most likely to be in areas with older, less maintained homes, such as Southside, Central, West, and South Berkeley | Annually | 75 single-family homes and 125 multi-family dwelling units | | Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning | Adopt zoning and associated General Plan amendments consistent with AB 2923; adopt City - BART Joint Vision and Priorities for Transit-Oriented Development at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station Areas and certify EIR on these documents. | BART's TOD Performance Targets prioritize below market rate units for low and very low income households and transit dependent populations. | By 2022 | Provide opportunity for 1,200 units; 35% for lower income | | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection (High Priority) | | | | | | Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements | Adopt a Resolution addressing regulations for a voucher program and establishing an in-lieu fee | Citywide | By 2023 | Achieve 40% of inclusionary low-income units | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.020(A)(2). | | | | | Program 4 -Housing Trust Fund | Utilize HTF to gap finance affordable housing development | Citywide with emphasis at BART stations | By 2031 | Fund a minimum of 500 units of nonprofit affordable housing. Fund a minimum of 35% affordable housing at Ashby & North Berkeley BART. | | Program 5 -Preservation of At-Risk Housing | Monitor status of the at-risk project. | Citywide | Annually | Preserve all 92 at-risk units | | Program 7 -Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection | Continued enforcement of Rent Stabilization Ordinance | Citywide | Annually | Maintain 19,000 rent stabilized units to the extent possible. Pursue additional affordable housing opportunities to mitigate the impact of the Ellis Act. | | Program 9 -Tenant Survey | Conduct Tenant Survey. | Citywide | By 2022 | Collect data for formulating policy changes | | Program 10 -Housing Preference Policies | Adopt a housing preference policy. | Citywide | By 2023 | Rehouse displaced residents | | Program 11 -Rental Assistance | Provide rental assistance. | Citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley neighborhoods and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where cost burdened renter populations are most prevalent. | Annually | 50-75 new households | | Program 12 -Workforce Housing | Assist in the development of workforce housing, with a preference for BUSD employees. | Citywide | By 2028 | 110 units | | Program 14 -Housing for Homeless Persons with Disabilities | Assist in the development of a very low-income housing project | Citywide | Begin construction in 2023/2024 | 119 units | | Program 37 -Replacement Housing / Demolition Ordinance | Update the Zoning Code to address the replacement | Citywide | By Summer 2023 | Achieve replacement of all | | Program | Action | Targeting | Schedule | Metric | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | requirements in a revised Demolition Ordinance. | | | affordable units demolished | ## 5.6 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES State law (Government Code Section 65583[b]) requires that the Housing Element contain quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The quantified objectives are separate from the City’s sites inventory capacity detailed in Section 5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall, however, establish the target number of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the eight-year planning period. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City has established the following quantified objectives for the number of units—by income level—likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved based on the programs described above and existing and anticipated resources. Table 5.7: Summary of Quantified Objectives (2023-2031) | | Extremely Low | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | RHNA | 1,614 | 832 | 1,408 | 1,416 | 3,664 | 8,934 | | Construction | 331 | 1009 | 831 | 204 | 8,580 | 10,755 | | Entitled Projects since 2018 | - | 133 | 163 | 9 | 1,785 | 2,090 | | Pipeline Projects (Under Review) | - | 84 | 32 | 11 | 1,432 | 1,559 | | Pipeline Projects (Pre-Application) | - | 353 | 113 | 30 | 2,567 | 3,063 | | Program 4 -Housing Trust Fund | 107 | 213 | 213 | - | - | 533 | | Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning | 84 | 126 | 210 | - | 780 | 1,200 | | Program 29 -Middle Housing | - | - | - | 154 | 616 | 770 | | Program 30 -Accessory Dwelling Units | - | - | - | - | 600 | 600 | | Program 13 -Homeless Services | 140 | - | - | - | - | 140 | | Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors | - | 80 | 80 | - | 640 | 800 | | Rehabilitation | 115 | 27 | 132 | 16 | 200 | 490 | | Program 2 -Housing Choice Vouchers | 98 | - | - | - | - | 98 | | | Extremely Low | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Program 4 -Housing Trust Fund | 17 | 27 | 28 | - | - | 72 | | Program 16 -Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety | - | - | 104 | - | - | 104 | | Program 18 -Senior / Disabled Home Improvement Loan | - | - | - | 16 | - | 16 | | Program 19 -Housing Condition Standards | - | - | - | - | 200 | 200 | | Conservation | 66 | 66 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 192 | | Program 5 -Preservation of At-Risk Housing | 46 | 46 | - | - | - | 92 | | Program 6 -Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 100 | | TOTAL | 512 | 1,082 | 963 | 240 | 8,640 | 11,437 | Pursuant to AB 2634, in estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. As shown in Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure, extremely low- and very low-income households total 14,565 households, with extremely low-income households comprising 66 percent of the 14,565 households. Therefore, the City's very-income RHNA of 2,446 can be split into 1,614 extremely low-income and 832 very low-income units. Construction of units are based on projected development trends and anticipated economic conditions. Actual housing production relies on the private, non-profit, and public housing development community, as well as property owner decisions, market conditions, and other factors that are outside of the control of the City. Ongoing operations subsidies are necessary for extremely low income units, which have historically been underfunded at the State and Federal level. The Rehabilitation objective for the eight-year planning period are based on the HTF guidelines and the number of rehabilitated units funded by the HTF in the past, as well as based on the past performance of Berkeley's rehabilitation programs. Condominium conversions are assumed to be in the above moderate-income category. Senior and Disabled Home Loans are in the moderate-income category. All others are assumed to rehabilitate housing for low-income households. | Housing Trust Fund | ELI 107 units (9 units / year)
VLI 213 units (18 units / year)
LI 213 units (18 units / year) | | :--- | :--- | | Home Rehabilitation (CESC and Rebuilding Together) | LI 104 units (13 units / year) | | Senior and Disabled Home Loans | Mod 16 units (2 units / year) | The Conservation objective represents the conservation of the 92 units at risk of converting to market rate through the City's Program 5 -Preservation of At-Risk Housing and 100 units protected through targeted outreach and counseling services to tenants and landlords through the City’s Program 6 -Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement. # APPENDIX A ## Publicly Assisted Housing Deed Restricted Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate..............A-1 Deed Restricted Units Not at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate......A-1 The City of Berkeley partners with non-profit and for-profit developers to create affordable housing units. To apply to live in an affordable housing unit, interested parties can find an available unit through the Alameda County Housing Portal or contact affordable housing providers listed on the City of Berkeley’s website to find out if there are open units or sign up on a waitlist. * **City of Berkeley Affordable Housing Website:** https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/affordable-housing-berkeley/affordable-housing-resources * **Alameda County Housing Portal:** https://housing.acgov.org/ Table A- 1: Deed Restricted Affordable Units | Property Name | Target Population | Address | Extremely Low Income | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Total Affordable | Affordability Expiration[^p174-1] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Units At Risk of Conversion to Market Rate** | | | | | | | | | | Bonita Grove | Renters | 1910 Hearst Ave | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Annual Renewal | | Lawrence Moore Manor | Renters | 1909 Cedar St. | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 45 | Annual Renewal | | Stuart Pratt Manor | Seniors | 2020 Durant Ave. | 0 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 43 | Annual Renewal | | **Units Not At Risk of Conversion to Market Rate** | | | | | | | | | | 2214 Martin Luther King Jr | Renters | 2214 Martin Luther King Jr | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | In Perpetuity | | 2319-23 Shattuck | Renters | 2319 Shattuck | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | In Perpetuity | | 2801 Cherry | Renters | 2801 Cherry St. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | In Perpetuity | | 4th & U Apartments | Renters | 2020 4th Street | 0 | 16 | 0 | 15 | 31 | In Perpetuity | | Acton Courtyard | Renters | 1392 University Avenue | 0 | 15 | 5 | 50 | 70 | In Perpetuity | | Allston Place | Renters | 2161 Allston Way | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | In Perpetuity | | Aquatic III | Renters | 2000-2010 Fifth Street | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 | In Perpetuity | | Aquatic II | Renters | 814 University | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | Aquatic | Renters | 2001 5th St | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | Avalon Berkeley | Renters | Addison Street 651 | 0 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 14 | In Perpetuity | | Aventerra Apts. | Renters | 2700 San Pablo Ave. | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | Bachenheimer Apts | Renters | 2119 University Avenue | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 7 | In Perpetuity | | Berkeley Central | Renters | 2055 Center Street | 0 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 23 | In Perpetuity | | Blake Berkeley | Renters | 2035 Blake | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | Campanile Court (1122U) | Renters | University, 1122-1132 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 13 | In Perpetuity | | Garden Village | Renters | 2201 Dwight | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | In Perpetuity | | Heinz, 800 | Renters | Heinz, 800 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 18 | In Perpetuity | | Higby | Renters | 3015 San Pablo | 0 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 15 | In Perpetuity | | Hillside Village LLC | Renters | 1797-1801 Shattuck Avenue | 0 | 10 | 0 | 11 | 21 | In Perpetuity | | Jones Berkeley | Renters | 1500 San Pablo Street | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 16 | In Perpetuity | | K Street Flats | Renters | 2020 Kittredge Street, St. D | 0 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 | In Perpetuity | [^p174-1]: | Property Name | Target Population | Address | Extremely Low Income | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Total Affordable | Affordability Expiration[^p175-1] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Martin Luther King Way, 2500 | Renters | Martin Luther King Way, 2500 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | In Perpetuity | | Modera Berkeley | Renters | 2133 University Avenue | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | New Californian | Renters | Martin Luther King Way, 1950 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 22 | In Perpetuity | | Parker Place | Renters | Parker St, 2037 & 2038 / Shattuck 2598-2600 | 0 | 15 | 16 | 0 | 31 | In Perpetuity | | Regent Terrace | Renters | 2597 Telegraph Ave. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | In Perpetuity | | Standard Berkeley | Renters | 2580 Bancroft Way | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | In Perpetuity | | Shattuck, 1385 | Renters | Shattuck, 1385 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | In Perpetuity | | Stadium Place | Renters | 2310 Fulton St. | 0 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 15 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling Addison (ARTech) | Renters | 2002 Addison Street | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling Allston (Gaia) | Renters | 2116 Allston Way | 0 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 18 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling Haste (Fine Arts) | Renters | 2110 Haste Street | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 20 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling Jefferson (Renaissance Villas) | Renters | 1627 University Avenue | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling Oxford (Berkeleyan) | Renters | 1910 Oxford Street | 0 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 11 | In Perpetuity | | Sterling University Ave (Touriel) | Renters | 2006 University Avenue | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 7 | In Perpetuity | | Stonefire | Renters | 2010 Milvia Street | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | In Perpetuity | | Stranda | Renters | 1901 Dwight Way/2489 Martin Luther King Jr. Way | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | In Perpetuity | | Telegraph Gardens | Renters | 3001 Telegraph Avenue | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | Telegraph, Bay Apartments | Renters | 2616-20 Telegraph Ave | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | The Addison | Renters | 1950 Addison Street | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | The Den | Renters | 2510 Channing | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | In Perpetuity | | The Dwight | Renters | 2121 Dwight | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | In Perpetuity | | The Overture | Renters | 1812 University | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | In Perpetuity | | The Panoramic | Renters | 2539 Telegraph | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | The URSA | Renters | 2124 Bancroft | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | In Perpetuity | | Wesley House | Renters | Bancroft Way, 2398 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | In Perpetuity | | Adeline Street Apartments | Physically Disabled/Homeless | 3222 Adeline Street | 7 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 2055 | | Ashby Lofts | Renters | 2909 and 2919 Ninth Street | 40 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 2060 | | Berkeley 75 | Renters | 1521 Alcatraz, 1812 Fairview, 3016 Harper, 1605 Stuart, 2231 Eighth | 70 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 74 | 2055 | | Harmon Gardens | Transition-Aged Youth | 3240 Sacramento Street | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2065 | | Harper Crossing | Seniors | 3132 Martin Luther King Jr Way | 9 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 41 | 2071 | | Lorin Station | Renters | 3253-3269 Adeline Street | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2078 | | Oxford Plaza | Renters | 2175 Kittredge Street | 0 | 4 | 83 | 9 | 96 | 2062 | | William Byron Rumford Plaza | Renters | 3012 Sacramento | 12 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 26 | 2075 | | Redwood Gardens | Renters | 2951 Derby St. | 0 | 168 | 0 | 0 | 168 | 2047 | [^p175-1]: | Property Name | Target Population | Address | Extremely Low Income | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Total Affordable | Affordability Expiration[^p176-1] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Rosewood Manor | Renters | 1615 Russell St. | 0 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 | 2078 | | 1314 Haskell Street | Ownership | 1314 Haskell Street | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2055 | | 1320 Haskell Street | Ownership | 1320 Haskell Street | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 2055 | | 2012 Berkeley Way_01_PH | Renters | 2012 Berkeley Way | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 2077 | | 2012 Berkeley Way_02_PSH | Homeless/Formerly Homeless | 2012 Berkeley Way | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 2077 | | 2012 Berkeley Way_03_TH | Homeless/Formerly Homeless | 2012 Berkeley Way | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 2077 | | Addison Court Housing Cooperative | Renters | 1135 Addison Street | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2051 | | Alcatraz Apartments | Renters | 1900 Alcatraz Avenue | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 2052 | | Allston Commons | Renters | 2203-2207 Sixth Street | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 12 | 2049 | | Allston House | Renters | 2121 Seventh Street | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 2064 | | Amistad House | Seniors | 2050 Delaware Street | 12 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 59 | 2064 | | Ashby Apartments | Renters | 1317 Ashby Avenue | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2049 | | Ashby Court Apartments | Renters | 1222-1228 Ashby Avenue | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 2052 | | Ashby Studios | Renters | 1303-1311 Ashby Avenue | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 2049 | | BFHP - Transitional House | Shelter, Homeless/Formerly Homeless | 2140 Dwight Way | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2053 | | Blake Street 1340 | n/a | 1340-1348 Blake Street | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 2074 | | Bonita House | Mental illness/Substance Treatment | 1410 Bonita Avenue | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2055 | | BuiLD, Inc | Adults with Severe Mental/Physical Disabilities | 2110 Seventh Street | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 2057 | | California Street 2425 | Renters | 2425 California Street | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2055 | | Casa Buenos Amigos Hsg Cooperative | Renters | 3011 Shattuck Avenue | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2055 | | Channing House | Renters | 1843-1849 Channing Way | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2047 | | Crossroads Village Mutual Housing Assoc. | Renters | 1966-1970-A San Pablo Ave | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 26 | 2046 | | Dwight Way Apartments | Adults with Mental/Phys | 2501 Sacramento Street | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2055 | [^p176-1]: text | Property Name | Target Population | Address | Extremely Low Income | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Total Affordable | Affordability Expiration[^p177-1] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | ical Disabilities | | | | | | | | | Erna P. Harris / Belair Housing Project | Formerly Homeless/S helter Plus Care | 1330 University Avenue | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 2065 | | Fairview House Cooperative | Renters | 1801 Fairview Street | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2055 | | Fred Finch Youth House - Turning Point | Mentally Disabled, Youth | 3404 King Street | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 2055 | | Grayson Apartments | Renters | 2748 San Pablo Ave | 5 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 14 | 2074 | | Haste Street 2207 | Renters | 2207 Haste Street | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2055 | | Hearst Street Apts | Renters | 1133-1139 Hearst Street | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 2055 | | Hearst Studios | Renters | 950 Hearst | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 2049 | | Helios Corner | Seniors | 1535 University Avenue | 47 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 2060 | | Hillegass Apartments | Renters | 2500 Hillegass Street | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 17 | 2070 | | Hope Homes | Renters | 2418 Eighth Street | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2056 | | Idaho Street | Renters | 3227 Idaho Street | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2055 | | MLK House | Formerly Homeless, Mentally Disabled | 2942 - 2944 Martin Luther King Jr. Way | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 2055 | | Mable Howard | Seniors | 3250 Sacramento or 1499 Alcatraz | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 2052 | | Margaret Breland Senior Homes | Seniors | 2577 San Pablo Avenue | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 2046 | | McKinley House | Formerly Homeless, Mentally Disabled | 2111 McKinley Street | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2069 | | Prince Street | Renters | 1534 Prince Street | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2071 | | Regent House | HOPWA set-aside units | 2511 Regent Street | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 2065 | | Rosevine | Developmen tally Disabled Adults | 1431-33 Oxford Street | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2052 | | Sacramento Senior Homes | Seniors | 1501 Blake St (2517 Sacramento) | 2 | 17 | 20 | 0 | 39 | 2058 | | Sankofa House | Formerly Homeless, Homeless | 711 Harrison Street | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2058 | | Savo Island | Renters | 2017 Stuart Street | 31 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 2067 | [^p177-1]: | Property Name | Target Population | Address | Extremely Low Income | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Total Affordable | Affordability Expiration[^p178-1] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Shattuck Senior Homes | Seniors | 2425 Shattuck Avenue | 0 | 15 | 11 | 0 | 26 | 2052 | | Strawberry Creek Lodge | Seniors | 1320 Addison Street | 0 | 10 | 75 | 0 | 90 | 2069 | | U A Coop Homes (UACH) | Renters | 1471 Addison Street | 37 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 46 | 2080 | | U A Homes/U.C. Hotel | Formerly Homeless, Homeless | 1040 University Avenue | 51 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 2069 | | University Neighborhood Apts | HOPWA set-aside units | 1721 University Avenue | 8 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 26 | 2060 | | Harriet Tubman Terrace | Renters | 2870 Adeline St. | 0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 2059 | | Oceanview Gardens | Renters | 1715-35 5th St; 1726-32 6th St.; 1816-1832 6th St.; 813-15 Hearst St. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 61 | 2059 | | 800 Heinz | Renters | 800 Heinz St. | 0 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 18 | In Perpetuity | | 2747 San Pablo Ave. | Ownership | 2747 San Pablo Ave. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | In Perpetuity | | 2001 Fourth St. | Renters | 2001 Fourth St. | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 | In Perpetuity | | 1974 University Ave. | Renters | 1974 University Ave. | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | In Perpetuity | [^p178-1]: Units marked with "In Perpetuity" were created via Below Market Rate inclusionary housing. They are deed restricted but do not receive public assistance. # APPENDIX B ## Summary of Development Standards Residential District Development Standards..........................................................B-1 Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards in Commercial Districts...............................................................................................B-2 # B1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE B- 1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS | Zoning District | Min Lot Area (sq. ft.) | Density (sq. ft.) Min Lot Area Per Unit | Height Limit | Yard³ | Maximum Lot Coverage | Usable Open Space Per Unit (sq ft.) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Avg. Height | Max Ht (H ovrly) | Stories (#) | Story | Front | Rear | Side | Street Side | Building Separation | Main Building Height (stories) | Interior and Through Lots (%) | Corner Lots (%) | | | R-1 Single Family | 5,000 | — | 28' ¹ | 35' | 3 | All | 20' | 20' | 4' | 4' | — | 1 to 3 | 40 | 40 | 400 | | R-1A Limited Two Family | 5,000 | — ⁷ | 28' ¹ | 35' | 3 | 1 | 20' | 20' | 4' | 4' | 8'¹⁰ | 1 | 40 | 45 | 400 | | | | | | | | 2 | 20' | 20' | 4' | 4' | 12'¹⁰ | 2 | 40 | 45 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 20' | 20' | 4' | 4' | 16'¹⁰ | 3 | 40 | 45 | | | ES-R Environmental Safety | 25,000 | — | 24' ² | 35' ² | 2 | All | 20' | 20' | 15' | 15' | — | All | 30 | 30 | 400 | | R-2 Restricted Two Family | 5,000 | 2,500 ⁵ | 28' ¹ | 35' ² | 3 | 1 | 20' | 20' | 4' | 10' | 8' | 1 | 45 | 50 | 400 | | | | | | | | 2 | 20' | 20' | 4' | 10' | 12' | 2 | 40 | 45 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 20' | 20' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 35 | 40 | | | R-2A Restricted Multiple Family | 5,000 | 1,650 ⁶ | 28' ¹ | 35' ² | 3 | 1 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 45 | 50 | 300 | | | | | | | | 2 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 40 | 45 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 15' | 15' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 35 | 40 | | | R-3 Multiple Family | 5,000 | — ⁴ | 35' | 35' ² | 3 | 1 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 45 | 50 | 200 ⁸ | | | | | | | | 2 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 45 | 50 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 15' | 15' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 30 | 45 | | | R-4 Multi Family | 5,000 | — ⁴ | 35' ⁹ | 35' ² | 3 ⁹ | 1 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 45 | 50 | 200 ⁸ | | | | | | | | 2 | 15' | 15' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 45 | 50 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 15' | 15' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 40 | 45 | | | | | | | | | 4 | 15' | 17' | 8' | 12' | 20' | 4 | 35 | 40 | | | | | | | | | 5 | 15' | 19' | 10' | 14' | 24' | 5 | 35 | 40 | | | | | | | | | 6 | 15' | 21' | 12' | 15' | 28' | 6 | 35 | 40 | | | R-5 High Density | 5,000 | — ¹¹ | 40⁹ | 35' ² | 4⁹ | 1 | 10' | 15' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 55 | 60 | 100¹² | | | | | | | | 2 | 10' | 15' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 55 | 60 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 10' | 15' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 50 | 55 | | | | | | | | | 4 | 10' | 17' | 8' | 10' | 20' | 4 | 45 | 50 | | | | | | | | | 5 | 10' | 19' | 10' | 10' | 24' | 5 | 40 | 45 | | | | | | | | | 6 | 10' | 21' | 12' | 10' | 28' | 6 | 40 | 45 | | | R-S Residential Southside | 5,000 | — ⁴ | 35 ² | 35' ² | 3⁹ | 1 | 10' | 10' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 65 | 70 | 50¹³ | | | | | | | | 2 | 10' | 10' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 65 | 70 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 10' | 10' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 60 | 65 | | | | | | | | | 4 | 10' | 17' | 8' | 10' | 20' | 4 | 55 | 60 | | | R-SMU Residential Southside Mixed-Use | 5,000 | — ¹¹ | 60 ² | — | 4⁹ | 1 | 10' | 10' | 4' | 6' | 8' | 1 | 55 | 60 | 40¹⁴ | | | | | | | | 2 | 10' | 10' | 4' | 8' | 12' | 2 | 55 | 60 | | | | | | | | | 3 | 10' | 10' | 6' | 10' | 16' | 3 | 50 | 55 | | | | | | | | | 4 | 10' | 17' | 8' | 10' | 20' | 4 | 45 | 50 | | | | | | | | | 5 | 10'¹⁵ | 19'¹⁵ | 20'¹⁵ | 10'¹⁵ | 24'¹⁵ | 5 | 40¹⁵ | 45¹⁵ | | | R-BMU Residential BART Mixed Use | — | — ¹⁶ | 80' | — | 7 | 1 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 35/40¹⁹ | | | | | | | | 2+ | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | | [^p180-1]: Up to 35' allowed with an AUP [^p180-2]: May exceed with an AUP (UP in ES-R) [^p180-3]: Setbacks may be reduced subject to the requirements of BMC 23.304.030.B. [^p180-4]: No minimum lot area per unit except for Group Living Accommodations (GLA). 1 GLA room for every 350 sq. ft; additional room allowed for any remaining lot area of more than 200 sq. ft. [^p180-5]: Additional dwelling unit allowed for any remaining lot area more than 2,000 sq. ft. [^p180-6]: Additional dwelling unit allowed for any remaining lot area more than 1,300 sq. ft. [^p180-7]: No minimum lot area per unit, although no more than two dwelling units allowed; lot area must be at least 4,500 sq. ft. to establish two dwelling units. [^p180-8]: 200 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit, 90 sq. ft. for each person in a Group Accommodation Room. [^p180-9]: Main Buildings may exceed 35 ft. and three stories in height, to a height of, but not exceeding, 65 ft. and six stories subject to obtaining a Use Permit [^p180-10]: R-1A Separation Standard based on building height, not by story. [^p180-11]: No minimum lot area per unit except for Group Living Accommodations (GLA). 1 GLA room for every 175 sq. ft; additional room allowed for any remaining lot area of more than 100 sq. ft (R-5) and 40 sq ft. (R-SMU). [^p180-12]: 100 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit, 35 sq. ft. for each person in a Group Accommodation Room. [^p180-13]: 50 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit, 20 sq. ft. for each person in a Group Accommodation Room. [^p180-14]: 40 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit, 20 sq. ft. for each person in a Group Accommodation Room. [^p180-15]: Only applies in Sub Areas 1 and 2 (for front yard setbacks, only in Subarea 2 if a minimum 50% of floor area is Residential) [^p180-16]: The residential density minimum for R-BMU is 75 dwelling units per acre. [^p180-17]: Setbacks are not required at Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Adeline Street, Sacramento Street. Setbacks along all other frontages along public rights-of-way and internal publicly accessible pathways shall range from 5 feet (minimum) to 15 feet (maximum) for at least 50 percent of any building's linear street frontage, including all frontages within 50 lineal feet of an intersecting corner. [^p180-18]: Front Upper-Story Step-backs. Any street-facing building frontage above four stories in height that is not within 100 linear feet of Sacramento Street, Adeline Street, Ashby Avenue, or Martin Luther King Jr. Way, shall step back from the property line for portions of the building above four stories. [^p180-19]: Public open space minimum is 35 sf per dwelling unit, and 18sf per GLA resident. Private usable open space mimimum is 40 sf per dwelling unit, and 15 sf/resident per GLA resident. Private Usable Open Space may be provided as any combination of personal and common private space. 50% of the Private Usable Open Space requirement may be fulfilled through the provision of an equal amount of additional Public Open Space. B-1 # B2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MIXED-USE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table B- 2: Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards in Commercial Districts | Zoning District | Max. FAR (MU/Res. only) | Max. Height (MU/Res. only) | Max. Stories (MU/Res. only) | Open Space (SF/unit) (MU/Res. only) | Max. Coverage (MU/Res. only) | Yard Requirements | Main Building Separation | Min. Lot Area (SF) | Density (DU/acre) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | C-C Corridor | 3.0/None | 40'/35' | 3² ³ | 200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-8 and 23.204-9 | | None¹ | None | | C-U University Avenue | 2.2-3.0/None | 36-48²/36' | 3-4² | 200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-12 and 23.204-13 | | None¹ | None | | C-N Neighborhood | 3.0/None | 35' | 3² | 200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-17 and 23.204-18 | | None¹ | None | | C-E Elmwood | 0.8-1.0/None | 28'/35' | 2/3 | 200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-21 and 23.204-22 | | None¹ | None | | C-NS North Shattuck | 1.0/None | 35'/28' | 3/2 | 200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-24 and 23.204-25 | | 4,000/5,000 | None | | C-SA South Area | 4.0/None | 36-60²/4 | 3-5² ⁴ | 40/200 | 35-50% | Per Table 23.204-29 | | None¹ | None | | C-T Telegraph Avenue | 4.0-5.0 | 50-85' | 5-6 | 40 | 100% | None⁵ | | None | None | | C-SO Solano Avenue | 2.0/None | 28' | 2 | 40/200 | 100%/40-50% | Per Tables 23.204-34 and 23.204-35 | | None¹ | None | | C-DMU Downtown Mixed-Use | None | 40-60'⁶ | None | 80 | None | Per Table 23.204-39 | | None | None | | C-W West Berkeley | 3.0 | 50' | 4⁷ | 40 | 100% | None⁵ | | None | None | | C-AC Adeline Corridor (South Shattuck Subarea) | 2.5-5.5⁸ | 45-90'⁸ | 4-8⁸ | 40 | 60-95%⁸ | None⁵ | | None | 120-300 | | C-AC Adeline Corridor (North and South Adeline Subarea) | 2.0-5.0⁸ | 35-75'⁸ | 3-7⁸ | 40 | 60-95% | None⁹ | | None | 100-250 | | MU-R Mixed Use Residential¹⁰ | 1.5 | 35' | 3 | 150 | 100% | Front/Street Side: 5'¹¹ Rear/Interior Side: None¹² | None | None | 34.8 | 1. No minimum lot area for mixed use projects; 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area for residential only projects. 2. 3rd floor and above residential only 3. 4 stories and 50 feet allowed with a UP 4. Dependent on district subarea. See BMC Table 23.204-28. 5. Unless abutting a residential district. See Section 23.304.030.C.2. 6. May increase height up to 180', depending on the subarea, with use permit. Core: Up to 3 buildings with max height 180 ft. Up to 2 buildings in Core or Outer Core with max height 120 ft. Theater and Museums exempt from min. height requirement. 7. 4th floor must be residential or live/work. 8. Dependent on percent of project that is affordable. See Table 23.204-44 9. Unless abutting a residential district. See Table 23.204-45. 10. Standards included are for residential or mixed use. Standards differ slightly for live/work project 11. Front: If adjacent to residential 10' or 10%, whichever is less. 12. Rear: If the rear abuts the street: 5'; For rear and interior: If adjacent to residential 10' or 10%, whichever is less # APPENDIX C Residential Sites Inventory ## CONTENTS C1 | Projected ADUs ............................................................................................ C-1 --- | --- C2 | BART Sites ....................................................................................................... C-1 C3 | Likely Sites - Entitled Projects ..................................................................... C-2 C4 | Availability of Land to Address Remaining RHNA .................................... C-8 C5 | Methodology and Guiding Assumptions for Selection of Sites ............... C-8 C5.1 | Pipeline Applications ...................................................................................... C-8 C5.2 | Opportunity Sites – No Rezone Required .................................................... C-15 C5.3 | Development Trends and Realistic Capacity .............................................. C-17 Housing Element 6th Cycle 2023-2031 – Appendix C Sites Inventory # C1 PROJECTED ADUS Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Between 2018 and 2021, the City issued 419 building permits ADUs with an average of 105 ADUs per year over this period (Table C-1). Specifically, ADU permit activities accelerated significantly within the last two years. Assuming this trend continues, and reducing the number to conservatively account for the City’s revised 2022 ADU ordinance in the Hillside Overlay District, the City expects to produce around 75 ADUs per year or 600 ADUs over the eight-year planning period. The Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) has issued guidance on the anticipated affordability of ADUs in order to determine which RHNA income categories they should be counted toward. Based on the ADU rent survey conducted by ABAG, the affordability distribution of ADUs in the region is: 30% very low income; 30% low income; 30% moderate income; and 10% above moderate income. Table C-1: ADU Trends | | Permits Issued | | :--- | :--- | | 2018 | 80 | | 2019 | 96 | | 2020 | 120 | | 2021 | 123 | | Average | 105 | # C2 BART SITES The City of Berkeley is working collaboratively with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to convert surface parking lots at two of the City’s three BART stations (Ashby and North Berkeley) into transit-oriented development. The City and BART have signed an MOU on the potential development of these lots and the entities are actively working together to select private developers through an RFQ process for each station. BART’s development of these parcels is permitted under AB 2923, which allows BART to enable TOD through land-use zoning on BART-owned property in collaboration with local jurisdictions. Each station can accommodate up to 1,200 units and in 2021, the City earmarked $53 million for the projects to ensure that at least 35% of the units are affordable to very low and low income households. While up to 1,200 units can be accommodated at each station, this Housing Element takes a more conservative approach in its estimate for what is expected to be constructed during the eight-year planning period and assumes 600 units at each station (Table C-2). Table C-2: BART Sites | Station | Extremely Low/Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | Acreage | Density Achieved (du/ac) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | C-1 Housing Element 6th Cycle 2023-2031 – Appendix C Sites Inventory | North Berkeley BART | 105 | 105 | 0 | 390 | 600 | 6.5 | 92 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashby BART | 105 | 105 | 0 | 390 | 600 | 6.0 | 100 | | Total | 210 | 210 | 0 | 780 | 1,200 | | | # C3 LIKELY SITES - ENTITLED PROJECTS While the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period covers from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, the RHNA projection period begins June 30, 2022. Housing units that have been entitled for construction but do not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until after June 30, 2022 can be credited towards the 6th cycle RHNA. The Likely sites include projects that have been entitled between 2018 and June 30, 2022. The City conducted an analysis of 47 permitted projects and the average time between entitlement and permit issuance is three years. As the majority of the residential and mixed use projects in the City are high density podium development, the preparation of construction documents and financing tend to require a longer time. Inactive projects with entitlements prior to 2018 are still valid, but have not been included as Likely sites. In total, the City has entitled 2,101 units (133 very low, 166 low, 9 moderate, and 1,793 above-moderate), that are expected to be constructed during the 6th cycle planning period. The affordability of the units was determined based on the affordability specified on the project proposal as approved by the City. Two projects – ZP2019-0027 and ZP2020-0134 - propose development across multiple parcels. In the table below, the projects are separated by APN and the total unit count for each project is pro-rated by parcel size. ZP2019-0027 proposes a total of 169 units on two parcels – 2150 and 2176 Kittredge – with 0.15 acres and 0.49 acres, respectively. In Table C-6, 2150 Kittredge (8b) has been allocated 41 units, and 2176 Kittredge (8a) has been allocated 128 units. | Total Number of Entitled Projects | Total Number of Entitled Parcels | Total Number of Entitled Parcels Included in 5th Cycle | Extremely Low/Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total Number of Entitled Units | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 46 | 48 | 13 | 133 | 166 | 9 | 1,793 | 2,101 | 14.96 | C-2 Table C-3 Likely Sites - Entitled Projects since 2018 | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Likely Sites - Project Description | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Net New Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB 330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 | 056 197701300 | ZP2018-0112 | 2198 San Pablo | Existing Use: Wine and Liquor Store. Demolish an existing single-story commercial building and construct a new 6-story, mixed-use development with 3 live/work units, 57 dwelling units (including 5 available to very low-income households), stacked parking for 20 vehicles, and 48 bicycle spaces. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 60 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 266.7 | 0.22 | No | No | No | Yes | | 2 | 057 202700202 | ZP2020-0011 | 2210 Harold | Existing Use: Vacant commercial office. Demolish an existing commercial building and to construct a seven-story, 75-foot tall mixed-use building with 652 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, 38 dwellings with a total of 135 bedrooms, and secure storage for 48 bicycles on a 5,953 square-foot parcel. The project would provide no off-street parking, reduce certain setbacks, and pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing privately-owned public open space. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 38 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 278.1 | 0.14 | Yes | No | Yes | No | | 3 | 053 163300107 | ZP2019-0155 | 3000 San Pablo | Existing use: Discount Fabrics. 1) demolish an existing two-story commercial building; and 2) construct a six-story, mixed-use building with 78 dwelling units (including seven Very Low-Income units), 1,248 square feet of commercial space, 2,320 square feet of usable open space, 50 bicycle parking spaces and 43 vehicular parking spaces. | 7 | 0 | 0 | 71 | 78 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 242.7 | 0.32 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 4 | 060 235401503 | ZP2020-0046 | 1207 Tenth | Existing Use: Single-Story structures MU L/W, studio, R&D, Lt Manufacturing, Art Gallery. Construction of a new 3-story, 18,450 square-foot mixed-use building, providing 12 parking spaces, 12 artist studios, R&D space, a fabrication shop, art gallery and two live/work units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | MU-LI | MU | 5+ | 6.8 | 0.29 | No | No | No | No | | 5 | 052 157410400 | ZP2020-0069 | 3031 Telegraph | Demolish an existing two-story commercial (medical office) building and construct a six-story, 98,338 square-foot mixed-use building with 110 dwelling units (including 7 Very Low-Income units), including 5,666 square feet of commercial space, 7,474 square feet of usable open space, 112 bicycle parking spaces and 29 vehicular parking spaces at the ground level. | 7 | 0 | 0 | 103 | 110 | C-C | MU | 10+ | 151.6 | 0.73 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 6 | 056 197201800 | ZP2018-0145 | 2015 Eighth | Demo rear detached garage, build 2 du behind existing duplex | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-4 | MF | 2-4 | 26.8 | 0.15 | No | No | No | No | | 7 | 057 202502300 | ZP2018-0235 | 2009 Addison | Demo commercial single-story storage building, build MU with performing arts space, Berkeley Rep-Rent Free | 0 | 0 | 9 | 36 | 45 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 188.1 | 0.24 | Yes | No | No | No | | 8a | 057 202900204 | ZP2019-0027 | 2176 Kittredge | Former gas station. Demolish a five-story commercial building at 2176 Kittredge Street and a one-story convenience store and carwash facility at 2150 Kittredge Street; to merge the two parcels for a total lot area of approximately 32,600 sq. ft.; and to construct a new, 75 ft.-tall, seven-story mixed-use building of approximately 177,000 sq. ft. in total gross floor area containing: 23,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area on the ground level; a total of 165 dwellings units on the second through seven stories; approximately 13,250 sq. ft. of usable open space within a series of rooftop patios; and a sub-surface parking garage providing 52 off-street parking spaces. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 128 | 128 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 261.2 | 0.49 | Yes | No | No | No | | 8b | 057 202901600 | ZP2019-0027 | 2150 Kittredge | Same project as above. One-story convenience store and carwash facility at 2150 Kittredge Street. Demolish a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 273.3 | 0.15 | Yes | No | - | - | C-3 Housing Element 6th Cycle 2023-2031 – Appendix C Sites Inventory | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Likely Sites - Project Description | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Net New Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB 330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | five-story commercial building at 2176 Kittredge Street and a one-story convenience store and carwash facility at 2150 Kittredge Street; to merge the two parcels for a total lot area of approximately 32,600 sq. ft.; and to construct a new, 75 ft.-tall, seven-story mixed-use building of approximately 177,000 sq. ft. in total gross floor area containing: 23,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area on the ground level; a total of 165 dwellings units on the second through seven stories; approximately 13,250 sq. ft. of usable open space within a series of rooftop patios; and a sub-surface parking garage providing 52 off-street parking spaces. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9 | 052 15704400 | ZP2018-0038 | 3028 Regent | Convert care facility to duplex | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-2A | DP | 2-4 | 14.6 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 10 | 057 208602501 | ZP2018-0220 | 1835 San Pablo | Former Tire shop. Demolish an existing one-story commercial building and construct a new 6-story, mixed-use development with 99 dwellings (including 7 dwellings available to very low income households) and 2 live/work units. The project would include stacked parking for 49 automobiles and secure storage for 92 bicycles. | 7 | 0 | 0 | 92 | 99 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 222.8 | 0.44 | No | No | No | Yes | | 11 | 059 226800601 | ZP2016-0050 | 1506 Bonita | Raise existing duplex to add 2 du on site w/ 3 duplexes. Use Permit #ZP2016-0050 to raise an existing one-story duplex by 8'-10" resulting in a two-story building. The new approximately 1,600 square foot ground level would accommodate two new residential units. This would increase the total number of dwelling units on the parcel from six to eight and the number of bedrooms from six to twelve. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-2A | MF/DP | 2-4 | 25.8 | 0.31 | No | No | No | No | | 12 | 060 235400200 | ZP2019-0192 | 1200-1214 San Pablo | Art Gallery, Tattoo Parlor, and Former Fast-Food Restaurant. Use Permit #ZP2019-0192 to demolish three existing commercial buildings and construct a six-story, mixed-use building with 104 units (including nine Very Low Income units), a 3,119-square-foot restaurant, 4,343 square feet of usable open space, and 55 ground-level parking spaces. | 9 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 104 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 182.6 | 0.57 | Yes | No | No | Yes | | 13 | 057 206101000 | ZP2016-0101 | 1717 University | Demo commercial, SFD, Detached Garage, and construct new 5-story MU bldg | 3 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 28 | C-U/R-2A | MU | 10+ | 143.9 | 0.19 | No | No | No | Yes | | 14 | 057 203400800 | ZP2019-0041 | 2023 Shattuck | Former Vacant Lot. Construct a 24,178 square-foot, seven-story, 73'5" tall, mixed-use building with 48 dwelling units (including 4 units available to very-low-income households) and 1,250 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project would provide no vehicle parking; it would provide secure storage for 34 bicycles. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 48 | C-DMU Core | MU | 10+ | 570.97 | 0.08 | No | Yes | No | Yes | | 15 | 058 212701403 | ZP2017-0014 | 1740 San Pablo | Prior use: Vacant service station. Demolish two existing 1-story buildings and build a 5-story mixed-use building with 48 dwelling units, 3 live/work units, 1 approximately 800 square-foot quick-serve restaurant, and 53 parking spaces at the ground floor. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 51 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 156.4 | 0.33 | No | No | No | Yes | | 16 | 057 202401300 | ZP2019-0081 | 2099 Martin Luther King Jr. | Demolish an existing one story 3,595 square foot auto service building and construct a 62,419 square-foot, seven-story, 69' tall, mixed-use building with 72 dwellings (including 5 dwellings available to very low-income households) and 2,448 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project would provide 12 parking | 5 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 72 | C-DMU Buffer | MU | 10+ | 252.7 | 0.28 | Yes | No | No | Yes | C-4 | APN | Permit Number | Address | Likely Sites - Project Description | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80- 120% AMI | >120% AMI | Net New Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB 330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | spaces and secure storage for 65 bicycles within a grade level garage. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 17 | 055 189401501 | ZP2017-0103 | 2028 Bancroft | Relocate an existing single-unit to 1940 Haste Street and construct a 33,539 square-foot, six-story, 65' tall, residential building with 37 dwellings (including 2 Below Market Rate units) and a landscaped courtyard. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 37 | C-DMU | MF | 10+ | 223.4 | 0.17 | No | No | No | Yes | | 18 | 056 197701001 | ZP2018-0222 | 2100 San Pablo | Prior use: Vacant single-story commercial - U-Haul. Use Permit Modification #ZP2018-0222 to modify approved Use Permit #ZP2016-0034, which allowed the construction of a 4-story mixed-use building containing a 96-unit Residential Care Facility, by reducing the number of off-street parking spaces from 30 spaces to 26 spaces, adding 9,265 sq. ft. of new gross floor area, and modifying the interior layout of the commercial and residential uses of the approved Residential Care Facility. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 96 | 96 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 156.8 | 0.61 | No | No | No | No | | 19 | 053 159101803 | ZP2021-0191 | 2001 Ashby | Prior use: Cooperative Center, Federal Credit Union, single-story commercial. SB 35 - 86 BMR + 1 MR. Resubmitted 10/21/2021 SB 35 modification application to PLN2019-0059. | 53 | 33 | 0 | 1 | 87 | C-SA | MF | 5+ | 144.1 | 0.60 | Yes | No | No | Yes | | 20 | 057 208601300 | ZP2016-0028 | 1173 Hearst | Develop two parcels, including the substantial rehabilitation of the existing seven dwelling units and construction of six new dwelling units. 6 of the 7 rehabilitated units are rent controlled and shall remain rent stabilized. The project proposes to rehabilitate the seven existing dwelling units (three duplexes and one single-family dwelling) and add three two-story duplexes as a common interest development (i.e. condominiums) for a total of seven buildings and 13 dwellings. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | R2-A | MF | 5+ | 16.1 | 0.31 | No | No | No | No | | 21 | 057 207300500 | ZP2019-0173 | 1367 University | Vacant Lot. Construct an approximately 9,273-square-foot, four-story 39-unit Group Living Accommodation (GLA) operating as a Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Hotel on a vacant parcel. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 40 | C-U | GLA | 10+ GLA | 338.3 | 0.12 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | | 22 | 052 156317900 | ZP2018-0034 | 2714 Alcatraz | Alter an existing 3,391 square foot, 2-story residential building and an existing 360 square foot, 1-story accessory building to: 1) restore the residential building to its original density of 5 units; 2) expand the basement by 24 square feet and convert the basement to a dwelling; 3) construct a 21 square foot addition on the first floor; 4) construct a 337 square foot addition on the second floor; 4) reconfigure the floor plans for the four existing units on the first and second floors; and 5) remove an illegal dwelling from the garage to restore 2 off-street parking spaces. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | R-2 | MF | 5+ | 36.9 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 23 | 055 187602101 | ZP2016-0172 | 2542 Durant | Existing parking lot and multi-family residential, Infill. Merge two parcels and construct a new five-story, mixed use building with 32 dwelling units including a variance request to allow dwelling units on the ground floor next to and behind an existing 12-unit apartment building. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 32 | C-T | MF | 10+ | 149.8 | 0.29 | No | No | No | No | | 24 | 055 182901100 | ZP2018-0161 | 2215 Parker | Vacant Lot. Construct a two-story, 6,001 sq. ft. duplex on a 6,750 sq. ft. vacant parcel. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-2A | DP | 2 to 4 | 12.9 | 0.15 | Yes | Yes | No | No | | 25 | 057 204600100 | ZP2018-0137 | 1951 Shattuck | Existing Use: Hair salon, convenience corner store, clothing retailer. Demolish two existing non-residential buildings and to construct a 12-story, 120-foot tall mixed-use building with 5,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, 156 dwelling units, and a 100-space | 0 | 0 | 0 | 156 | 156 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 390.0 | 0.40 | Yes | No | No | No | C-5 | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Likely Sites - Project Description | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Net New Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB 330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | | | | subterranean parking garage on a 17,424 square foot parcel. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26 | 057 208601400 | ZP2016-0028 | 1155 Hearst | Rehabilitation of seven units, and six additional dwelling units | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 | R2-A | MF | 5+ | 14.1 | 0.5 | No | No | No | No | | 27 | 055 183700100 | ZP2015-0096 | 2556 Telegraph | Prior use: Multi-tenant commercial (Street view 2011 shows Hair studio, spiritual healer, Japanese restaurant, electronics store). Use Permit 2015-0096 to (1) demolish an existing 16,000 square-foot, two-story commercial building; and (2) construct a 42,363 square-foot, fivestory, 64'-5" tall, mixed-use building with 22 Live-Work units, and 3,092 square feet of commercial space. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 | C-T | MU/LW | 10+ | 106.3 | 0.23 | Yes | No | No | No | | 28 | 056 194401100 | ZP2018-0108 | 2422 Fifth | Office + two dwelling units on lot with existing duplex. Note - Finaled after June 30, 2022 (9/29/2022). | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | MU-R | MU/DP | 2 to 4 | 27.9 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 29 | 053 162703701 | ZP2021-0027 | 3015 San Pablo | 2 Live/Work added to existing 98 unit (Higby Apts); Conversion of an 1,824 sq. ft. commercial space to two (2) Live/Work Units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | C-W | L/W | 5+ | 127.4 | 0.79 | No | No | No | No | | 30a | 057 202501300 | ZP2020-0134 | 2000 University | Prior cafe and restaurant use and vacant ground floor commercial. Merge 2 parcels. Demolish one existing commercial and one mixed-use structure containing two dwelling units and construct a new, 8-story mixed-use building with 82 dwelling units and 1,415 square feet of ground floor commercial space. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 58 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 580 | 0.10 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 30b | 057 202501200 | ZP2020-0134 | 2001 Milvia | Same project as above. Merge 2 parcels. Construct a new, 8-story mixed-use building with 82 dwelling units and 1,415 square feet of ground floor commercial space. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 24 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 600 | 0.04 | Yes | No | - | - | | 31 | 055 188400600 | ZP2020-0090 | 2317 Channing | Existing Use: medical office. 1) Demolish an existing two-story medical building; and 2) construct a 4-story, residential building with 17 dwelling units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | R-S | MF | 10+ | 113.8 | 0.15 | No | No | Yes | No | | 32 | 057 208902600 | ZP2018-0226 | 1923 Ninth | (1) Demolish an existing 1,272-square-foot, one-story duplex and (2) construct three detached, three-story, single family dwelling units: 1,856 square feet (Unit A), 2,006 square feet (Unit B), and 1,932 square feet (Unit C). | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | R-3 | 3-SFD | 2 to 4 | 21.4 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 33 | 055 187700100 | ZP2019-0100 | 2590 Bancroft | Prior use: Multi-Tenant Retail: Urban Outfitters, Inkstone Art Supply, Freedom Flowers. 1) Demolish an existing two-story commercial building; and 2) construct an eight-story, mixed-use building with 87 dwelling units (including five Very Low-Income units), 4,345 square feet of commercial space, 2,566 square feet of usable open space, 40 long-term bicycle parking spaces and zero vehicular parking spaces. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 87 | C-T | MU | 10+ | 288.6 | 0.30 | Yes | No | No | Yes | | 34 | 057 210100103 | ZP2018-0052 | 1900 Fourth | Existing Surface Parking Lot. SB 35 Mixed-Use Development with 260 units over 27,500 sf retail, including restaurant and cafe space. Project includes 290 vehicle parking spaces and 140 bike parking spaces. 50% affordable. Last sold in February 2022. | 0 | 130 | 0 | 130 | 260 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 117.6 | 2.21 | No | No | No | Yes | | 35 | 054 174400700 | ZP2016-0014 | 2720 San Pablo | Demolish the former automobile service station and construct a 6 story, 60' high mixed-use building, with 25 dwellings (including 2 dwellings available to very low income households) with a total of 97 bedrooms, and 963 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project would include parking for 15 automobiles and secure storage for 50 bicycles | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 25 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 113.7 | 0.22 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Likely Sites - Project Description | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Net New Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB 330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 36 | 053 162301201 | ZP2017-0205 | 1331 Ashby | Existing single-family dwelling. Construct six dwelling units in three buildings | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | R-3 | MF | 5+ | 35.4 | 0.17 | No | No | No | No | | 37 | 056 194101900 | ZP2017-0146 | 2325 Sixth | Expand an existing one-story, 1,348 sq. ft. single-family residence and alter an existing 6,000 sq. ft. parcel by: 1) raising the existing one-story dwelling 9'2" to create a new 1,676 sq. ft. sq. ft. ground floor dwelling, 2) increasing the total number of bedrooms on the parcel from three to eight, and 3) constructing a two-story, 472 sq. ft. accessory building with an average height of 19'3", located 1'6" from the rear and side yard property line to the south. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | R1-A | MF | 2 to 4 | 14.5 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 38 | 053 168501100 | ZP2019-0141 | 2139 Oregon | Existing single-family dwelling. Construct two single-family dwellings on one lot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-2 | SFD | 2 to 4 | 23.2 | 0.09 | No | No | Yes | No | | 39 | 055 188802700 | ZP2017-0015 | 2236 Channing | Convert 1,480 square feet of medical offices, a residential lounge and laundry area, and 3 parking spaces, into three new dwelling units, for a total of 22 dwelling units in an existing 5-story mixed use building. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | R-3 | MU | 10+ | 85.1 | 0.26 | No | No | No | No | | 40 | 054 171900100 | ZP2016-0244 | 2701 Shattuck | Prior use: Vacant Auto Dealership. Construct a 5-story, 62'-tall, mixed-use building with 57 dwelling units (including 5 VLI units), a 600-square-foot ground floor quick-service restaurant, and 30 parking spaces. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 57 | C-SA | MU | 10+ | 210.0 | 0.27 | No | No | No | Yes | | 41 | 055 182201902 | ZP2019-0074 | 2000 Dwight | Existing use: Six 1-3 story contiguous medical office commercial bldgs. Demolish six existing non-residential buildings, and construct a six-story, 113-unit, Community Care Facility for seniors with 40 parking spaces in a subterranean garage. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 113 | 113 | R-4 | MF | 10+/Seni or | 173.4 | 0.65 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 42 | 054 174202900 | ZP2019-0048 | 2795 San Pablo | Existing single-story single dwelling unit. Demolish and construct a mixed-use development consisting of three-stories, five units with 600 square feet of commercial space. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | C-W | MU | 5+ | 53.4 | 0.09 | No | No | Yes | No | | 43 | 059 232500501 | ZP2021-0083 | 1442 Fifth | Existing single-family dwelling. 3 SFD on one lot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | MU-R | SFD | 2 to 4 | 30.0 | 0.10 | No | No | Yes | No | | 44 | 052 154401200 | ZP2021-0113 | 1519 Fairview | Existing triplex. Add a new three-story detached dwelling unit. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | R-2A | SF/MF | 2 to 4 | 25.8 | 0.15 | No | No | No | No | | 45 | 058 211900900 | ZP2020-0123 | 1716 Seventh | Existing single-family dwelling. Construct two detached, 2-story single-family dwellings. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R1-A | SFD | 2 to 4 | 18.2 | 0.11 | No | No | Yes | No | | 46 | 060 244901300 | ZP2020-0045 | 1915 Berryman | Demolish an existing three-unit residential building and construct a four-story residential building with eleven dwelling units. | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 11 | R-2A | MF | 10+ | 58.6 | 0.24 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | | TOTAL | | | | 133 | 166 | 9 | 1,793 | 2,101 | | | | | | | 13 | 19 | # C4 AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO ADDRESS REMAINING RHNA Prepared with the Infill-First strategy in mind, the housing sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period demonstrates that new housing growth in the City of Berkeley over this eight-year period will largely conform to these patterns. The 6th Cycle Sites Inventory is made up of two types of sites: * **Pipeline Applications:** These pending projects include applications submitted for entitlement or building permit and are currently under review. Pipeline sites also include anticipated projects based on pre-application submittals (“pre-app”) and expressed developer interest. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known; where affordability levels are unknown at this time, all units have been placed in the above moderate income category. * **Opportunity Sites:** Include vacant or underutilized sites with the potential for near-term residential or mixed use development (including some sites used in the 5th cycle Housing Element but remain available for development). Combined, the City estimates 11,100 units, excluding the two BART sites, in the two categories above. Table C-4: Summary of Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA | Category | # of Sites | Extremely Low/ Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Applications Under Review or Anticipated | 69 | 437 | 142 | 41 | 3,991 | 4,611 | | Opportunity Sites: Underutilized | 159 | 1,571 | 1,557 | 1,831 | 1,208 | 6,167 | | Opportunity Sites: Vacant | 100 | 37 | 36 | 36 | 213 | 322 | | Total Units | 328 | 2,045 | 1,735 | 1,908 | 5,412 | 11,100 | # C5 METHODOLOGY AND GUIDING ASSUMPTIONS FOR SELECTION OF SITES ## C5.1 PIPELINE APPLICATIONS Pipeline projects are divided into two categories discussed below (Table C-5). A detailed list of projects under each category are listed in Table C-6. **Application Under Review:** Includes 35 project applications across 37 parcels that were either submitted in 2021 and 2022 and are yet to be entitled, or are otherwise engaging with the City on development, including active projects entitled prior to 2018. It is anticipated that these projects will undergo construction and will be ready for occupancy during the 6th cycle. **Anticipated:** Includes 18 projects across 32 parcels that the City anticipates processing and approving during the 6th cycle based on developer or property owner interest and pre-application submittals. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. Seven projects propose development across multiple parcels the total unit count for each project is pro- rated by parcel size. Table C-5: Summary of Applications Under Review or Anticipated | Station | Extremely Low/ Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Application Under Review | 84 | 29 | 11 | 1,424 | 1,548 | | Anticipated | 353 | 113 | 30 | 2,567 | 3,063 | | Total | 437 | 142 | 41 | 3,991 | 4,611 | Table C-6: Pipeline Sites - Applications Under Review or Anticipated (Pre-Application) | APN | Permit Number | Address | Project Description (Orange Text = Prior land use) | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Total Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Applications Under Review | | 84 | 29 | 11 | 1,424 | 1,548 | | | | | | | | 24 | 20 | | 1 | 053 159801600 | ZP2021-0140 | 2970 Adeline | Change existing two approximately 1,000 sq. ft. commercial spaces to residential dwelling units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | C-AC | MU | 2 to 4 | 23.2 | 0.09 | No | No | Yes | No | | 2 | 055 187800400 | ZP2021-0192 | 2439 Durant | Demolition of a two-story 10,554 sq. ft. commercial (restaurant) building, construction of 37,507 sq. ft. 7-story mixed-use building with 7,799 sq. ft. commercial, and 27,532 sq. ft. for 22 dwelling units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | C-T | MU | 10+ | 147.4 | 0.15 | No | No | Yes | No | | 3a | 056 201102700 | PLN2021-0063 | 1776/1782/1790 University | Merge 2 parcels. Demo 3 1-story commercial bldgs (India Fabrics, smog check) New construction of a 5-story mixed use building with 79 SRO and common kitchen space on each level + commercial space on ground level. Demolition of 3 existing on-story buildings. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 32 | 37 | C-U | MU | 10+ | 358.2 | 0.10 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 3b | 056 201102800 | PLN2021-0063 | 1776/1782/1790 University | Same project as above. Merge 2 parcels. Demo 3 1-story commercial bldgs (India Fabrics, smog check) SB330 Prelim App. New construction of a 5-story mixed use building with 79 SRO and common kitchen space on each level + commercial space on ground level. Demolition of 3 existing on-story buildings. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 36 | 42 | C-U | MU | 10+ | 365.9 | 0.11 | No | No | - | - | | 4 | 058 217600101 | ZP2022-0011 | 1752 Shattuck | Demo existing auto smog services use. Construct 7-story mixed-use building with 57 dwelling units and group floor commercial. (campus auto care site) . | 7 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 57 | C-C | MU | 10+ | 234.2 | 0.24 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 5 | 058 219300600 | PLN2021-0020 | 2441 Le Conte | Existing Starr King School for the Ministry. 1) renovate and change the use of an existing one-story, 5,935 square-foot non-residential building to residential hotel, and 2) construct a four-story residential addition at the rear, resulting in a 17,138 square-foot residential hotel at a maximum height of 48 feet, two inches, containing 50 group living accommodation units and one manager's unit under State Density Bonus law. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 51 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 173.2 | 0.29 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 6 | 055 188302700 | ZP2020-0052 | 2328 Channing | Relocate a historic SFR and to construct a new 20-unit, five-story housing project | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 20 | R-S | MF | 10+ | 129.1 | 0.15 | No | No | Yes | No | | 7 | 060 240500100 | ZP2021-0070 | 1201-1205 San Pablo | Existing Vacant Lot. Construct a six-story, mixed-use building on a vacant lot, with 66 units (including five Very Low Income units), 1,720 square feet of commercial space, 2,514 square feet of usable open space, and 17 to 28 ground-level parking spaces. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 66 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 221.2 | 0.30 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | | 8 | 057 208700500 | ZP2021-0186 | 1820-1828 San Pablo | Demo existing building except ground floor. Construct 5-story mixed-use building with 44 dwelling units and ground floor commercial, incorporating the existing façade. (Albatross bldg.) | 12 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 44 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 164.8 | 0.27 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 9a | 057 203201700 | ZP2021-0158 | 130-134 Berkeley Sq | Merge 2 parcels, demo existing 1-story retail shops | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 | C-DMU core | MU | 10+ | 450.0 | 0.06 | Yes | No | Yes | No | | 9b | 057 203201800 | ZP2021-0158 | 130-134 Berkeley Sq | Same project as above. Merge 2 parcels, demo existing 1-story retail shops | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 | C-DMU core | MU | 10+ | 460.0 | 0.05 | Yes | No | - | - | | 10 | 053 159200100 | ZP2022-0046 | 3000 Shattuck | Prior gas station. New application, override ZP 2015-0229 for 23 units. Removal of existing 1 story commercial structure & construction of a new 9-story mixed-use building with 156-dwelling units, ground level commercial, and lobbies, with State of California density bonus. C-SA | 2 | 2 | 0 | 152 | 156 | C-SA | MU | 10+ | 501.1 | 0.31 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 11 | 059 232500400 | ZP2021-0084 | 776 Page | Existing single-family dwelling. 3 SFD on one lot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | MU-R | SFD | 2 to 4 | 33.2 | 0.09 | No | No | Yes | No | | 12 | 052 153101202 | ZP2021-0009 | 3233 Ellis | Demolition of existing SFD, construction of three new, detached SFDs. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | R2-A | SFD/MF | 2 to 4 | 21.2 | 0.14 | No | No | No | No | | 13 | 052 156800900 | ZP2021-0072 | 2942 College | Vacant Dry Cleaners. Demolish and existing non-residential building and construct a new two-story mixed-use development containing 1,296 sq.ft. of ground floor commercial and 3,278 sq.ft. of residential space, including four dwelling units, in two separate buildings. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | C-E | MU | 2 to 4 | 27.5 | 0.15 | No | No | Yes | No | | 14 | 055 188000700 | ZP2021-0210 | 2435 Haste | Demolish a two-story apartment building and construct an 8-story all residential apartment building with 37 dwelling units. Replacement of 8 protected units. | 1 | 4 | 0 | 32 | 37 | R-SMU | MF | 10+ | 284.3 | 0.13 | No | No | Yes | Yes | C-10 | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Project Description (Orange Text = Prior land use) | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Total Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 15 | 055 189600500 | ZP2021-0201 | 2440 Shattuck | Demolition of existing Dollar Tree; Proposed new mixed use building (dollar tree site); 40 New Dwelling Units | 3 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 40 | C-DMU Corr | MU | 10+ | 203.6 | 0.20 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 16 | 055 188100400 | ZP2022-0021 | 2449 Dwight | Construct 4-story addition on existing 4-story mixed-use building with ground floor retail (restaurant, jewelry store, print shop, spice shop) (2015 Chandler building fire); add 27 new Dwelling Units | 2 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 51 | C-T | MU | 10+ | 215.7 | 0.24 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 17 | 057 202700600 | ZP2021-0193 | 2065 Kittredge | Demolish the existing Landmark commercial building on Unit B of Parcel Map 6889 (condominium) and construct a 5-story, 216,696 SF, multi-family residential building with 189 units, and 42 underground parking spaces. Density Bonus. (formerly 2211 Harold Way) | 11 | 0 | 0 | 178 | 189 | C-DMU Core | MF | 10+ | 245.2 | 0.77 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 18 | 058 217300500 | ZP2020-0022 | 1650 Shattuck | Prior use: dry cleaners. Construct 10 dwelling units, ground floor commercial on site of Virginia Drycleaners | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 10 | C-NS | MU | 5+ | 94.7 | 0.11 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 19 | 053 159500903 | ZP2018-0156 | 3031 Adeline | Existing Parking lot and 1,000 square foot fast-food bldg and construct a 5-story, 57' tall, 46,948 square foot mixed-use building with 42 dwelling units, 4,324 square feet of commercial space, and 25 parking spaces on a 12,257 square foot lot. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 42 | C-SA | MU | 10+ | 149.3 | 0.28 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 20 | 055 186901600 | ZP2019-0051 | 2716-2718 Durant | Raise a dwelling at the front of the property to create a three-story dwelling; to raise a dwelling at the rear of the lot and construct two new dwellings below; and to not provide the two required parking spaces. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | R-3 | MF | 2 to 4 | 28.5 | 0.11 | No | No | No | No | | 21 | 056 192701800 | ZP2019-0089 | 2371 San Pablo | Alter existing one-story, 2,105 SF mixed-use building, add two stories, 4 dwelling units, with zero parking spaces, where 8 are required. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | C-W | MU | 2 to 4 | 37.9 | 0.11 | No | No | No | No | | 22 | 053 168400100 | ZP2020-0118 | 2801 Adeline | Existing Walgreens. Proposed 222 room hotel and 84 residential units | 18 | 17 | 0 | 49 | 84 | C-AC | MU | 10+ | 76.4 | 1.10 | No | No | No | Yes | | 23 | 059 233701800 | ZP2016-0025, ZP2021-0085 | 1415 Fifth | Existing single-family dwelling. Duplex and new SFD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | MUR | SFD/DP | 2 to 4 | 20.1 | 0.15 | No | No | No | No | | 24 | 056 200400100 | UPMOD2013-0001 | 1698 University | Demolish vacant automotive repair station. Construct new 5-story mixed-use building with 36 dwelling units. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 36 | C-U | MU | 10+ | 157.3 | 0.23 | No | No | No | Yes | | 25 | 058 218102700 | ZP2022-0062 | 1773 Oxford | Existing four-story, 6-unit building, 5-story building 20,786 square feet. There will be 16 units and two units reserved for 50% AMI or below. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 16 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 142.0 | 0.15 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 26 | 057 202302500 | ZP2018-0200 | 2072 Addison | Prior use: Fitness Center. To demolish a one-story commercial building, and to construct a seven-story, mixed-use building containing an approximately 1,425-sq. ft. restaurant serving beer and wine and 29 off-street parking spaces on the ground floor, and six stories of residential uses containing a total of 66 dwelling units. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 66 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 281.0 | 0.23 | Yes | No | No | No | | 27 | 057 202600405 | ZP2022-0026 | 2190 Shattuck | 2-story retail and 2nd story office, ground floor Walgreens. Use Permit modification of ZP2016-0117 to construct a 25-story mixed-use housing development with 274 dwelling units and ground-floor commercial under Density Bonus law. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 274 | 274 | C-DMU | MU | 10+ | 597.8 | 0.46 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 28 | 054 178101501 | ZP2016-0207 | 2527 San Pablo | Former gas station. Use Permit #ZP2016-0207 to demolish an existing vacant service station building and construct a 6-story, mixed use building with 63 dwelling units, including 12 below market rate units for qualified persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD); 3,179 square feet of combined ground floor commercial space for restaurant use including incidental service of beer and wine; and ground level parking for 49 vehicles. | 6 | 6 | 0 | 51 | 63 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 205.9 | 0.31 | Yes | No | No | Yes | | 29 | 055 184702000 | ZP2022-0019 | 2555 College | Existing two one-story commercial buildings. Construct a four-story residential building with 11 dwelling units under Density Bonus law. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11 | R-3 | MF | 10+ | 110.0 | 0.1 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 30 | 054 174203400 | ZP2022-0033 | 2727 San Pablo | Existing Vacated Tax Services Business. Construct 3-story, 6,928 sq.ft residential building with 4 dwelling units and two off-street parking spaces. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | C-W | MF | 2 to 4 | 49.9 | 0.08 | No | No | Yes | No | | 31 | 053 163400401 | B2015-01784 | 3020 San Pablo | Existing vacant lot. Five story mixed-use building totaling 33,645 gross square feet with 29 residential units, and 2,287 square feet of commercial space. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 29 | C-W SP Node | MU | 10+ | 138.6 | 0.21 | No | Yes | No | Yes | C-11 | APN | Permit Number | Address | Project Description (Orange Text = Prior land use) | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Total Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 32 | 056 194500600 | ZP2017-0039 | 739 Channing | Existing surface parking lot. Construct 3 detached bldgs, 1 office space, 4 LW arts/crafts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | MU-LI/M-UR | MU/LW | 10+ | 37.4 | 0.37 | No | No | No | No | | 33 | 060 235000800 | ZP2022-0020 | 919 Camelia | Existing vacant lot. Construct new 7,020 sq. ft. building containing three live/work units on vacant 3,510 sq. ft. parcel. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | MULI | LW | 2 to 4 | 37.5 | 0.08 | No | Yes | No | No | | 34 | 055 182102100 | ZP2021-0095 | 2018 Blake | Fire damaged SFR; Construct a six-story, multi-family residential building with 12 units (including 1 VLI unit), under State Density Bonus. 15% VLI for 50% bonus. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 12 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 100.7 | 0.12 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 35 | 054 178102900 | ZP2022-0028 | 1200 Dwight | SFD; Build two two-story dwellings, with a rear setback of 16 feet where 20 feet is required. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | R-2 | DP | 2 to 4 | 15.4 | 0.13 | No | No | Yes | No | | | | | Anticipated Applications | | 353 | 113 | 30 | 2,567 | 3,063 | | | | | | | 16 | 16 | | 1 | 058 212901700 | PLN2022-0093 | 1701 San Pablo | Existing BUSD parking lot. SB 35 on BUSD property | 32 | 48 | 30 | 0 | 110 | R-2 | MF | 10+ | 30.6 | 4.45 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 2a | 053 159202200 | PLN2021-0072 | 2024 Ashby | SB35 Preliminary Application St. Paul’s AME Church. Merge two lots and perform lot line adjustment. Demolish two non-residential buildings, and construct a mixed-use, six-story building, with 52 100% affordable units, church entry and offices, 800 SF of commercial, and 19 underground parking spaces. Utilizes Tier 4, North Adeline, Incentive Development Standards. | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 18 | C-AC | MU | 5+ | 152.5 | 0.118 | No | No | No | No | | 2b | 053 159202100 | PLN2021-0072 | 2024 Ashby | Same project as above. SB35 Preliminary Application St. Paul’s AME Church. Merge two lots and perform lot line adjustment. Demolish two non-residential buildings, and construct a mixed-use, six-story building, with 52 100% affordable units, church entry and offices, 800 SF of commercial, and 19 underground parking spaces. Utilizes Tier 4, North Adeline, Incentive Development Standards. | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 30 | C-AC | MU | 5+ | 157.9 | 0.19 | No | No | - | - | | 3 | 056 200402000 | PLN2022-0047 | 1652 University | Existing Use: 2-story mixed, vacant ground floor retail (former RadioShack). 5-story mixed use building with 26 units and commercial space. 2 L/W units, 26 du (1 VLI) Adjacent to Fox Commons, landmark and large protected oak tree. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 26 | C-U | MU | 10+ | 151.4 | 0.17 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 4 | 052 153300103 | PLN2021-0037 | 1708 Harmon | SB35 Preliminary Application Ephesian Church. Demolish three non-residential buildings, and construct a 100% affordable residential, five-story building for seniors, with 82 units, 63 ground-level parking spaces. Utilizes Tier 4, South Adeline, Incentive Development Standards. C-AC | 41 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 82 | C-AC | GLA | 10+ | 78.3 | 1.05 | No | No | No | No | | 5 | 057 210000708 | PLN2022-0039 | 1914 Fifth | Current: Boutique retail building and parking lot. Construct 257 dwelling units, ground floor lobby and commercial. two floors of parking. 6 stories. Density Bonus | 21 | 0 | 0 | 236 | 257 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 253.9 | 1.01 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 6a | 057 208502500 | PLN2022-0026 | 1931 San Pablo | Current: Surface parking, 99 Cent stores; Construction of a new 7-story mixed-use residential development with up to 323 dwelling units on 59,000 sq ft. lot, fronting on San Pablo and Hearst with lobbies, commercial and parking using state density bonus. | 23 | 0 | 0 | 252 | 275 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 238.3 | 1.15 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 6b | 057 208501500 | PLN2022-0026 | 1955 San Pablo | Same project as above. Small BBQ kiosk; SB-330 application for the construction of a new 7-story mixed-use residential development with up to 323 dwelling units on 59,000 sqft. lot, fronting on San Pablo and Hearst with lobbies, commercial and parking using state density bonus. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 48 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 239.5 | 0.20 | No | No | - | - | | 7a | 057 205300200 | PLN2022-0057 | 1974 Shattuck | Current: Spats restaurant; 1974-1998 Shattuck, and build new 26-story mixed-use building with 297 dwellings, using a Density Bonus. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 214 | 238 | C-DMU Oute | MU | 10+ | 2043.0 | 0.12 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 7b | 057 205300302 | PLN2022-0057 | 1984 Shattuck | Same project as above. Current: 1 story commercial; 1974-1998 Shattuck, and build new 26-story mixed-use building with 297 dwellings, using a Density Bonus. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 59 | C-DMU Oute | MU | 10+ | 1904.1 | 0.03 | Yes | No | - | - | | 8a | 055 182201400 | PLN2022-0029 | 2001 Blake | SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 21 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 236.1 | 0.09 | No | No | Yes | Yes | C-12 | APN | Permit Number | Address | Project Description (Orange Text = Prior land use) | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Total Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 8b | 055 182202100 | PLN2022-0029 | 2012 Dwight | Same project as above. 2-story residential building; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 27 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 252.23 | 0.12 | No | No | - | - | | 8c | 055 182201303 | PLN2022-0029 | 2015 Blake | Same project as above. Existing parking lot; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 30 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 208.3 | 0.15 | No | No | - | - | | 8d | 055 182201304 | PLN2022-0029 | 2015 Blake | Same project as above. 2-story building; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 30 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 208.3 | 0.15 | No | No | - | - | | 8e | 055 182202200 | PLN2022-0029 | 2016 Dwight | Same project as above. Existing parking lot; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 30 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 208.3 | 0.15 | No | No | - | - | | 8f | 055 182201302 | PLN2022-0029 | 2019 Blake | Same project as above. 1-story building; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 30 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 208.3 | 0.15 | No | No | - | - | | 8g | 055 182202300 | PLN2022-0029 | 2020 Dwight | Same project as above. 2-story residential building; SB330 Preliminary Application for UP Modification of ZP2020-0072 to increase unit total from 168 to 198, and the building height from 7 floors to 8 floors. / Demolish 3 existing commercial buildings and 1 duplex; restore and relocate 2 residential buildings on the site (includes 7 rent-controlled units); merge and reconfigure 7 parcels into 2 parcels; Density bonus project. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 30 | R-4 | MF | 10+ | 194.8 | 0.15 | No | No | - | - | | 9a | 057 203100101 | PLN2022-0056 | 2128 Oxford, 2132-2154 Center | Demolition of two mixed use buildings (retail/restaurant first floor, 16 dwelling units above), replaced with new 26-story mixed use building with 485 dwelling units. Merge two parcels: 057 203101500 and 057 203100101. | 17 | 0 | 0 | 153 | 170 | C-DMU Core | MU | 10+ | 764.4 | 0.28 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 9b | 057 203101300 | PLN2022-0056 | 2128 Oxford, 2132-2154 Center | Same project as above. Demolition of two mixed use buildings (retail/restaurant first floor, 16 dwelling units above), replaced with new 26-story mixed use building with 485 dwelling units. Merge two parcels: 057 203101500 and 057 203100101. | 30 | 0 | 0 | 285 | 315 | C-DMU Core | MU | 10+ | 688.5 | 0.52 | Yes | No | - | - | | 10 | 056 197701101 | ZP2021-0046 | 2136-2154 San Pablo | Demolish an existing two-story nonresidential structure (Kung-Fu Academy, Auto Repair) and (2) to construct a six-story mixed-use building with 123 residential units (five residential stories above a podium), three live-work units at the ground level, and 50 off-street parking spaces in a mechanical lift system. | 10 | 0 | 0 | 116 | 126 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 235.6 | 0.53 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 11 | 056 198304201 | PLN2022-0020 | 2147 San Pablo | Currently Beyond Repair Auto Repair. Construct 6-story, mixed-use building with 3,000 SF of retail (2 units), 128 GLA units (bed, bath and kitchenette), including 12 VLI units, shared living, cooking, and dining areas per floor, and 14 ground-level parking. | 12 | 0 | 0 | 116 | 128 | C-W | MU/GLA | 10+ | 382.7 | 0.33 | No | No | Yes | Yes | C-13 | | APN | Permit Number | Address | Project Description (Orange Text = Prior land use) | < 50% AMI | 50-80% AMI | 80-120% AMI | >120% AMI | Total Units | Zone | Type | Category | Density (DU/A) | Acreage | 5th Cycle (Y/N) | Vacant (Y/N) | SB330 (Y/N) | Density Bonus (Y/N) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 12a | 055 189600300 | PLN2022-0036 | 2420 Shattuck | Vacated Gio's Pizza and Bocce restaurant. Construct 16-story mixed-use building with 146 dwelling units, ground level lobbies, and commercial space with state of California density bonus. | 9 | 0 | 0 | 81 | 90 | C-DMU Corr | MU | 10+ | 500.0 | 0.18 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | | 12b | 055 189600400 | PLN2022-0036 | 2428 Shattuck | Same project as above. Existing use: Restaurant; Construct 16-story mixed-use building with 146 dwelling units, ground level lobbies, and commercial space with state of California density bonus. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 56 | C-DMU Corr | MU | 10+ | 515.8 | 0.11 | Yes | No | - | - | | 13a | 054 178501700 | PLN2022-0048 | 2601 San Pablo | Construction of new, 8-story mixed-use residential development with residential lobby, commercial space, and parking. 242 Dwelling Units utilizing State Density Bonus (25 VLI units) | 14 | 0 | 0 | 121 | 135 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 313.3 | 0.48 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 13b | 054 178501400 | PLN2022-0048 | San Pablo | Same project as above. Vacant parcel; Construction of new, 8-story mixed-use residential development with residential lobby, commercial space, and parking. 242 Dwelling Units utilizing State Density Bonus (25 VLI units) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 22 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 309.3 | 0.08 | No | Yes | - | - | | 13c | 054 178501600 | PLN2022-0048 | 2603 San Pablo | Same project as above. Vacant commercial building; Construction of new, 8-story mixed-use residential development with residential lobby, commercial space, and parking. 242 Dwelling Units utilizing State Density Bonus (25 VLI units) | 6 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 53 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 314.0 | 0.19 | No | No | - | - | | 13d | 054 178501500 | PLN2022-0048 | 2613 San Pablo | Same project as above. Vacant commercial building; Construction of new, 8-story mixed-use residential development with residential lobby, commercial space, and parking. 242 Dwelling Units utilizing State Density Bonus (25 VLI units) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 32 | C-W | MU | 10+ | 312.9 | 0.11 | No | No | - | - | | 14 | 053 159001101 | PLN2022-0016 | 2920 Shattuck | Existing True Value Hardware and Model Garage site. Construct 10-story mixed-use residential 221 dwelling units, ground-floor commercial DB | 22 | 0 | 0 | 199 | 221 | C-SA | MU | 10+ | 493.1 | 0.45 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 15 | 057 203000900 | PLN2022-0067 | 2113 Kittredge | The California Theater. This building at 2113 Kittredge would be demolished to allow construction of the new project. The proposed land use is a mixed-use residential development in the C-DMU zoning district. The proposed multi-family project will have 214 units in approximately 148,206 SF of floor area. The proposed project will have a live performance theater, with approximately 18,325 SF of nonresidential floor area. The use category for the theater will be 'theater', which is allowed in the C-DMU Core zone with an Administrative Use Permit | 22 | 0 | 0 | 192 | 214 | C-DMU Corer | MU | 10+ | 690.2 | 0.31 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 16 | 054 171400501 | PLN2022-0061 | 2712 Telegraph | Construction of a 5-story, mixed-use building with 35 dwelling units. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 35 | C-C | MU | 10+ | 175.0 | 0.2 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 17 | 053 168900100 | PLN2022-0060 | 2800 Telegraph | SB330 Pre-Application: Construction of a new five-story residential building with 13 dwelling units. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 13 | C-C | MF | 10+ | 6.4 | 2.04 | No | No | Yes | Yes | | 18 | 053 168602000 | PLN2022-0031 | 2847 Shattuck | SB 330 Preliminary Application to demolish 1-story commercial building ad construct a 9-story mixed use building with 112 dwelling units, utilizing Density bonus. | 11 | 0 | 0 | 101 | 112 | C-SA | MU | 10+ | 448.0 | 0.25 | No | No | Yes | Yes | C-14 # C5.2 OPPORTUNITY SITES - NO REZONE REQUIRED To identify additional capacity for residential development, the City underwent a thorough review and analysis of the City's vacant and underutilized sites. Before starting with the site selection process, the City arrived at baseline densities for estimating capacity based on project trends in each zone since the majority of Berkeley's zoning districts do not have density standards. The site selection process adopted an objective approach by establishing a selection criterion to identify parcels that are more likely to be developed or redeveloped, focusing on sites with existing uses that are older or show signs of disinvestment or deferred maintenance. These criteria included: realistic parcel sizes, improvement to land ratio, age of building structure on the site, and existing density with respect to potential for redevelopment for different zoning designations. Some sites with existing lower-density residential uses provide the opportunity for significant capacity increases. These assumptions were derived looking at city-specific trends for existing developments and projects in the pipeline in each zoning designation that allowed residential development. The selection was conducted using GIS and information from the County Assessor's database to determine all sites that fulfilled the established criteria. The selection criterion was revised and refined at different stages to arrive at a realistic selection of potential sites. This first step in the process resulted in a long list of eligible sites that were then further scrutinized parcel by parcel using aerial maps, site visits, and local knowledge of the neighborhoods. Each parcel was either included or excluded if it seemed viable with respect to the surrounding context and on-ground conditions like street access, existing land use, lot dimensions, the age and condition of the property. Information regarding ownership helped identify and include sites that could potentially undergo lot consolidation and together become feasible for residential development. This stage of the sites review process applied the same filtering criteria to analyze undeveloped 5th cycle sites and included sites which fulfilled the selection criteria. Sites unlikely to develop for varied reasons were eliminated. At multiple stages of the process, City staff reviewed and verified the selected sites which was then integrated into the list of feasible sites that could be counted towards meeting the RHNA goals. This iterative process was repeated until the City arrived at a satisfactory final list of potential additional sites reflective of the ground reality and zoned to allow residential development. A full list of the Potential Additional Sites is listed as an appendix at the end of this section, in Table C-10: Opportunity Sites – No Rezone Required. Parcel-level data on existing conditions (such as building age, existing square footage, and existing use) is incomplete in some cases. Therefore, each parcel is evaluated based on multiple factors. Visual survey of existing uses via Google Earth was conducted on every parcel to confirm existing uses and conditions, underutilization status, and potential for redevelopment due to similar characteristics to areas nearby that have experienced recycling activities. Broadly, sites were reviewed and excluded from potential reuse if: * Current zoning designation does not allow residential use; * Parcel is not State- or county-owned; and * Parcel is developed with condos or large apartment buildings. Sites were considered for re-use if: * Vacant or with minimal improvements * Used as a parking lot **OR**, if nonvacant but met at least two of the following criteria: * **Buildings on the parcel are “older”.** The team used a threshold of 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings based on building age data for completed and pending projects shown in Table C-12. Buildings older than 30 years typically require significant systems upgrades and often do not meet ADA requirements. Any significant improvements would require these buildings to become ADA-compliant, which could be cost and/or physically prohibitive. * **Parcel has a low improvement-to-land assessed value ratio (ILR).** Low improvement to land ratio indicates improvements on a site is worth less than the land, an indication of underutilized land and lack of significant improvements in recent years. Buildings with declining uses may still be assessed at high ILR for property tax purposes. Such properties become a financial liability to owners when declining uses do not generate adequate revenues or incomes. An old building with a low base value would also show an ILR that appears artificially high. A review of current completed and pending projects indicate that properties of up to 3.42 ILR have been redeveloped, with an average of approximately 1.37. To account for the range of ILR, 2.0 was selected as the threshold for identifying opportunity sites (see Table C-12). * **Parcel is underutilized based on existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR).** Overall, a review of completed and pending projects indicates that nonvacant sites identified for redevelopment can have an FAR ranging from 0 to 4.0, with an average of 0.89. Properties within very high density zones (such as C-W, C-T, and C-DMU) tend to have recycled buildings that have existing FARs above 1.0 and even over 3.0 in some cases (see Table C-12). Similar to ILR, buildings with declining uses may have high FARs, such as old commercial buildings or retail shopping uses. To account for the range of FARs seen in Table C-12, an existing FAR of 0.60 is used as threshold for lower intensity zones (less than 100 units per acre). For properties in higher intensity zones (more than 100 units per acre), an existing FAR of 1.50 is used. * **Current and adjacent uses make development feasible.** Regionally and in Berkeley, a variety of existing uses have been redeveloped, including auto-related uses (auto repairs, gas stations), banks, low-intensity retail and commercial uses, and church properties. Due to COVID, trends relating to remote working and online shopping have accelerated. There are vacated commercial buildings in the City, indicating an excess supply of outdated commercial spaces. Improved fuel efficiency of cars and the requirement to move toward all electrical have also accelerated the conversion of gas stations and auto-related uses to other uses. * **Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (for lower income categories) or less than 0.5 acre for moderate and above-moderate income categories.** Note that parcels may be consolidated to achieve the 0.5-acre minimum threshold. Adjacent parcels that are held by C-16 the same owner could be developed jointly, as evidenced in the City’s sample of completed and pending projects (see Table C-12). In summary, Table C-10 details the site selection criteria as follows: * 1 = Vacant or parking lots * 2a = Building age ≥ 30 for commercial properties and 40 for residential properties * 2b = Existing FAR ≤ 1.50 or density above 100 du/ac and 0.60 for density less than 100 du/ac * 2c = Improvement to Land Ratio (ILR) ≤ 2.00 * 2d = Current and adjacent uses made development feasible; visual confirmation on Google Earth * 2e = Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income * 2f = Lot consolidation with common owners ## C5.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND REALISTIC CAPACITY ### Density Assumptions As stated above, the City expects to augment its housing stock primarily through infill and redevelopment along major corridors/streets and where zoning allows for high-density housing in conjunction with mixed-use development. Government Code Section 65583.2 (c) requires the calculation of projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the housing element that can realistically be achieved. The City estimated development potential for the sites by calculating the average baseline density (without density bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district. This calculation is critical since the majority of the City’s zoning districts do not have density standards. The average density assumptions listed in Table C-7 were used to calculate the capacity of sites for potential additional sites that do not require rezoning. The detailed list of projects considered to arrive at these density assumptions are included in the appendix at the end of this section. A detailed list of projects used to develop the average achievable densities is included at the end of this appendix in Table C-11. The maximum density listed in Table C-7 is included to demonstrate that the average is a conservative estimate of the number of units that could be developed on these sites. As demonstrated below in both Table C-7 and Table C-10, there is evidence of existing projects in the same zoning districts that have been developed at a much higher density than the average density used for the purposes of this exercise. Table C-7: Achieved Density Trends and Density Assumptions | District | Average Density Based on 2+ Projects (du/ac) | Maximum Density Based on 2+ Projects (du/ac) | Density Assumption for RHNA (du/ac) | Methodology Overview | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | R-1 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | | | ES-R | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.0 | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | R-1A | 16.4 | 18.2 | 15.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 14.6 to 18.2 du/ac | | R-2 | 21.6 | 36.9 | 20.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 12.9 to 36.9 du/ac | | R-2A | 26.9 | 50.8 | 25.0 | Based on 13 projects with densities from 12.9 to 50.8 du/ac | | R-3 | 45.9 | 85.1 | 40.0 | Based on 9 projects with densities from 21.4 to 85.1 du/ac | | R-4 | 86.1 | 150.6 | 75.0 | Based on 5 projects with densities from 26.8 to 150.6 du/ac | | R-S | 102.5 | 129.1 | 100.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 64.5 to 129.1 du/ac | | R-SMU | 212.0 | 234.6 | 200.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 189.5 to 234.6 du/ac | | C-C | 143.1 | 173.5 | 125.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 112.6 to 173.5 du/ac. Note that 1 project was approved under the former C-1 zoning designation but is now zoned C-C | | C-U | 158.8 | 268 | 150.0 | Based on 5 projects with densities from 17.5 to 268 du/ac. Note that 3 of these projects were approved under the former C-1 designation but are now zoned C-U | | Neighborhood Commercial (C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO) | 58.1 | 94.7 | 50.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 28.6 to 94.7 du/ac | | C-SA | 183.5 | 207.8 | 180.0 | Based on 7 projects with densities from 106.7 to 207.8 du/ac | | C-T | 168.1 | 442.9 | 160.0 | Based on 10 projects with densities from 31.3 to 442.9 du/ac | | C-DMU Core | 339.8 | 457.4 | 320.0 | Based on 9 projects with densities from 188.1 to 457.4 du/ac | | C-DMU Outer Core | 247.4 | 390.0 | 225.0 | Based on 6 projects with densities from 143.4 to 390.0 du/ac | | C-DMU Corridor | 167.8 | 167.8 | 150.0 | Not enough projects so based on C-DMU Buffer projects | | C-DMU Buffer | 167.8 | 190.5 | 150.0 | Based on 6 projects with densities from 129.3 to 190.5 du/ac | | C-W | 136.8 | 272 | 135.0 | Based on 22 projects with densities from 53.4 to 272 du/ac | | C-AC | 210.0 | 210.0 | 210.0 | 70% of max density defined in recently adopted Specific Area Plan | | MU-R | 28.0 | 34.8 | 24.4 | Based on 9 projects with densities between 20.0 to 34.8 du/ac | ### Lot Consolidation Recently there have been several projects that utilized lot consolidation for residential and mixed-use housing. For the Opportunity Sites, the site selection and review process took into consideration ownership information and only assumed lot consolidation where adjacent parcels belong to the same owner. This was done in conjunction with reviewing the sites using ownership data from the accessors parcel database, aerial photography, site visits, and local knowledge of the areas. Overall, 81 opportunity sites were considered feasible for lot consolidation to form larger parcels and were included in the final sites inventory and annotated with a letter (A, B, C, and so forth) for identification purposes. See Table C-10: Opportunity Sites – No Rezone Required. C-18 Each site (parcel or groups of parcels of common ownership) has been assigned a Priority level based on size: * High Priority (1) - A site/parcel larger than 0.5 acre, is adequate for facilitating lower income units * Medium Priority (2) – A site/parcel between 0.35 and 0.5 acre that based on the City’s trend of affordable housing development, is adequate for facilitating lower income units * Low Priority (3) – A site/parcel less than 0.35 acre, is not adequate for facilitating lower income units ## Affordable Project Development Trends Table C-8 lists examples of affordable housing projects that are on sites smaller than 0.5 acre. Specifically, these projects average to a small lot size of only 0.25 acre. As a conservative assumption, only parcels or sites (groups of parcels with common ownership) that are larger than 0.35 acre are considered adequately sized for lower income housing. Additional examples of projects on smaller sites containing affordable housing units can be found in Table C-12. Table C-8: Affordable Housing Projects on Sites Smaller than 0.5 acre | Project Address | Affordability Level | | | | | Acreage | Density Achieved (du/ac) | Zoning District | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Very Low | Low | Mod | Above Mod | Total | | | | | Built | | | | | | | | | | 2748 San Pablo | 23 | - | - | - | 23 | 0.23 | 100.5 | C-W | | Harper Crossing (3132 MLK Way) | 31 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 43 | 0.33 | 130 | C-AC | | Shattuck Senior Homes | - | 27 | - | - | 27 | 0.16 | 168 | C-DMU Corridor | | 1601 Oxford | 21 | 13 | - | 3 | 37 | 0.33 | 112 | R-3 | | Approved | | | | | | | | | | 1776/1782/1790 University | - | 11 | 68 | - | 79 | 0.22 | 350 | C-U | ## Density and Affordability Assumptions State law (Assembly Bill 2342/Government Code 65583.2) uses density as a proxy for income/affordability for the sites inventory. Table C-9: Affordability by Density, Size and Site Capacity shows the site conditions used to determine affordability for the sites inventory. Generally, lower density zones are presumed to be affordable to moderate and above moderate households. Under state law, the “default density” for most jurisdictions in urban counties is 30 units/acre. Default density refers to the density considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing. The sites inventory assumes that sites with densities of at least 30 du/acre are affordable to lower income households, as explained in Table C-9. Table C-9: Affordability by Density, Size and Site Capacity | Income Level | Site Characteristics | | :--- | :--- | C-19 | | | | :--- | :--- | | Lower | Site size is between 0.35 and 10 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites. AND
Density assumed is at least 30 du/ac, AND
Site capacity is at least 50 units | | Moderate | Site size is between 0.10 and 0.35 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites, AND
Site capacity is between 30 and 50 units, AND
Lot consolidation of contiguous parcels of common ownership only | | Above
Moderate | Density assumed is less than 30 du/ac, OR
Site capacity is less than 30 units | ### Completed and Pending Projects by Sites Inventory Selection Criteria Table C-12 includes a sample of 39 nonvacant sites with prior existing uses from pipeline, likely, and recently completed projects used to demonstrate the trends in current housing projects as it relates to the sites inventory selection criteria. * Of the sites analyzed, all existing buildings were found to be older than 40 years, with building ages ranging from 41 to 134 years old. * Similarly, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the 39 sites ranged from 0 to 4.0. The average FAR of all sample projects was 0.89, although a number of the projects use FARs that were averaged across multiple parcels, which included parking lots or vacant lots and therefore reduced the overall FAR. The average FAR is likely higher than 0.89 for the pre-entitlement condition (Projects 1-4 in Table C-12 are examples of this). * The Improvement to Land Ratio (ILR) for the analyzed sites ranged from 0 to 3.42, with an average of 1.37. As there is evidence of sites with higher ILRs redeveloping, the threshold of 2.0 was used to select opportunity sites. * Lot consolidation is common in Berkeley; 44% of the sample sites in Table C-12 were part of projects that consolidated sites. Table C-10 Opportunity Sites - No Rezone Required | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | 1a | 055 182501900 | 2609 SHATTUCK | No | - | - | 0.28 | Vacant, boarded up 1-story commercial structure, no tenant, last sold in December 2021, 10 surface parking spaces; new housing development across the street includes a 5-story, 155 unit apartment building constructed in 2016, replacing a similar low-profile commercial structure | 0.34 | AU | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.28) - Current vacant, boarded up one-story commercial structure located on a major transit corridor, in close proximity to other new residential developments – 2215 Parker (ZP2018-0161) and 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) - and similar to other commercial structures that have been replaced by residential developments - such as 2440 Shattuck (ZP2021-0201), 2970 Adeline (ZP2021-0140), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) - make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (0.94 acres when consolidated) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 1 | 210 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 72 | | 1b | 055 182501502 | 2621 SHATTUCK | No | - | - | 0.07 | Vacant 1-story commercial structure and parking lot (formerly Wick’s TV Appliance); no tenant, last sold in December 2021, 20 surface parking spaces; same owner as adjacent lot (055 182501900); Walker’s Paradise (92), Good Transit (67), Biker’s Paradise (95); new housing development across the street includes a 5-story, 155 unit apartment building constructed in 2016, replacing a similar low-profile commercial structure | 0.6 | AU | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.07) - Current vacant, boarded up one-story commercial structure located on a major transit corridor, in close proximity to other new residential developments – 2215 Parker (ZP2018-0161) and 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) - and similar to other commercial structures that have been replaced by residential developments - such as 2440 Shattuck (ZP2021-0201), 2970 Adeline (ZP2021-0140), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) - make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (0.94 acres when consolidated) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 1 | 210 | 126 | 0 | 0 | 126 | | 2a | 055 182401600 | 2555 SHATTUCK | No | - | 0.33 | 0.13 | Used car lot with 1-story commercial building (permanently closed; formerly Berkeley Toyota) | 0.15 | P | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.33) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.13) - Currently vacant used car lot located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to new residential developments – 2215 Parker (ZP2018-0161) and 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) - and similar to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244), make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (when consolidated - 0.58 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 1 | 210 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | | 2b | 055 182401400 | 2105 PARKER ST | No | - | 0.45 | 1.78 | 1-story commercial complex with parking lot; auto service related business and furniture store; adjacent to 2-story commercial complex; nearby lot | 0.43 | P | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.45) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.78) - Current commercial complex (including auto service related business) located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to new residential developments – 2215 Parker (ZP2018-0161) and 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) - and similar to other auto service related businesses that are currently being replaced by residential developments, such as 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-0081), and 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (when consolidated - 0.58 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 1 | 210 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 90 | C-21 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3 | 055 182301101 | 2104 DWIGHT WAY | No | - | 0.32 | 0.04 | Parking lot | 1 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.32)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.04)
- Current surface parking lot located in close proximity to other residential developments – 2012 Dwight (PLN2022-0029) – and similar to other former surface parking lots that have been replaced with a large residential development, such as 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172), make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (1 acre) | Yes | BC/C-AC | 1 | 210 | 209 | 0 | 0 | 209 | | 4 | 052 157602701 | 3030 TELEGRAPH AVE | No | 57 | 0.42 | 1.10 | Healthcare center parking lot | 0.63 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Building age greater than 30 years (57)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.42)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.10)
- Current surface parking lot located on a major transit corridor, in close proximity to other residential development – 3030 Telegraph (ZP2020-0069) – and similar to a surface parking lot that has been replaced with a large residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172), make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (0.63 acres) | No | BC/C-C | 1 | 124 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 78 | | 5 | 055 184002401 | 2655 TELEGRAPH AVE | No | 64 | 0.58 | 1.31 | 1-story single-tenant drugstore (CVS, formerly Andronico's) and 88 space parking lot; Walker's Paradise (95), Good Transit (62); tenant/lease/sale data not available on CoStar | 1.04 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (64)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.58)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.31)
- Current single-story drugstore and large surface parking lot located along a major transit corridor in close proximity to other residential developments – 2712 Telegraph (PLN2022-0061), 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096) – and similar to large commercial redevelopments, such as 2801 Adeline (ZP2020-0118), an existing Walgreens; 2190 Shattuck (ZP 2022-0026), an existing Walgreens; and 2440 Shattuck (ZP201-0201), an existing Dollar Tree, make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres (1.04 acres) | No | BC/C-C | 1 | 125 | 130 | 0 | 0 | 130 | | 6a | 057 202801200 | 2235 MILVIA ST | No | - | 0.37 | 0.59 | Two small 1-story buildings - a restaurant and temporarily closed recording studio - and small parking lot, downtown | 0.06 | AV | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.37)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.59)
- Current single-story commercial buildings and parking lot in close proximity to other residential development – 2065 Kittredge (ZP2021-0193), 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011), 2028 Bancroft (ZP2017-0103) – and similar to redevelopments of other small commercial buildings, such as 2970 Adeline (ZP2021-0140), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate units)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 1 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | | 6b | 057 202801300 | 2000 KITTREDGE ST | No | - | 0.05 | 0.35 | 1-story car rental and parking lot, downtown | 0.27 | AV | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.05)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.35)
- Currently one-story commercial structure and parking lot (auto service-related business) in close proximity to other residential development – 2065 Kittredge | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 1 | 150 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | C-22 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | (ZP2021-0193), 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011), 2028 Bancroft (ZP2017-0103) – and similar to other former auto service related businesses that are currently being replaced by residential developments, such as 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-0081), and 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate units)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 7a | 055 189700103 | 2480 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 0.99 | 2.87 | 1-story commercial (bike shop), downtown | 0.17 | W | Meets Criteria 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.99)
- Current single-story commercial building and parking lot located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development – 2440 Shattuck (ZP2021-0201) and 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036)- and similar to other residential redevelopment of commercial structures, such as 2970 Adeline (ZP2021-0140), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158), support additional residential development on this site.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.52 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | BC/C-DMU Buff | 1 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | | 7b | 055 189700600 | 2450 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 103 | 0.76 | 1.98 | 1-story commercial structure – one vacant store front, 1 laundry, 1 restaurant, 1 music store, downtown | 0.35 | W | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (103)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.76)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.98)
- Current partially vacant single-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development – 2440 Shattuck (ZP2021-0201) and 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036) - and similar to other residential redevelopment of commercial structures, such as 2970 Adeline (ZP2021-0140), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158), support additional residential development on this site.
- 0.5 and 10 acres (when consolidated – 0.52 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | BC/C-DMU Buff | 1 | 150 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 52 | | 8a | 060 243503101 | 1575 HOPKINS ST | No | - | 0.51 | 0.77 | 1-story office (Red Oak Realty) and parking lot, last sold in 2018 | 0.23 | AG | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.51)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.77)
- Current single-story office building; similar new residential development of office space, such as 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011), support additional residential development on this site.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | NC/C-N | 1 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | 8b | 060 243502801 | 1601 HOPKINS ST | No | 43 | 0.44 | 0.75 | 1-story salon and storage yard | 0.31 | AG | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (43)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.44)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.75)
- Current single-story commercial building; similar new residential development of office space include 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011) and 1951 Shattuck (ZP2018- | Yes | NC/C-N | 1 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | C-23 | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | 0137), support additional residential development on this site. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.54 acres/above moderate) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 9 | 058 217801800 | 2109 VIRGINIA ST | No | - | 0.83 | 0.34 | 2-story mixed use, restaurant, educational institution residential | 0.52 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.83) Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.34) Two-story mixed-use building - current uses include a restaurant and educational institution; similar new residential development include 2441 Le Conte (PLN2021-0020) and 2439 Durant (ZP2021-0192), support additional residential development on this site. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.52 acres) | Yes | NC/C-NS | 1 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 26 | | 10a | 059 226301001 | 1550 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 0.44 | 1.28 | 2-story single-tenant grocery store (Andronico's Grocery, owned by Safeway since 2017, occupied by tenant since Apr 2006) with 75 space parking lot; Walker's Paradise (98), Good Transit (65) | 1.95 | 0 | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.44) Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.28) Current 2-story commercial building (grocery store), located along a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1650 Shattuck (ZP2020-0022) and 1506 Bonita (ZP2016-0050), and similar to redevelopment of other large commercial buildings, including 2801 Adeline (ZP2020-0118), 2190 Shattuck (ZP2022-0026), make development feasible Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.38 acres) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | NC/C-NS | 1 | 50 | 97 | 0 | 0 | 97 | | 10b | 059 226302401 | 1536 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 0.92 | 0.16 | Bank parking lot | 0.4 | 0 | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f Vacant and/or parking lots Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.92) Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.16) Current surface parking lot located on a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1650 Shattuck (ZP2020-0022) and 1506 Bonita (ZP2016-0050), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.38 acres) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | MDR/R-2A | 1 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | | 11a | 057 209700106 | 805 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 71 | - | 1.7 | 1-story freestanding retail building (KCC Modern Living - tenant since May 2010); 500 sf of 6,570 sf occupied; last sold in Nov 2014; Walker's Paradise (96), Good Transit (58); owned by same owner as adjacent site (057 209701401) | 0.24 | AH | Meets Criteria 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f Building age greater than 30 years (71) Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.7) Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to the redevelopment of former commercial buildings proposed at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 1.86 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 11b | 057 209701401 | 811 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.7 | 8.07 | 2-story retail (CorePower Yoga, Fusion Learning, + more) – lease signed with Flux Vertical Theatre in July 2021; additional lease signed with Fusion Learning in Sept 2018) + 43 parking spaces; Walker's Paradise (96), Good Transit (59); owned by same owner as adjacent site (057 209700106) | 0.86 | AH | Meets Criteria 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.7) - Current 2-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to the redevelopment of former commercial buildings proposed at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 1.86 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 115 | 0 | 0 | 115 | | 11c | 057 209700201 | 1904 6TH ST | No | - | - | - | 1-story city-owned West Berkeley Senior Center and parking lot | 0.76 | AH | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f - Current 1-story institutional building located along a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to the redevelopment of buildings proposed at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 1.86 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | MU/MUR | 1 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 | | 12a | 060 235401100 | 1041 GILMAN ST | No | - | 0.66 | - | Parking lot | 0.19 | AJ | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.66) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.66 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | | 12b | 060 235401302 | 1233 10TH ST | No | - | 0.82 | - | Parking lot | 0.32 | AJ | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.82) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential | Yes | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 43 | C-25 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.66 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 12c | 060 235401200 | 1031 Gilman St | No | - | 0.74 | 0 | Parking lot | 0.15 | AJ | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.74) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.55 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 | | 13a | 057 208801100 | 1071 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | - | 0.15 | Parking lot | 0.3 | AS | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.15) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.55 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | | 13b | 057 208801500 | 1917 10TH ST | No | - | - | 0.2 | Parking lot | 0.25 | AS | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.2) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.55 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | HDR/R-3 | 1 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | | 14 | 057 210100500 | 701 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.13 | 5.02 | Parking lot | 1.03 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.13) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (1.03 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 139 | 0 | 0 | 139 | C-26 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 15a | 059 228702500 | 1629 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 82 | 1.07 | 3.03 | 1-story retail (party store) | 0.11 | Y | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (82) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.07) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1701 San Pablo (PLN2022-0093), and similar to residential redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income c - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | | 15b | 059 228702400 | 1633 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 98 | 0.82 | 0.96 | 1-story retail (party store) | 0.11 | Y | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (98) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.82) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.96) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1701 San Pablo (PLN2022-0093), and similar to residential redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.55 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | | 15c | 059 228702102 | 1639 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 66 | 0.98 | 1.67 | 1-2 story commercial | 0.3 | Y | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (66) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.98) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.67) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1701 San Pablo (PLN2022-0093), and similar to residential redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.55 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | | 16 | 060 235401001 | 1049 GILMAN ST | No | - | - | 0.66 | 1-story retail (liquor, Dollar Tree) | 0.61 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.66) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), and similar to redevelopment of 1-story | Yes | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 82 | C-27 | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | commercial buildings, such as 2440 Shattuck (ZP2021-0201) and 2198 San Pablo (ZP2018-0112) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.61 acres) | | | | | | | | | | 17 | 059 233100200 | No | 99 | 0.89 | 0.46 | 2-story freestanding furniture strip retail and parking lot (West Berkeley Commercial Center) | 0.67 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (99) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.89) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.46) - Current 2-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1701 San Pablo (PLN2022-0093), and similar to residential redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.67 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 90 | | 18 | 056 198303103 | 2235 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 33 | 1.49 | 2 | 2-story storage facility and parking lot (Berkeley Self Storage) | 0.7 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (33) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.49) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than (or equal to) 2.0 (2.0) - Current 2-story storage facility and parking lot located along a major transit corridor and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 2371 San Pablo (ZP2019-0089) and 2198 San Pablo (ZP2018-0112), and similar to residential redevelopment of storage facilities, such as 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.7 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 94 | | 19 | 056 193200803 | 2424 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 59 | 0.06 | 0.49 | Self-service car wash | 0.73 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (59) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.06) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.49) - Current car wash located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207) and 1200 Dwight (ZP2022-0028), and similar to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.73 acres) | Yes | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 98 | | 20a | 056 194301901 | 2431 5TH ST | No | 64 | 0.65 | 2.58 | 1-story vacant office building (formerly Sumiko Subwoofers) | 1.08 | AX | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (64) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.65) - Currently vacant single-story office building in close proximity to other residential development 2422 Fifth (ZP2018-018) and 739 Channing (ZP2017-0039), and similar new residential development of office space include 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011), support additional residential development on this site. | No | MU/MUR | 1 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 26 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.53 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 20b | 056 194301001 | 2416 6TH ST | No | - | 0.86 | 1.08 | 1-story sheet metal HVAC shop (Walter Mork Co., Inc.) | 0.45 | AX | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.86)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.08)
- Current sheet metal shop in close proximity to other residential development 2422 Fifth (ZP2018-018) and 739 Channing (ZP2017-0039), and similar new residential development of similar industrial/manufacturing sites, such as 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222) and 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), support additional residential development on this site.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.53 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | MU/MUR | 1 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | 21 | 056 196101601 | 801 ADDISON ST | No | - | 0.69 | 1.54 | 1-story warehouse (West Berkeley Dock-High Warehouse - for sale) | 0.59 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.69)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.54)
- Currently vacant warehouse in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to the redevelopment of former industrial/manufacturing buildings proposed at 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222) and 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), support additional residential development on this site.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.59 acres) | No | MU/MUR | 1 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | | 22 | 056 193300602 | 2332 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | - | 1-story commercial building and open lot dedicated to plants - East Bay Nursery | 1.03 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current commercial building and open lot in close proximity to new and similar residential development of commercial buildings, such as 2371 San Pablo (ZP2019-0089), and 1820-1828 San Pablo (ZP2021-0186), support additional residential development on this site.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.59 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 1 | 135 | 140 | 0 | 0 | 140 | | 23a | 061 261100400 | 914 FRESNO AVE | No | - | - | 0.12 | Andronico's parking lot | 0.11 | AQ | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.12)
- Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.69 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | LDR/R-1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 23b | 061 261102503 | 915 COLUSA AVE | No | - | 0.17 | 0.07 | Andronico's parking lot | 0.23 | AQ | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.07) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.07) - Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.69 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | LDR/R-1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 23c | 061 261102504 | 915 COLUSA AVE | No | - | 0.11 | 0.11 | Andronico's parking lot | 0.35 | AQ | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.11) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.11) - Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.69 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | LDR/R-1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 24a | 063 298601200 | 1129 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | 4 contiguous vacant lots by same owner, different from adjacent owners | 0.12 | AD | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.60 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 24b | 063 298601300 | 1129 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | 4 contiguous vacant lots by same owner, different from adjacent owners | 0.14 | AD | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.60 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 24c | 063 298601400 | 1129 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | 4 contiguous vacant lots by same owner, different from adjacent owners | 0.16 | AD | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.60 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 24d | 063 298601501 | 1129 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | 4 contiguous vacant lots by same owner, different from adjacent owners | 0.18 | AD | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.60 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 25a | 063 314000800 | 924 FRESNO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from adjacent lots | 0.33 | AW | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.68 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 25b | 063 314000700 | 39 THE CRESCENT | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by adjacent lot 39 THE CRESCENT | 0.35 | AW | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 0.68 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 26a | 063 316002000 | 37 HILL RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by adjacent lot 37 HILL RD BERKELEY | 0.24 | V | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.22 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 26b | 063 316001402 | 20 BAY TREE LN | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant Lot, different owners from adj lots | 0.98 | V | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated - 1.22 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | 27 | 061 255801700 | OXFORD ST BERKELEY 94707 | No | - | - | - | 1-story school (former Oxford Elementary School site); now vacant; seismic retrofitting needed | 1.26 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current vacant school building (institutional) similar to other institutional redevelopments make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (1.26 acres/above moderate) | No | OS/R-1H | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | 28 | 057 207200600 | 1461 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 73 | 0.43 | 2.03 | 1-story motel and 40 parking spaces (Rodeway Inn – permanently closed) and single-story strip retail frontage, last sold in 2010, no lease data on CoStar | 0.78 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (73)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.43)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (2.03)
- Currently vacant 1-story motel and strip retail building in close proximity to other residential developments, such as 1367 University (ZP2019-0173) and the North Berkeley BART site, and similar to other projects, like the Golden Bear Inn at 1620 San Pablo, make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.78 acres) | Yes | MDR/R-2A | 1 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 | | 29 | 057 205401201 | 1995 UNIVERISTY AVE | No | - | | | Parking lot behind building | 0.64 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 2001 University/2001 Milvia (ZP2020-0134) and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.64 acres) | No | MDR/R-2A | 1 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 39 | | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | 30 | 056 199601203 | 1417 ADDISON ST | No | 54 | 0.52 | 1.7 | Parking lot only (Target) | 1.5 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Building age greater than 30 years (54)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.52)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.7)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 1367 University (ZP2019-0173), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (1.5 acres) | No | HDR/R-4 | 1 | 75 | 112 | 0 | 0 | 112 | | 31 | 059 226100102 | 1451 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | - | - | 1-story retail (CVS – move date Jan 2022 – previously Longs Drugs) and 70 space parking lot; Walker’s Paradise (97), Good Transit (62) | 0.78 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current occupied commercial building located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced with large residential developments, such as 1951 Shattuck (ZP2018-0137), and 1752 Shattuck (ZP2022-0011), make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.78 acres) | Yes | NC/C-NS | 1 | 50 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 39 | | 32 | 054 178000801 | 2546 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | - | 1-story Bank of America (temporarily closed) and large parking lot | 1.43 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current one-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207) and 2601 San Pablo (PLN2022-0048), and similar to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207).
- Current one-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207).
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (1.43 acres) | Yes | M/C-W | 1 | 135 | 192 | 0 | | 192 | | 33a | 055 188500102 | 2362 BANCROFT WAY | No | - | 0.56 | 0.05 | Parking lot | 0.27 | AT | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.56)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.05)
- Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.57 acres)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | RMU/R-SMU | 1 | 200 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 53 | | 33b | 055 188500201 | 2315 DURANT AVE | No | - | 0.2 | 0.04 | Parking lot | 0.3 | AT | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.2)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.04)
- Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. | Yes | RMU/R-SMU | 1 | 200 | 0 | 59 | 0 | 59 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (when consolidated – 0.57 acres) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 34 | 055 188500104 | 2338 Dana | No | - | - | - | United Methodist Church redevelopment | 0.993 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e - Current use as a church similar to projects at 2024 Ashby (PLN2021-0072) and 1708 Harmon (PLN2021-0037) make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.993) | No | RMU/R-SMU | 1 | 200 | 199 | 0 | 0 | 199 | | 35 | 056 194500102 | 742 Bancroft Way | No | 51 | - | 0.54 | Commercial/manufacturing building | 0.59 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (51) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.54) - Current 1-story commercial/manufacturing building with parking lot; similar to other proposed residential or mixed-use project, such as 1207 Tenth St (ZP2020-0046), make development feasible. f - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.59 acres) | No | MU/MUR | 1 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | | 36 | 055 182602000 | 2627 Shattuck | Yes | - | - | 0.08 | Vacant lot | 0.53 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.08) - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.53 acres) | Yes | BC/C-AC | 2 | 210 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 73 | | 37 | 064 423500804 | 3009 Ashby | No | - | 0.07 | 0.21 | Gas station | 0.40 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.07) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.21) - Current single-story gas station and parking lot located along a major transit corridor, and adjacent /in close proximity to new high density residential development support additional residential development on this site, similar to 2176 Kittredge (ZP2019-0027), 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207), and 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | NC/C-N | 2 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | | 38 | 057 208502600 | 1111 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 82 | 0.19 | 0.26 | 1-story commercial (Halmar Work Clothes Center) | 0.47 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (82) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.19) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.26) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1752 Shattuck (ZP2022-0011) and 1650 Shattuck (ZP2020-0022), and similar to the redevelopment of other low profile commercial buildings, including 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-U | 2 | 150 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 71 | | 39 | 058 218101905 | 1899 OXFORD ST | No | - | 0.12 | - | 1899 Oxford parking lot | 0.4 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.12) - Current surface parking lot adjacent to other new residential development, such as 1773 Oxford (ZP2022-0062), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced | Yes | HDR/R-4 | 2 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.4 acres) | | | | | | | | | | 40a | 058 223202100 | W PARNASSUS CT | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by 5 W PARNASSUS CT sold in 9/2020, gentle slope | 0.19 | U | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 40b | 058 223202000 | W PARNASSUS CT | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by 5 W PARNASSUS CT sold in 9/2020, gentle slope | 0.21 | U | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 41a | 060 248201800 | 23029 NADINE CIR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by two adjacent vacant parcels | 0.2 | X | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 41b | 060 248201700 | 23029 NADINE CIR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by two adjacent vacant parcels | 0.21 | X | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 42 | 061 257800601 | 89 SAN MATEO RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.35 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 43 | 063 295202300 | 47 ALAMO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot - Acacia walk goes through the property, but advertised for development | 0.37 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 44a | 056 195901704 | 2114 5TH ST | No | - | - | - | Parking lot | 0.13 | AR | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. | No | MU/MUR | 2 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | C-34 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 44b | 056 195901705 | 2116 5TH ST | No | - | - | 0.74 | Parking lot | 0.28 | AR | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.74)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | MU/MUR | 2 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | | 45 | 056 195800301 | 2200 5TH ST | No | - | 0.09 | 0.01 | Parking lot | 0.49 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.09)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.01)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MU/MUR | 2 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | 46 | 056 198304001 | 2197 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 54 | 0.08 | 1.4 | 1-story standalone restaurant (Jack in the Box) and parking lot | 0.4 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (54)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.08)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.4)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 2198 San Pablo (ZP2018-0112), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), and similar to redevelopment of other restaurants that have been replaced with a residential development: 1200-1214 San Pablo (ZP2019-0192) and 2439 Durant (ZP2021-0192), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.4 acres) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 53 | | 47a | 060 240502100 | 1275 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | - | 1-story garage or storage facility | 0.06 | AB | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f
- Current 1-story storage facility and parking lot located along a major transit corridor and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), similar to residential redevelopment of storage facilities, such as 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | M/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | 47b | 060 240502000 | 871 HILLSIDE AVE | No | - | 0.11 | - | 1-story auto-related office and parking lot (smog shop) | 0.29 | AB | Meets Criteria 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.11) | No | AC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | - Current auto shop with large parking lot located on a major transit corridor and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), and similar to used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 48a | 058 212701200 | 1730 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.79 | 1.21 | 1-story commercial (building materials store); adjacent to parking lot | 0.07 | AC | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.79)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.21)
- Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to other residential development, 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), and similar to commercial sites that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | | 48b | 058 212701101 | 1726 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.88 | 0.06 | Parking lot for building materials store | 0.14 | AC | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.88)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.06)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 | | 48c | 058 212700901 | 1724 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 76 | 0.4 | 0.43 | 1-story retail (Cafe Leila, accessories shop) and parking lot | 0.26 | AC | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (76)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.4)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.43)
- Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to other residential development, 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), and similar to commercial sites that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 34 | C-36 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 49a | 053 166101900 | 1043 HEINZ AVE | No | 99 | 0.17 | 0.02 | Large parking lot and single family house | 0.2 | AE | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (99) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.17) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.02) - Current single family house and large parking lot located in close proximity to a similar project at 2795 San Pablo (ZP2019-0048) make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 26 | | 49b | 053 166101801 | 2840 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | 0.05 | Parking lot | 0.26 | AE | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.17) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.05) - Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, 2795 San Pablo (ZP2019-0048), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 | | 50a | 060 240401801 | 1399 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.04 | 0.19 | Chevron Gas Station | 0.21 | AF | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.04) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.19) - Current single-story gas station and parking lot located along a major transit corridor, and adjacent /in close proximity to new high density residential development support additional residential development on this site, similar to 2176 Kittredge (ZP2019-0027), 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207), and 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 | | 50b | 060 240402000 | 1337 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.67 | 0.72 | Autobody shop and parking lot | 0.22 | AF | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.67) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.72) - Current auto shop with parking lot located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 29 | | 51a | 053 166101400 | 2830 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 63 | 1.48 | 1.52 | 1- story commercial | 0.15 | AI | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (63) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.48) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.52) - Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to other residential development, 2795 San Pablo (ZP2019- | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | C-37 | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | 0048), and similar to the redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 51b | 053 166101501 | 2832 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | 24.08 | 1- story commercial | 0.31 | AI | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to other residential development, 2795 San Pablo (ZP2019-0048), and similar to the redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 | | 52a | 057 208901201 | 1011 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 78 | - | - | 2-story standalone vacant commercial building (former Premier Cru wine store). | 0.24 | S | Meets Criteria 2a, 2d, 2e, 2f Building age greater than 30 years (78) Currently vacant 2-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to residential redevelopment of commercial sites at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | | 52b | 057 208901500 | 1925 9TH ST | No | - | - | - | Public land, parking lot behind Bauman College | 0.15 | S | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f Vacant and/or parking lots Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2542 Durant (ZP2016-0172) and 3031 Adeline (ZP2018-0156), make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | HDR/R-3 | 2 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | | 53 | 056 192802701 | 2407 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 68 | 0.02 | 0.02 | Cement lot with storage sheds | 0.36 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e Building age greater than 30 years (68) Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.02) Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.02) Current and adjacent uses make development feasible Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 48 | C-38 | | APN | Address | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | 54 | 056 198200201 | 2111 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 80 | 0.35 | 1.08 | Parking lot | 0.42 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Building age greater than 30 years (80)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.35)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.08)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity to other new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0039), and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.42 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 56 | | 55 | 057 208602903 | 1819 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 43 | 0.52 | 0.75 | 1-story autobody shop and parking lot, (Nate's Green Garage, auto detailing) | 0.42 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (43)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.52)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.75)
- Current auto shop with large parking lot located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to 1820-1828 San Pablo (ZP2021-0186) and 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), other former auto shops and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.42 acres) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 57 | | 56 | 056 193200401 | 2400 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.19 | 0.61 | 2-story retail and cement lot (Nu Gu Na restaurant + Ohmega Salvage) | 0.44 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.19)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.61)
- Current 2-story retail building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 2371 San Pablo (ZP2019-0089), and similar to other retail sites turned into housing, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.44 acres) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 59 | | 57 | 056 195401000 | 2031 2ND ST | No | - | 0.86 | 0.93 | 1-story commercial/industrial building with parking lot (Belfiore Cheese) | 0.44 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.86)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.93)
- Current 1-story commercial/industrial building in close proximity to other residential developments at , such as 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039) and 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052), and similar to other redevelopments of commercial/industrial buildings such as 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.44 acres) | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 59 | | 58 | 056 197300601 | 1010 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 93 | 1.53 | 3.18 | UA Homes parking lot | 0.46 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Building age greater than 30 years (93)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity and similar to other new residential development, such as | No | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 61 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222) make development feasible.
Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.46 acres) | | | | | | | | | | 59 | 056 197800802 | No | - | 0.81 | 0.42 | Vacant 1-story commercial building | 0.46 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.81)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.42)
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (PLN2022-0046), and similar to the residential redevelopment of low profile commercial buildings at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.46 acres) | Yes | BC/C-W | 2 | 135 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 62 | | 60a | 057 207300400 | 1375 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.8 | 0.76 | 1-story retail, (Copy World print shop) | 0.23 | Q | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.8)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.76)
- Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-U | 2 | 150 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 34 | | 60b | 057 207302100 | 1384 BERKELEY WAY | No | - | - | 0.09 | Parking lot | 0.12 | Q | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.09)
- Current surface parking lot in close proximity and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | MDR/R-2A | 2 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 61 | 057 207200800 | 1401 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.23 | 0.65 | 1-story standalone coffee shop, mostly parking lot | 0.35 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.23)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.65)
- Current 1-story commercial building and parking lot, similar to 1955 San Pablo (PLN2022-0026) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.35 acres) | No | BC/C-U | 2 | 150 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 52 | | 62 | 056 201102501 | 1760 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 109 | 1.36 | 4.81 | Church and parking lot | 0.47 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Building age greater than 30 years (109)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.36) | No | BC/C-U | 2 | 150 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 70 | C-40 | APN | Address | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | | | | - Current use as a church and parking lot along a major transit corridor and similar to projects at 2024 Ashby (PLN2021-0072) and 1708 Harmon (PLN2021-0037), make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.47 acres) | | | | | | | | | | 63 | 060 245506401 | No | - | 1.6 | 1.61 | 2-story commercial - real estate offices + gym | 0.37 | | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.61) - Current 2-story commercial/office building similar to new residential development, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | NC/C-NS(H) | 2 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 | | 64 | 053 168502001 | 2821 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 52 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 1-story 336 sf single-tenant auto dealership (Buggy Bank, tenant since Apr 2007) + 100 space surface parking lot; last sold in Nov 2021 | 0.43 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (52) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.02) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.17) - Current auto dealership lot located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.43 acres) | Yes | BC/C-SA | 2 | 180 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 77 | | 65 | 055 183901901 | 2587 TELEGRAPH AVE | No | - | 1.04 | 0.6 | 2-story, ground floor retail and office; partially vacant | 0.43 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.04) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.6) - Currently partially vacant 2-story retail/office building located along a major transit corridor, and similar to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.43 acres) | No | BC/C-T | 2 | 160 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 69 | | 66 | 052 153201600 | 1728 ALCATRAZ AVE | No | 56 | 0.46 | 2.43 | Church parking lot | 0.47 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Building age greater than 30 years (56) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.46) - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.47 acres) | No | MDR/C-AC | 2 | 210 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 98 | | 67 | 057 203000100 | 2108 ALLSTON WAY | No | 91 | 3.48 | 2.3 | 2-story multi-tenant commercial building (1st floor: FedEx, Verizon, eye wear; 2nd floor: Berkeley Wireless Research Center), downtown; opportunity zone; Walker's Paradise (100), Excellent Transit (73); 1-block from Downtown | 0.41 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (91) - Current two-story multi-tenant commercial building located downtown, and similar to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 2 | 320 | 130 | 0 | 0 | 130 | | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | Berkeley BART Station; 22 surface parking spaces; New leases for first floor last signed in Dec 2017, Sept 2017, Mar 2016; in close proximity to the Gaia building (91 residential units) | | | support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (0.41 acres) | | | | | | | | | | 68a | 055 189302000 | BANCROFT WAY | No | - | 0.3 | - | Parking lot, downtown | 0.14 | A0 | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2d, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.3) - Current parking lot in close proximity and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 2 | 225 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | | 68b | 055 189301600 | 2301 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | - | 0.3 | 1-story commercial (Mechanics Bank) | 0.22 | A0 | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.3) - Current one-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207). - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 2 | 225 | 0 | 49 | 0 | 49 | | 69 | 060 242904400 | 1505 HOPKINS ST | No | - | - | 1.75 | Immanuel Southern Baptist Church and parking lot | 0.4 | | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.75) - Current use as a church and parking lot along a major transit corridor and similar to projects at 2024 Ashby (PLN2021-0072) and 1708 Harmon (PLN2021-0037), make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2A | 2 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | | 70 | 055 182502000 | 2110 PARKER ST | No | - | - | 0.03 | Parking lot adjacent to two other opportunity sites (both vacant 1-story commercial buildings - 055 182501900 and 055 182501502) | 0.23 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.03) - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres, unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-AC | 3 | 206 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 48 | | 71 | 052 153101101 | 3237 ELLIS ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot used as a parking lot | 0.1 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | NC/C-AC | 3 | 210 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 | | 72 | 055 182200301 | 2032 DWIGHT WAY | No | - | - | 0.02 | Medical center parking lot | 0.23 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.02) - Current surface parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for | Yes | BC/C-AC | 3 | 210 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 48 | C-42 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 73a | 055 182100400 | 2576 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 104 | 1.39 | 1.00 | 2-story mixed-use building, first floor boarded up retail (former furniture outlet), second floor office space; 2 tenants occupying 1,000 sf of office space | 0.09 | Z | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (104)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.39)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.00)
- Current two-story, partially vacant mixed-use building located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other mixed-use buildings that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2210 Harold (ZP2020-0011), 3031 Telegraph (ZP2020-0069), and 2000 University/2001 Milvia (ZP2020-0134) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 3 | 208 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 | | 73b | 055 182100300 | 2558 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 94 | 1.02 | 1.51 | 1-story auto-repair shop; last sold in 1997; 500 sf (8.5% of property) occupied by tenants; nearby development includes a 155 unit apartment complex completed in 2016 | 0.15 | Z | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (94)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.39)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.00)
- Currently one-story auto-repair shop located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto service related businesses that are currently being replaced by residential developments, such as 1835 San Pablo (ZP2018-0220), 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-0081), and 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-AC | 3 | 209 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | | 74a | 058 217500400 | 1720 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 74 | 0.31 | 1.18 | 1-story office + small parking lot (real estate agency) | 0.05 | AL | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (74)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.31)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.18)
- Current single-story office building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new high density residential development similar to 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031) and 1984 Shattuck (PLN2022-0057), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-C | 3 | 125 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | 74b | 058 217500500 | 1730 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 54 | 0.69 | 1.12 | 1-story restaurant (Agrodolce – moved in Sept 2016); Walker’s Paradise (98), Good Transit (69) | 0.06 | AL | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (54)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.69)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.12)
- Current single-story restaurant located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new high density residential development support additional residential development on this site, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096) and 2000 University (ZP2020-0134), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-C | 3 | 125 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | | 75 | 056 200302500 | 1556 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 2.18 | 2.57 | Parking lot | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots | Yes | BC/C-U | 3 | 146 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | - Current parking lot in close proximity and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 76a | 057 207300200 | 1399 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 81 | 0.68 | 1.05 | 1-story liquor store (moved in April 2020) and 20 space parking lot, last sold in May 2016; Walker's Paradise (93), Good Transit (68) | 0.13 | AA | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (81) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.68) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.05) - Current single-story liquor store located along a major transit corridor, and similar to 2198 San Pablo (ZP2018-0112), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | BC/C-U | 3 | 149 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 | | 76b | 057 207300300 | 1399 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.42 | 0.03 | Parking lot | 0.12 | AA | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.42) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.03) - Current parking lot in close proximity and similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 | | 77 | 052 157307601 | 2414 ASHBY AVE | No | - | 0.26 | 0.15 | Parking lot | 0.29 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.26) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.15) - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | No | BC/C-C | 3 | 125 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 | | 78 | 055 183600603 | 2600 TELEGRAPH AVE | No | 64 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 1-story vacant and boarded up gas station and parking lot | 0.3 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (64) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.09) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.12) - Current single-story vacant gas station and parking lot located along a major transit corridor, and similar to new high density residential development support additional residential development on this site, similar to 2176 Kittredge (ZP2019-0027), 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207), and 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-C | 3 | 125 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 37 | | 79a | 057 205901200 | 1933 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY | No | - | 0.64 | 0.77 | 1-story dry cleaners, downtown | 0.1 | L | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.64) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.77)
- Current single-story dry cleaner located downtown, and similar to new residential development, such as 2942 College (ZP2021-0072) and 1650 Shattuck (ZP2020-0022), support additional development of this site and make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 79b | 057 205900900 | 1915 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 42 | 1 | 2.13 | 1-story vacant retail for sale (permanently closed; former Hot Tubs of Berkeley), downtown | 0.11 | L | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (42)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.64)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.77)
- Current single-story dry cleaner located downtown, and similar to new residential development, such as 2942 College (ZP2021-0072) support additional development of this site and make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | | 80a | 057 205900800 | 1921 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 96 | 0.64 | 0.97 | 2-story commercial, restaurant (since Aug 2019), offices (since Sep 2010 and July 2016); downtown; Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (72); new mixed-use apartment building completed nearby in 2017 (Stonefire Berkeley – 8,700 sf retail on first floor; 98 units); same owner as adjacent lot (057 205900700) | 0.11 | M | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (96)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.64)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.97)
- Current single-story dry cleaner located downtown, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | | 80b | 057 205900700 | 1929 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 58 | 0.7 | 0.44 | 1-story commercial (CycleBar – lease signed in May 2016), last sold in 2014, Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (72), downtown; same owner as adjacent lot (057 205900800) | 0.11 | M | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (58)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.7)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.44)
- Current single-story commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | | 81 | 057 205900101 | 1921 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY | No | 93 | 0.9 | 0.69 | Two vacant 2-story retail/office space, for rent/sale, downtown | 0.07 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (93)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.9)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.69)
- Currently vacant two-story retail/office buildings located downtown, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. | No | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | C-45 | | | Criteria | | | | | | | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | | | | | | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 82 | 057 205901000 | 1909 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 70 | 0.96 | 7.67 | 1-story retail/office building (non-profit health agency), lease for Blick Art Supplies signed in 2017, since then has turned into Berkeley Wellness Center (no information on CoStar), last sold in May 2012; Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (72), downtown | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (70) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.96) - Current one-story retail/office building located downtown, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 | | 83 | 055 189201102 | 2111 CHANNING WAY | No | - | 0.19 | 0.05 | Parking lot, downtown | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.19) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.05) - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | HDR/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | | 84 | 055 189600600 | 2041 HASTE ST | No | - | - | 0.04 | Parking lot, downtown | 0.18 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.04) - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | BC/C-DMU Buff | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 | | 85a | 057 202300200 | 2116 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 1.23 | 0.66 | 1-2 story partially vacant multi-tenant retail (Yin Ji Chang Fen – moved in Jan 2022, Chateau Mae – moved in Aug 2019), last sold in Dec 2021 (owner user; 540 sf currently for lease), opportunity zone, Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (72) – half block from Downtown Berkeley BART Station, downtown; same owner as adjacent property (057 202300300); in between two multi-story mixed-use buildings | 0.07 | R | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.23) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.66) - Currently partially vacant two-story multi-tenant retail building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 | | 85b | 057 202300300 | 2120 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 91 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 1-2 story multi-tenant retail (Crave Subs – lease signed July 2021, moved in Oct 2021; Precision Vision – moved in 2007), last sold in Oct 2013, opportunity zone, Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73) | 0.09 | R | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f - Building age greater than 30 years (91) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.2) - Currently two-story multi-tenant retail building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential | No | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 | C-46 | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | – half block from Downtown Berkeley BART Station, downtown; same owner as adjacent property (057 202300200); in between two multi-story mixed-use buildings | | | development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 86 | 057 203001200 | 2219 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 1.1 | 1.26 | Vacant 2-story retail (former Berkeley Luggage store), downtown | 0.07 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.1)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.26)
- Currently vacant two-story retail building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 | | 87 | 057 202600412 | 2068 CENTER ST | No | - | 0.85 | 1.52 | 1-story restaurant (Eureka! - lease signed in Jul 2013), opportunity zone; Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73) – half a block from the Downtown Berkeley BART station; surrounded by multi-story developments; downtown | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.85)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.52)
- Currently 1-story restaurant located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and similar to 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 33 | | 88 | 057 202500400 | 2020 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 66 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 1-story restaurant (Comal – lease signed in Jan 2012; Other Change of Hobbit – lease signed in May 2019); opportunity zone; downtown; Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73) | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (66)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.57)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.28)
- Currently 1-story restaurant located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38 | | 89 | 057 202500100 | 2000 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 73 | 2.66 | 2.11 | Vacant 1-story former bank (former tenant: Citibank - permanently closed), last sold in 2009, currently for lease, Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73); opportunity zone, downtown | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (73)
- Current one-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207).
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 320 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 41 | | 90 | 057 205301402 | 2011 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.87 | 1.79 | 1-story commercial building, 66% of floor area currently leased, downtown, nearby developments include the conversion of a 1-story restaurant into an 82 unit apartment building and a 98 unit apartment building (completed in 2017); Walk Score of 99 (out of 100) "Walker's | 0.10 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.87)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.79)
- Current 1-story commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021- | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 229 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | Paradise", Transit Score of 73 (out of 100) "Excellent" | | | 0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 91 | 055 189600200 | 2414 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 74 | 0.66 | 2.16 | 1-story doctor's office, downtown | 0.03 | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (74) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.66) - Current 1-story office building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 3031 Telegraph (ZP2020-0090) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | BC/C-DMU Corr | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | 92 | 057 205100500 | 1926 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | 0.98 | 1.32 | Low level commercial – restaurant; downtown, adjacent to UC buildings | 0.08 | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.98) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.32) - Current 1-story commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Corr | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | 93 | 055 189101101 | 2115 HASTE ST | No | - | - | - | Parking lot, downtown | 0.09 | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | HDR/C-DMU Corr | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | | 94 | 055 189201600 | 2349 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 93 | 1.03 | 1.87 | 1-story retail (Pegasus Books – tenant since July 2000) + office space, opportunity zone, Walker's Paradise (98), Excellent Transit (72), downtown | 0.21 | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (93) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.03) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.87) - Current 1-story retail building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq | Yes | HDR/C-DMU Corr | 3 | 150 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | C-48 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 95a | 055 189301300 | 2327 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | - | 1.98 | 1-story vacant 835 sf bar/restaurant (former Venus Restaurant), last sold in Apr 2015, opportunity zone, Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73), downtown; same owner as adjacent site (055 189301200) | 0.03 | N | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.98) - Currently vacant 1-story bar/restaurant located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036) and 1955 San Pablo (PLN2022-0026) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | | 95b | 055 189301200 | 2333 SHATTUCK AVE | No | - | - | 3.24 | 2-story single-tenant commercial building (Union Bank since 2007); 22 covered + 8 surface parking spaces; opportunity zone; Walker's Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (73), downtown; same owner as adjacent site (055 189301300) | 0.21 | N | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f - Current two-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207). - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 48 | | 96 | 057 205300100 | 1950 SHATTUCK AVE | No | 100 | 1.07 | 1.97 | 1-story commercial complex; free-standing retail; half vacant, other half restaurants, downtown, across the street from UC Berkeley, dense urban infill location; lease signed in 2021, property last sold in 2009 | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (100) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.07) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.97) - Current two-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207). - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 219 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | | 97 | 055 189301100 | 2107 DURANT AVE | No | - | - | 0.05 | Parking lot, downtown | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.14) - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | | 98 | 055 189300100 | 2190 BANCROFT WAY | No | 68 | 0.73 | 3.14 | 1-story restaurant (Great China), downtown | 0.18 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (68) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.73) - Current 1-story restaurant located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2428 Shattuck (PLN2022-0036) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 39 | 0 | 39 | | 99 | 057 205301100 | 2017 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | 96 | 0.49 | 1.12 | 1-story multi-tenant commercial (Red Tomato Pizza House - moved in April 2016); parking behind | 0.2 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (96) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.49) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 45 | | APN | Address | Criteria | | | | | | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | accessed from Berkeley Way, Walker’s Paradise (99), Excellent Transit (72), downtown | | | - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.12)
- Current 1-story multi-tenant commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | | | | | | | | | | | 100 | 057 205300801 | No | 69 | 0.81 | 2.01 | 2-story commercial - ground floor retail, commercial office above. Surface and covered parking in rear. Downtown. | 0.27 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (69)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.81)
- Current 2-story commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Oute | 3 | 225 | 0 | 59 | 0 | 59 | | 101 | 057 202501900 | No | 104 | 1.02 | 0.42 | 1-story retail (strip center), downtown, adjacent to 6-story and 3-story mixed-use buildings, sold twice since 2018; leased to Goodwill since 2009 | 0.19 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (104)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.02)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.42)
- Current 1-story retail building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 317 | 0 | 59 | 0 | 59 | | 102 | 064 423600400 | No | 58 | 0.14 | 0.43 | Chevron gas station and parking lot | 0.31 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (58)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.14)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.43)
- Current single-story gas station and parking lot located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new high density residential development support additional residential development on this site, similar to 2176 Kittredge (ZP2019-0027), 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207), and 1740 San Pablo (ZP2017-0014), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | NC/C-N | 3 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | | 103 | 057 202301601 | No | - | 4.19 | - | 1-story 196 sf food kiosk (Yummy House) + surface parking lot; currently for sale - advertised as a “Rare Downtown Berkeley development site opportunity in heart of Theater District” | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | DT/C-DMU Core | 3 | 315 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 51 | C-50 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 104 | 055 183700200 | 2566 TELEGRAPH AVE STE D | No | - | 1.18 | 1.01 | 1-story standalone multi-tenant commercial building (Ahn Taekwondo Institute CA - move date Oct 2021; Royal Indian Bal - move date Dec 2017); last sold in 2004; Walker's Paradise (98), Good Transit (62) - leased 2,500 sf of rtail space in March 2019 | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (104)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.18)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.01)
- Current 1-story retail building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | BC/C-T | 3 | 160 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | | 105 | 055 187602300 | 2510 DURANT AVE | No | - | 1.36 | 1.18 | 2-story standalone retail (Games of Berkeley) | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.36)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.18)
- Current 2-story retail building located in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | BC/C-T | 3 | 160 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 | | 106 | 055 187701100 | 2347 TELEGRAPH AVE | No | 92 | 0.93 | 3.68 | 1-story Bank of America | 0.24 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (92)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.93)
- Current one-story commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced by large residential developments, such as 2527 San Pablo (ZP2016-0207).
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-T | 3 | 160 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38 | | 107a | 057 208500702 | 1187 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | - | 1.88 | 1-story laundromat, last sold in Oct 2016, 10 surface parking spaces, no lease or tenant data available on CoStar, Walker's Paradise (97), Good Transit (65); lot owned by same owner as adjacent lot (057 208500801) | 0.08 | AK | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.88)
- Current 1-story laundromat located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0026), and to similar projects, such as 2942 College (ZP2021-0072) and 1650 Shattuck (ZP2020-0022) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | | 107b | 057 208500801 | 1181 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | - | 4.03 | 1-story restaurant (Eat @ Thai - tenant since Jul 2016), no sale data available on CoStar; Walker's Paradise (97), Good Transit (65); lot owned by same owner as adjacent lot (057 208500702) | 0.11 | AK | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f
- Current 1-story multi-tenant commercial building located downtown and along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1931 San Pablo (PLN2022-0026), and to similar projects, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible. | No | BC/C_U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 | C-51 | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | | | | | | | | | | 108 | 057 207000300 | 1699 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.14 | 0.02 | 1-story auto-related office and 75 space parking lot (Mike's Auto Services) | 0.19 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.14)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.02)
- Current auto shop with large parking lot located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 | | 109 | 056 197900100 | 1198 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.17 | 0.4 | Auto car wash | 0.28 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.17)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.4)
- Current car wash on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto-related businesses and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 41 | | 110 | 056 200300100 | 1598 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.28 | 0.45 | 1-story single-tenant restaurant (North Beach Pizza - tenant since Mar 2007) + 25 space parking lot; last sold in Sept 2021; Walker's Paradise (95), Excellent Transit (70) | 0.29 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.28)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.45)
- and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1652 University (PLN2022-0047) and 1698 University (UPMOD2013-0001), and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | No | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 43 | | 111 | 060 239501700 | 1501 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 79 | 1.38 | 1 | Vacant 1-story commercial building | 0.07 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (79)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.38)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1)
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderat | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | | 112 | 053 166202100 | 2835 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.94 | 0.44 | Vacant 1-story commercial building (former BPOE Lodge - permanently closed) | 0.08 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2 | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **APN** | **Address** | **Vacant Lot** | **Bldg Age** | **Extg FAR** | **Imp-Land Ratio** | **Existing Land Use** | **Acres** | **Consol Lot** | **Site Criteria Met** | **RHNA Cycle 5** | **GP/Zoning** | **Priority** | **Avg Density** | **Lower** | **Moderate** | **Above** | **Total Potl Units** | | | | | | | | | | | University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 113a | 060 239503100 | 1513 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | 1.34 | 1-story autobody shop | 0.05 | T | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.34)
- Current auto shop located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and similar to projects at 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | 113b | 060 239503301 | 1507 SAN PABLO AVE | No | 70 | 1.94 | 0.87 | Vacant 1-story storefront for sale | 0.15 | T | Meets Criteria 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Building age greater than 30 years (70)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (1.94)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.87)
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | | 114 | 060 239500100 | 1100 PAGE ST | No | - | - | 0.05 | Parking lot | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.05)
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 | | 115 | 060 240502401 | 1229 SAN PABLO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant 1-story commercial building, for sale sign | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and in close proximity to new residential development, such as 1207 Tenth (ZP2020-0046) and 1201-1205 San Pablo (ZP2021-0070), and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | M/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 | | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 116 | 053 166200101 | 2825 SAN PABLO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | | 117 | 060 240503101 | 1205 SAN PABLO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | M/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 | | 118 | 056 192602000 | 2309 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | - | 0.08 | 1-story commercial + parking lot (Afghan Burrito) | 0.19 | | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.08)
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and adjacent/in close proximity to new residential development, similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | | 119 | 053 164100905 | 901 ASHBY AVE | No | 37 | 0.01 | 0.46 | 76 Gas Station | 0.24 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (37)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.01)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.46)
- Current use as a gas station, location on a major transit corridor, and similar development of gas stations, (ZP2019-0027 + ZP2022-0046) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | | 120 | 057 209601001 | 833 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.08 | 0.15 | Chevron Gas Station (on same block as Valero station) | 0.24 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.08)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.15)
- Current use as a gas station, location on a major transit corridor, and similar development of gas stations, (ZP2019-0027 + ZP2022-0046) adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | | 121 | 053 162901901 | 2959 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.1 | 0.22 | 1-story commercial/auto-related use (Berkeley Star Smog) | 0.25 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.1)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.22)
- Current auto shop located on a major transit corridor in close proximity to other former auto dealerships and used car lots that have been replaced by residential developments, such as 2701 Shattuck (ZP2016-0244) and 2099 MLK Jr. (ZP2019-081) make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 34 | | 122 | 057 208800400 | 1900 SAN PABLO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.27 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible | Yes | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 36 | C-54 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 123 | 057 210201003 | 3RD ST | No | - | - | - | Parking lot behind 4th Street, same owner for all parking | 0.28 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | No | M/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 53 | | 124 | 056 193302403 | 2366 SAN PABLO AVE | No | - | 0.13 | 1.32 | 1-story commercial building + parking lot (Berkeley Patients Group) | 0.33 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.13)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.32)
- Currently vacant 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, and similar to 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 44 | | 125 | 056 196600100 | 830 UNIVERSITY AVE | No | - | 0.04 | - | 1-story civic building, City of Berkeley Health and Human Services, City-owned public health center | 0.34 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2d, 2e
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.04)
- Current 1-story civic building located along a major transit corridor and in close proximity to other residential developments, such as 1900 Fourth (ZP2018-0052) and 1914 Fifth (PLN2022-0039), make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | No | BC/C-W | 3 | 135 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 45 | | 126 | 057 211701100 | 1631 5TH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, publicly-owned | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MU/MUR | 3 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 127 | 057 211700402 | 1618 6TH ST | No | - | - | 1.71 | 1-story manufacturing (Eppco Machine Shop) | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 2c, 2d, 2e
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.71)
- Current manufacturing shop similar to other proposed residential or mixed-use project, such as 1207 Tenth St (ZP2020-0046), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MU/MUR | 3 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 128 | 053 165902900 | 2819 8TH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot used as a parking lot | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MU/MUR | 3 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 129 | 056 194500501 | 2336 5TH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot next to 1-story manufacturing and 3-story residential | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible | No | MU/MUR | 3 | 24.4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | C-55 | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 130 | 058 218301300 | VIRGINIA ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 131 | 058 218400700 | 1624 ARCH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 132 | 057 209300300 | 914 HEARST AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot used by 914 Hearst as garden | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-1A | 3 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 133a | 060 249306800 | HILL RD | Yes | - | - | - | Same owner owns both adjacent vacant parcels | 0.12 | AP | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 133b | 060 249301000 | 1330 SUMMIT RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different property owner from adjacent parcels | 0.14 | AP | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e, 2f - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) - Lot consolidation potential (common owners) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 134 | 062 293602600 | 527 SAN LUIS RD | No | - | 0.5 | - | Vacant lot next to 527 San Luis Rd. (sfr) | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 135 | 060 249300600 | SUMMIT RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same owner owns both adjacent vacant parcels | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 136 | 060 249300500 | SUMMIT RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same owner owns both adjacent vacant parcels | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 137 | 063 298602201 | 52 ESTATES DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot on Cragmont Ave. | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 138 | 063 298405300 | 1139 KEELER AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 139 | 058 224201624 | 8 MAYBECK TWIN DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 140 | 060 249307100 | HILL RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 141 | 063 295203400 | 691 CRAGMONT AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 142 | 060 248902100 | 44 SENIOR AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 143 | 060 249001400 | OLYMPUS AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same property owner as adjacent vacant lot | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 144 | 061 257805200 | 827 ARLINGTON AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 145 | 063 298001900 | 1191 SOLANO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | C-57 | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 146 | 063 296305200 | 10 GREENWOOD CMN | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 147 | 063 299302300 | 1248 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owners from adj lots, bought in 2014 | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 148 | 060 248205100 | 1068 AMARILLO AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from all adjacent parcels | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 149 | 063 298405200 | 449 STONEFIELD PL | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, property owner different from adjacent lots | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 150 | 060 249001500 | OLYMPUS AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same property owner as adjacent vacant lot | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 151 | 061 258102500 | INDIAN ROCK AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot on Indian Rock Ave. | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 152 | 060 248304300 | CAMPUS DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot outside of creek setback, different owner from adjacent parcel | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 153 | 058 224402501 | 1434 SPRUCE ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different property owner from adjacent parcels | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 154 | 060 247801503 | 1436 CAMPUS DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | | - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 155 | 060 248505600 | 1375 QUEENS RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 156 | 063 298804900 | 1196 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from adj. lots | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 157 | 063 298804600 | 1156 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, looks like formerly a structure on the site but since demo'd | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 158 | 063 314008700 | 17256 N TRETHEWAY RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot sold as part of 1040 Overlook Rd in 2021 to investor | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 159 | 063 297002700 | 1821 1/2 8TH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from adj lots | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 160 | 063 295504001 | 705 EUCLID AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, steep topography, but developable | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 161 | 063 298804400 | 1150 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by family member of adjacent lot 1152 KEITH AVE | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 162 | 062 290202100 | 583 COLUSA AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | C-59 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 163 | 060 248301600 | CAMPUS DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 164 | 061 257804600 | 853 ARLINGTON AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 165 | 062 290002300 | 1864 YOSEMITE RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 166 | 063 298505000 | 1165 CRAGMONT AVE | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, sold in 2017 | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 167 | 060 248400303 | AVENIDA DR | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from all adjacent parcels | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 168 | 060 249306700 | HILL RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Same owner owns both adjacent vacant parcels | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 169 | 063 298503300 | 2807 SHASTA RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from adjacent lots | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 170 | 060 249201703 | GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, different owners from all adjacent parcels | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 171 | 060 249200300 | SUMMIT RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Developable vacant lot, owned by same owner as adjacent 1427 Summit Rd. | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | C-60 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | | | | | - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 172 | 060 246302100 | 2280 EUNICE ST | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 173 | 063 298000501 | 30 HILL RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, owner different from all adjacent lots | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 174 | 061 259804401 | 735 ARLINGTON AVE | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 175 | 063 312002702 | 1410 CALIFORNIA ST | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 176 | 058 221102001 | 2750 CEDAR ST | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, but different owner from adjacent parcels | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 177 | 060 249201704 | 1531 SUMMIT RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot sold in 2017, different owners from adjacent parcels | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 178 | 063 314000900 | 1534 PLEASANT HILL RD | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, different owner from adjacent lots | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 179 | 063 314002902 | 52 THE CRESCENT | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, purchased by owner of adj lot 52 THE CRESCENT in Oct 2020 | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 180 | 063 298504400 | 1197 CRAGMONT AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, ame owner as 1197 CRAGMONT AVE, sold in 2019 | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | C-61 | | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | | | | - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 181 | 063 297404000 | 1039 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, steep topography, but still developable | 0.18 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 182 | 063 312006100 | 323 CHASE ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.19 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 183 | 063 298603900 | 1179 KEITH AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same property owner as adjacent 2785 SHASTA RD sold in 2017 | 0.19 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 184 | 064 422900215 | 63 VICENTE RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.23 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 185 | 063 298305000 | 193 ORTEGA AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owner different from all adjacent lots | 0.23 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 186 | 063 297806600 | 1049 KEELER AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.26 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 187 | 063 316002202 | 40 HILL RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, same owner as 40 Hill Rd across street | 0.26 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 188 | 063 298000403 | 1120 STERLING AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, owned by family of 1120 STERLING AVE | 0.27 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 189 | 063 311005302 | 608 VISTAMONT AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, lots of vegetation/ redwoods, but developable | 0.27 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 190 | 063 312002603 | 724 WILDCAT CANYON RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.27 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 191 | 062 290100200 | 1900 YOSEMITE RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.29 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 192 | 062 291403800 | 699 SANTA BARBARA RD | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot; heavy vegetation | 0.32 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 193 | 063 311010900 | 1 MY WAY | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.33 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 194 | 061 257602305 | 852 ARLINGTON AVE | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.33 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | LDR/R-1H | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 195 | 059 228702000 | 1117 VIRGINIA ST | Yes | 0 | - | - | Vacant lot, same owner as 1639 San Pablo | 0.06 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 196 | 060 240200200 | 1300 CORNELL AVE | No | - | - | 0.06 | Parking lot | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.06)
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | C-63 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 197 | 059 227700908 | 1226 GLEN AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different property owner from all adjacent parcels | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 198 | 057 201502403 | 2127 GRANT ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, different owners from adj lots | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 199 | 055 184100500 | 1240 HILLVIEW DR | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 200 | 057 201500900 | 2114 MCKINLEY AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.15 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 201 | 057 206300800 | 1835 BERKELEY WAY | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot used for parking, different owner from adjacent neighbors | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2A | 3 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 202 | 053 160602500 | 1626 TYLER ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2A | 3 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 203 | 053 159200900 | 2033 EMERSON ST | Yes | 121 | 0.48 | - | Vacant lot | 0.11 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current and adjacent uses make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | MDR/R-2A | 3 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 204 | 057 205102900 | 2011 BERKELEY WAY | No | - | - | - | Parking lot, different owner from adjacent parcels | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | MDR/R-2A | 3 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | C-64 | | APN | Address | Criteria Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Unit Count Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 205 | 055 182300500 | 2135 BLAKE ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | MDR/R-2A | 3 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 206 | 058 221101305 | LA LOMA AVE | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot, but different owners from adjacent parcels | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | MDR/R-2H | 3 | 13.6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 207 | 057 209200600 | 1912 9TH ST | Yes | - | - | 0.02 | Vacant lot, owned by 1912 Ninth St (adjacent to south) | 0.08 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | HDR/R-3 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 208 | 057 209601201 | 1925 6TH ST | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.13 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | HDR/R- | 3 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | 209 | 055 183102500 | 2316 DWIGHT WAY | No | 71 | 0.29 | 1.6 | 1-story medical office, deep setback, parking lot | 0.18 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Building age greater than 30 years (71) - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.29) - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (1.6) - Current surface parking lot and one-story medical office on a major transit corridor in close proximity to similar site that has been replaced with a large residential development: 3031 Telegraph (ZP2020-0069) - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | HDR/R-3 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | 210 | 055 181601900 | Lot adjacent to 2539 M L KING JR WAY | Yes | - | - | - | Vacant lot | 0.12 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current and adjacent uses make development feasible - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | No | HDR/R-4 | 3 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | | 211 | 055 188700800 | 2223 CHANNING WAY | No | - | - | - | Parking lot | 0.14 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible. - Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | Yes | HDR/R-S | 3 | 200 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | | 212 | 055 188400204 | 2337 CHANNING WAY | No | - | 0.18 | 0.02 | FCCB Church parking lot | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots - Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.18) | Yes | HDR/R-S | 3 | 200 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | C-65 | | | Criteria | | | | | | | | | | | | Unit Count | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | APN | Address | Vacant Lot | Bldg Age | Extg FAR | Imp-Land Ratio | Existing Land Use | Acres | Consol Lot | Site Criteria Met | RHNA Cycle 5 | GP/Zoning | Priority | Avg Density | Lower | Moderate | Above | Total Potl Units | | | | | | | | | | | - Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.02)
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (above moderate) | | | | | | | | | | 213 | 055 187201100 | No | - | 3.95 | - | Parking lot | 0.17 | | Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e
- Vacant and/or parking lots
- Current parking lot similar to redevelopment of other surface parking lots that have been replaced with a residential development: 2100 San Pablo (ZP2018-0222), 2136-2154 San Pablo (ZP2021-0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate (above moderate) | Yes | RMU/R-SMU | 3 | 200 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 33 | | 214 | 053 158702003 | 3001 SHATTUCK | No | - | - | - | Enterprise Car Rental and parking lot located at major intersection of Shattuck and Ashby | 0.23 | | Meets Criteria 2d, 2e
- Current occupied commercial structure located on major transit corridor in close proximity to other commercial structures that have been replaced with large residential developments, such as 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), make development feasible
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | No | NC/C-SA | 3 | 180 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 41 | | 215 | 056 200302401 | 1548 University | No | 62 | 0.67 | 0.75 | JKA of San Francisco Bay (karate school) | 0.16 | | Meets Criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e
- Building age greater than 30 years (62)
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.67)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.75)
- Current 1-story commercial building located along a major transit corridor, similar to the redevelopment of former commercial buildings proposed at 2556 Telegraph (ZP2015-0096), 1776/1782/1790 University (PLN2021-0063), 2847 Shattuck (PLN2022-0031), and 130-134 Berkeley Sq (ZP2021-0158) support additional development of this site and make development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for moderate or above moderate income (moderate) | Yes | BC/C-U | 3 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 | | | TOTAL | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,201 | 1,867 | 1,421 | 6,489 | Note on Consolidated Lots: Letter(s) are assigned to groups of adjoining parcels that can be consolidated. For example, parcels 1 and 2 may be Group A. Parcels 3-10 may be Group B, etc. Contiguous parcels with same owners are assigned the same letter. Table C-11 Projects used in Density Calculations | APN | Address | Units Entitl ed | Zone | Lot (SF) | Type | Base Density | Density with Bonus (DUA) | Density Bonus (%) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 052 153300103 | 1708 Harmon | 82 | C-AC | 45,612 | GLA | 78.0 | 78.0 | 0% | | 053 159801600 | 2970 Adeline St | 2 | C-AC | 3760 | MU | 23.2 | 23.2 | 0% | | 053 168400100 | 2801 Adeline | 84 | C-AC | 47916 | MU | 76.4 | 76.4 | 0% | | | | | | 2.23 | | 59.2 | | | | 058 217600101 | 1752 Shattuck | 57 | C-C | 10600 | MU | 173.5 | 234.2 | 35% | | 052 157408100 | 3031 Telegraph | 110 | C-1 | 31,604 | MF | 112.6 | 152.0 | 35% | | | | | | 0.97 | | 143.1 | | | | 057 202301701 | 2002 Addison St | 6 | Buff C-DMU | 6500 | MU | 180.9 | 180.9 | 0% | | 055 189301800 | 2124-2126 Bancroft/2121-2123 Durant | 50 | Buff C-DMU | 10270 | MU | 169.7 | 212.1 | 25% | | 055 189401500 | 2028 BANCROFT | 37 | Buff C-DMU | 7,215 | MF | 182.4 | 223.4 | 23% | | 055 189504100 | 2352 Shattuck | 135 | Buff C-DMU | 30475 | MU | 154.4 | 193.0 | 25% | | 057 205302201 | 2012 Berkeley Way | 142 | buff C-DMU | 35445 | MF | 129.3 | 174.5 | 35% | | 057 202401300 | 2099 M L K Jr. | 72 | buff C-DMU | 12411 | MU | 190.5 | 257.1 | 35% | | | | | | 2.35 | | 167.8 | | | | 055 189504200 | 2390 Shattuck | 69 | Corr / Buff C-DMU | 16594 | MU | 134.2 | 181.1 | 35% | | 055 189600500 | 2440 Shattuck | 40 | C-DMU Corr | 8559 | MU | 22.6 | 29.9 | 33% | | | | | | 0.58 | | 78.4 | | | | 057 202700202 | 2210 Harold | 38 | Outer Core C-DMU | 5953 | MU | 279.0 | 279.0 | 0% | | 057 202900204 | 2176 Kittredge | 165 | Outer Core C-DMU | 32600 | MU | 165.0 | 165.0 | 0% | | 057 202901600 | 2150 Kittredge | 169 | Outer Core C-DMU | 32600 | MU | 225.8 | 225.8 | 0% | | 057 204600100 | 1951 SHATTUCK | 156 | Outer Core C-DMU | 17,424 | MU | 390.0 | 390.0 | 0% | | 057 204600804 | 2125-2145 University Avenue, 1922 & 1930 Walnut | 116 | Outer Core C-DMU | 35,213 | MU | 143.5 | 143.5 | 0% | | 057 204601101 | 1987 Shattuck Av, 2111-2113 University | 89 | Outer Core C-DMU | 13,796 | MU | 281.0 | 281.0 | 0% | | | | | | 3.16 | | 247.4 | | | | 057 202700900 | 2065 Kittredge | 189 | core C-DMU | 33582 | MF | 204.3 | 245.2 | 20% | | 057 203100101 | 2128 Oxford, 2132-2154 Center | 283 | core C-DMU | 35573 | MU | 274.9 | 274.9 | 0% | | 057 203201700 | 130-134 Berkeley Sq | 50 | core C-DMU | 4762 | MU | 457.4 | 457.4 | 0% | | 057 203400800 | 2023 Shattuck | 48 | core C-DMU | 3662 | MU | 444.4 | 600.0 | 35% | | 057 202201901 | 1950 ADDISON | 107 | Core C-DMU | 20,515 | MF | 189.8 | 227.7 | 20% | | 057 202302500 | 2072 ADDISON | 66 | Core C-DMU | 10230 | MU | 281.0 | 281.0 | 0% | | 057 202501300 | 2000 University | 82 | Core C-DMU | 6258 | MU | 423.0 | 571.0 | 35% | | 057 202502300 | 2009 Addison St | 45 | Core C-DMU | 10420 | MU | 188.1 | 188.1 | 0% | | 057 202600405 | 2190 Shattuck Ave | 274 | Core C-DMU | 19967 | MF | 595.7 | 595.7 | 0% | | | | | | 3.33 | | 339.8 | | | | 052 156800900 | 2942 College | 4 | C-E | 6346 | MU | 28.6 | 28.6 | 0% | | 058 215702600 | 1711 MLK | 1 | C-N | 6000 | MU | 51.1 | 51.1 | 0% | | 058 217300500 | 1650 Shattuck | 10 | C-NS | 4,600 | | 94.7 | 94.7 | | | APN | Address | Units Entitl ed | Zone | Lot (SF) | Type | Base Density | Density with Bonus (DUA) | Density Bonus (%) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | 0.39 | 58.1 | | | 053 159001101 | 2900-2920 Shattuck | 90 | C-SA | 19524 | MU | 200.8 | 200.8 | 0% | | 053 159101803 | 2001 ASHBY | 87 | C-SA | 26303 | MF | 106.7 | 144.1 | 35% | | 053 159200100 | 3000 Shattuck | 156 | C-SA | 13561 | MU | 334.1 | 501.1 | 50% | | 053 159500903 | 3031 Adeline | 42 | C-SA | 12257 | MU | 110.6 | 149.3 | 35% | | 054 171900009 | 2711 Shattuck | 22 | C-SA | 5,674 | MF | 168.9 | 168.9 | 0% | | 054 171900100 | 2701 Shattuck Ave | 57 | C-SA | 11,826 | MU | 155.5 | 210.0 | 35% | | 055 181900102 | 2628 SHATTUCK | 78 | C-SA | 16340 | MU | 207.9 | 207.9 | 0% | | | | | | | | 2.42 | 183.5 | | | 055 187800400 | 2439 Durant | 22 | North C-T | 6500 | MU | 147.4 | 147.4 | 0% | | 055 183700100 | 2556 TELEGRAPH | 24 | South C-T | 9832 | MU | 97.5 | 97.5 | 0% | | 055 187500400 | 2501-2509 HASTE | 55 | North C-T | 18781 | MU | 127.5 | 127.5 | 0% | | 055 187500800 | 2510 Channing Way | 36 | North C-T | 8740 | MU | 179.4 | 179.4 | 0% | | 055 187601901 | 2532 Durant | 7 | North C-T | 9750 | MU | 31.3 | 31.3 | 0% | | 055 187602101 | 2542 Durant Ave | 32 | North C-T | 12792 | MF | 149.8 | 149.8 | 0% | | 055 187700100 | 2590 BANCROFT | 87 | North C-T | 13130 | MU | 213.8 | 288.6 | 35% | | 055 187701902 | 2580 Bancroft Way | 122 | North C-T | 29,032 | MU | 135.6 | 183.1 | 35% | | 055 187800300 | 2338 Telegraph | 0 | North C-T | 12,000 | GLA | 442.9 | 442.9 | 0% | | 055 188100400 | 2449 Dwight | 51 | North C-T | 10300 | MU | 155.4 | 215.7 | 39% | | | | | | | | 3.00 | 168.1 | | | 056 200402000 | 1652 University | 3 | C-U | 7480 | MU | 17.5 | 17.5 | 0% | | 056 201102600 | 1776/1782/1790 University | 79 | C-U | 9500 | MU | 268.1 | 353.9 | 32% | | 056 200400100 | 1698 University | 36 | C-1 | 9,967 | MU | 118.7 | 157.3 | 32.5% | | 057 201602101 | 1812 UNIVERSITY | 44 | C-1 | 13,800 | MU | 145.2 | 145.2 | 0% | | 057 207300500 | 1367 University | 40 | C-1 | 5,150 | GLA | 244.4 | 329.9 | 35% | | | | | | | | 1.05 | 158.8 | | | 053 162703701 | 3015 San Pablo | 2 | C-W | 34210 | L/W | 127.4 | 127.4 | 0% | | 053 163300101 | 3000 San Pablo | 78 | C-W | 14000 | MU | 179.8 | 242.7 | 35% | | 054 174202900 | 2795 San Pablo | 5 | C-W | 4,076 | MU | 53.4 | 53.4 | 0% | | 054 174203101 | 2747 SAN PABLO | 39 | C-W | 17386 | MU | 76.1 | 102.7 | 35% | | 054 174400700 | 2720 San Pablo | 25 | C-W | 9576 | MU | 84.2 | 113.7 | 35% | | 054 174408200 | 2748 San Pablo | 23 | C-W | 9,966 | MU | 100.5 | 100.5 | 0% | | 054 178101501 | 2527 San Pablo | 63 | C-W | 13330 | MU | 152.5 | 205.9 | 35% | | 054 178501700 | 2712 San Pablo | 194 | C-W | 20714 | MU | 272.0 | 408.0 | 50% | | 056 192701800 | 2371 San Pablo | 4 | C-W | 4,600 | MU | 56.8 | 56.8 | 0% | | 056 196001404 | 2001 Fourth Street | 152 | C-W | 71,259 | MU | 82.2 | 92.9 | 13% | | 056 197701001 | 2100 SAN PABLO | 96 | C-W | 26670 | MU | 156.8 | 156.8 | 0% | | 056 197701101 | 2136-2154 San Pablo | 126 | C-W | 23301 | MU | 179.6 | 238.0 | 32.5% | | 056 197701300 | 2198 SAN PABLO | 60 | C-W | 9800 | MU | 214.1 | 289.0 | 35% | | 056 198304201 | 2147 San Pablo | 44 | C-W | 14571 | MU | 103.2 | 131.5 | 28% | | 057 208602501 | 1835 San Pablo | 99 | C-W | 19353 | MU | 171.4 | 222.8 | 30% | | 057 208700500 | 1822-1828 San Pablo | 44 | C-W | 11627 | MU | 123.9 | 164.8 | 33% | | 057 210000708 | 1914 Fifth | 257 | C-W | 44,095 | MU | 253.9 | 253.9 | | | 057 210100103 | 1900 Fourth | 260 | C-W | 96266 | MU | 87.1 | 117.6 | 35% | | 058 212701403 | 1740 San Pablo Ave | 51 | C-W | 14204 | MU | 120.4 | 162.5 | 35% | | 060 235400200 | 1200-1214 San Pablo | 104 | C-W | 24800 | MU | 134.8 | 182.0 | 35% | | 060 240500100 | 1201-1205 San Pablo | 66 | C-W | 13000 | MU | 166.0 | 220.0 | 32.5% | | 053 163400401 | 3020 San Pablo | 29 | C-W SP Node | 9111 | MU | 112.7 | 138.6 | 23% | | | | | | | | 11.61 | 136.8 | | | 053 163502100 | 809 FOLGER | 1 | MU-LI | 2,285 | MU | 19.1 | 19.1 | 0% | | 053 163502200 | 811 FOLGER | 1 | MU-LI | 2,441 | MU | 17.8 | 17.8 | 0% | | 053 163502300 | 813 FOLGER | 1 | MU-LI | 2,597 | MU | 16.8 | 16.8 | 0% | | 053 163502400 | 815 FOLGER | 1 | MU-LI | 2,752 | MU | 15.8 | 15.8 | 0% | C-68 | APN | Address | Units Entitl ed | Zone | Lot (SF) | Type | Base Density | Density with Bonus (DUA) | Density Bonus (%) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 060 235401503 | 1207 Tenth Street | 2 | MU-LI | 12,800 | MU | 6.8 | 6.8 | 0% | | | | | | | | 0.53 | 15.3 | | | 053 165903000 | 2817 Eighth St | 0 | MU-R | 7315 | MF | 23.8 | 23.8 | 0% | | 053 166100303 | 1030 Grayson St | 4 | MU-R | 5,000 | DP | 34.8 | 34.8 | 0% | | 056 194302300 | 2411 Fifth St | 3 | MU-R | 7051 | DP | 24.7 | 24.7 | 0% | | 056 194401100 | 2422 Fifth | 2 | MU-R | 6250 | MU/DP | 27.9 | 27.9 | 0% | | 059 232500400 | 776 Page | 3 | MU-R | 3937 | SFD | 33.0 | 33.0 | 0% | | 059 232500501 | 1442 Fifth | 3 | MU-R | 4350 | SFD | 30.0 | 30.0 | 0% | | 059 232500605 | 1444 FIFTH | 4 | MU-R | 5,744 | SFD | 30.3 | 30.3 | 0% | | 059 232502000 | 1446 Fifth | 4 | MU-R | 6250 | SFD | 27.9 | 27.9 | 0% | | 059 233701800 | 1415 Fifth St | 3 | MU-R | 6,487 | SFD/D P | 20.0 | 20.0 | 0% | | | | | | | | 1.20 | 28.0 | | | 056 194101900 | 2325 Sixth | 1 | R1-A | 6000 | MF | 14.6 | 14.6 | 0% | | 058 211900900 | 1716 Seventh Ave | 2 | R1-A | 4800 | SFD | 18.2 | 18.2 | 0% | | | | | | | | 0.25 | 16.4 | | | 052 156317900 | 2714 Alcatraz Ave | 5 | R-2 | 5,900 | MF | 36.9 | 36.9 | 0% | | 053 168501100 | 2139 Oregon | 2 | R-2 | 3750 | SFD | 12.9 | 12.9 | 0% | | 054 180202000 | 1516 Carleton | 3 | R-2 | 8614 | SFD | 15.1 | 15.1 | 0% | | | | | | | | 0.42 | 21.6 | | | 052 152701100 | 1811 SIXTY-THIRD | 3 | R-2A | 5400 | DP/SF D | 24.2 | 24.2 | 0% | | 052 153101202 | 3233 Ellis | 3 | R-2A | 6176 | | 21.2 | 21.2 | 0% | | 052 154401200 | 1519 Fairview | 1 | R-2A | 6750 | SFD/M F | 25.8 | 25.8 | 0% | | 052 157403300 | 3021 DANA | 1 | R-2A | 5,270 | MF | 25.8 | 25.8 | 0% | | 052 157404400 | 3028 Regent Street | 2 | R-2A | 5962 | DP | 14.6 | 14.6 | 0% | | 055 182901100 | 2215 Parker | 2 | R-2A | 6750 | DP | 12.9 | 12.9 | 0% | | 057 206201000 | 1725 Berkeley Way | 2 | R-2A | 3894 | DP | 22.4 | 22.4 | 0% | | 057 206301100 | 1825 Berkeley Wy | 2 | R-2A | 4687 | DP/SF D | 27.9 | 27.9 | 0% | | 057 208601300 | 1173 Hearst | 6 | R-2A | 13,469 | MF | 42.0 | 42.0 | 0% | | 057 208601400 | 1155-73 Hearst Ave | 2 | R-2A | 21673 | MF | 26.1 | 26.1 | 0% | | 058 217001700 | 1711 M L KING JR | 1 | R-2A | 6000 | MU/M F | 50.8 | 50.8 | 0% | | 059 226800601 | 1506 Bonita Ave. | 2 | R-2A | 13500 | MF/DP | 25.8 | 25.8 | 0% | | 060 244901300 | 1915 Berryman | 11 | R-2A | 10406 | MF | 30.7 | 46.0 | 50% | | | | | | | | 2.52 | 26.9 | | | 053 162301201 | 1331 Ashby Ave. | 6 | R-3 | 7392 | DP | 35.4 | 35.4 | 0% | | 055 186901600 | 2716-2718 Durant | 2 | R-3 | 4590 | MF | 28.5 | 28.5 | 0% | | 055 188802700 | 2236 Channing Way | 22 | R-3 | 11266 | MU | 85.1 | 85.1 | 0% | | 057 208901601 | 1923 NINTH | 3 | R-3 | 6110 | 3-SFD | 21.4 | 21.4 | 0% | | 058 218300101 | 1601 OXFORD | 27 | R-3 | 14168 | MU | 84.3 | 113.8 | 35% | | 055 186300008 | 2350 Prospect | 1 | R-3H | 2000 | GLA | 21.8 | 21.8 | 0% | | 055 186400900 | 2813 Channing | 3 | R-3H | 14158 | MF | 43.1 | 43.1 | 0% | | 058 218100600 | 1734 SPRUCE | 1 | R-3H | 6436 | MF | 47.4 | 47.4 | 0% | | | | | | | | 1.52 | 45.9 | | | 055 182102100 | 2018 Blake | 12 | R-4 | 5189 | MF | 66.7 | 100.0 | 50% | | 055 182201303 | 2015 BLAKE | 161 | R-4 | 34485 | MF | 150.6 | 203.4 | 35% | | 055 182201800 | 2000 Dwight | 113 | R-4 | 28,380 | MF | 144.5 | 173.4 | 20% | | 055 182201200 | 2012 & 2020 Dwight | 7 | R-4 | 7260 | MF | 42.0 | 42.0 | 0% | | 056 197201800 | 2015 EIGHTH | 2 | R-4 | 6500 | MF | 26.8 | 26.8 | 0% | | | | | | | | 1.88 | 86.1 | | | 055 188300500 | 2414 Dana St | 1 | R-S | 4050 | MF | 64.5 | 64.5 | 0% | | 055 188302700 | 2328 Channing | 20 | R-S | 6,750 | MF | 129.1 | 129.1 | | | APN | Address | Units Entitl ed | Zone | Lot (SF) | Type | Base Density | Density with Bonus (DUA) | Density Bonus (%) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 055 188400600 | 2317 Channing | 17 | R-S | 6507 | MF | 114.0 | 114.0 | 0% | | | | | | 0.40 | | 102.5 | | | | 055 187100600 | 2631 Durant | 56 | R-SMU | 10400 | MF | 234.6 | 234.6 | 0% | | 055 188000700 | 2435 Haste | 37 | R-SMU | 5670 | MF | 189.5 | 284.3 | 50% | | | | | | 0.37 | | 212.0 | | | Table C-12 Completed and Pending Projects by Sites Inventory Selection Criteria | | APN | Address/Project Name | Current Status | Sites Inventory Designation | Permit Number | Year Built | FAR | Pre-Entitlement ILR | Parcel Size (Acre) | Proposed or Completed Unit Count Total | Total BMR | Lot Consol. (Consolidated Lot Size - acre) | Zoning District | Existing or Prior Use | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | 053 159202100 | 2024 Ashby | Pending | Pipeline | PLN2021-0072 | 1929 | 1.99 | 2.35 | 0.19 | 48 | 48 | Yes (0.31) | C-AC | St. Paul's AME Church | | 2 | 054 178501500 | 2613 San Pablo | Incomplete Pending Applicant | Pipeline | ZP2022-0171 | 1925 | 0.18 | 0.81 | 0.19 | 242 | 25 | Yes (0.85) | C-W | Vacant commercial building | | | 054 178501600 | 2603 San Pablo | | Pipeline | | 1925 | | 0.81 | 0.19 | | | | C-W | Vacant commercial building | | | 055 178501700 | 2601 San Pablo | | Pipeline | | 1952 | | 0.72 | 0.48 | | | | C-W | Commercial building with 2 residential units | | 3 | 055 182201400 | 2001 Blake | (Pre-App) Pending | Pipeline | PLN2022-0120 | 1920;1922 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.09 | 198 | 9 | Yes (0.96) | R-4 | Single story building with medical office use, shed, one-story single-family home. | | | 055 182202100 | 2012 Dwight | | Pipeline | | 1889 | | 2.33 | 0.12 | | | | R-4 | Two-story multiple-family (4 unit) property | | | 055 182201304 | 2015 Blake | | Pipeline | | 1910 | | 0.41 | 0.15 | | | | R-4 | Two-story building, former Haney Ice Company Building | | | 055 182201302 | 2019 Blake | | Pipeline | | 1927 | | 0.95 | 0.15 | | | | R-4 | Single story building, 'Skylight and Sun Inc' Skylight manufacturer and distributer | | | 055 182201303 | 2015 Blake | | Pipeline | | N/A | | 0.14 | 0.15 | | | | R-4 | Two Victorian residential structures, one single story structure (that is legally permitted as a residential duplex) that is being used as medical offices, and three warehouse/commercial structures occupied by skylight and geodesic dome businesses. | | | 055 182202300 | 2020 Dwight | | Pipeline | | 1895 | | 2.33 | 0.15 | | | | R-4 | Two-story multiple-family (3 unit) property | | 4 | 057 208502500 | 1931 San Pablo | Pending | Pipeline | PLN2022-0026 | 1925 | N/A | 0.38 | 1.15 | 323 | 27 | Yes (1.35) | C-W | Surface parking, BBQ kiosk, 99 Cent store | | 5 | 055 189600400 | 2428 Shattuck | Incomplete Pending Applicant | Pipeline | ZP2022-0149 | 1940 | 0.92 | 1.97 | 0.11 | 146 | 15 | Yes (0.29) | C-DMU Corridor | Restaurant | | | 055 189600300 | 2420 Shattuck | | Pipeline | | 1940 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.18 | | | | C-DMU Corridor | Two-story commercial structures - vacated Gio's Pizza and Bocce restaurant | | 6 | 056 200402000 | 1652 University | Incomplete Pending Applicant | Pipeline | ZP2022-0110 | 1946 | 0.80 | 1.68 | 0.17 | 26 | 1 | No | C-U | Two-story commercial building (RadioShack) and parking garage | | 7 | 054 171400501 | 2712 Telegraph | Incomplete Pending Applicant | Pipeline | ZP2022-0179 | 1911 | 1.95 | 1.67 | 0.20 | 35 | 3 | No | C-C | Two two-story buildings | | 8 | 056 198304201 | 2147 San Pablo | In Review | Pipeline | ZP2022-0113 | 1982 | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.33 | 128 | 12 | No | C-W | One commercial building, two units, occupied by Beyond Repair (auto repair) and Auto Glass Express (auto glass replacement) | | 9 | 053 159001101 | 2920 Shattuck | In Review | Pipeline | ZP2022-0116 | 1955 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 221 | 22 | No | C-SA | Two attached 1-story commercial buildings on a 0.45-acre lot. Buildings were occupied by Eastern Supplies, a True Value Hardware store (2900 Shattuck Avenue) and The Model Garage, an automotive repair/maintenance building (2920 Shattuck Avenue) | | 10 | 056 197701101 | 2136-2154 San Pablo | In Review | Pipeline | ZP2021-0046 | 1923 | N/A | 0.37 | 0.53 | 126 | 10 | No | C-W | Two-story commercial building | | 11 | 052 153300103 | 1708 Harmon | (Pre App) Pending | Pipeline | PLN2022-0099; PLN2022-0101 | 1966 | 4.00 | 1.57 | 1.05 | 82 | 82 | No | C-AC | The Ephesian Church of God in Christ | | 12 | 053 168900100 | 2800 Telegraph | In Review | Pipeline | ZP2022-0107 | 1939 | 0.87 | 2.04 | 2.04 | 13 | 1 | No | C-C | One-story commercial structure | | 13 | 057 202501300 | 2000 University | | Likely | | N/A | 0.98 | 2.43 | 0.10 | 58 | 5 | | C-DMU | One-story commercial building, which until recently contained the Au Coquelet Café & Restaurant. | | | 057 202501200 | 2001 Milvia | Pending | Likely | PLN2020-0045 | N/A | 1.26 | 0.46 | 0.04 | 24 | 2 | Yes (0.14) | C-DMU | 2 Commercial (restaurant and retail), 2 Residential Units; two-story mixed-use building with a ground floor commercial space and two residential dwelling units. | | 14 | 053 163300107 | 3000 San Pablo | In Review | Likely | ZP2019-0155 | 1925 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 78 | 7 | No | C-W | Commercial, Discount Fabric Retail; two-story retail commercial building | | 15 | 054 174400700 | 2720 San Pablo | Resubmittal Pending Staff | Likely | ZP2016-0014 | 1945 | 0.20 | 99.00 | 0.22 | 25 | 2 | No | C-W | Former Automotive repair shop, pottery studio | | 16 | 056 197701300 | 2198 San Pablo | Pending | Likely | PLN2022-0069 | 1928 | N/A | 1.92 | 0.22 | 60 | 5 | No | C-W | Retail (St. Helena Wine and Liquors/liquor store) single-story retail building occupied by St. Helena Wine and Liquors, a drive-up liquor store. | | 17 | 057 202401300 | 2099 M L K Jr. | Issued - 7/6/22 | Likely | B2021-03950 | 1938 | 0.29 | 1.05 | 0.28 | 72 | 5 | No | C-DMU Buffer | single story auto services building | | 18 | 055 189401501 | 2028 Bancroft | Pending | Likely | ZP2017-0103 | 1900 | 0.68 | 2.33 | 0.17 | 37 | 2 | No | C-DMU | Residential | | 19 | 057 208602501 | 1835 San Pablo | Pending | Likely | ZP2018-0220 | 1980 | N/A | 1.74 | 0.44 | 99 | 7 | No | C-W | Auto-service shop (Midas); one-story auto-service shop | | 20 | 060 235400200 | 1200-1214 San Pablo | Approved | Likely | ZP2019-0192 | 1978 | 0.50 | 1.91 | 0.57 | 104 | 9 | No | C-W | Tattoo Parlor/Art Gallery/ Fast Food Restaurant (vacated) | C-71 | | APN | Address/Project Name | Current Status | Sites Inventory Designation | Permit Number | Year Built | Pre-Entitlement FAR | Pre-Entitlement ILR | Parcel Size (Acre) | Proposed or Completed Unit Count Total | Proposed or Completed Unit Count BMR | Lot Consol. (Consolidated Lot Size - acre) | Zoning District | Existing or Prior Use | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 21 | 058 218102700 | 1773 Oxford | In Review | Pipeline | ZP2022-0062 | 1926 | N/A | 3.11 | 0.15 | 16 | 2 | No | R-4 | Multifamily building; a four-story, six dwelling units and six-car parking garage structure at the rear of the lot. | | 22 | 055 188302700 | 2328 Channing | Pending | Pipeline | ZP2020-0052 | 1889 | 0.36 | 2.33 | 0.15 | 20 | 1 | No | R-S | single-family residence; contains a three-story main building as well as three, detached accessory structures | | 23 | 055 182102100 | 2018 Blake | Approved | Pipeline | ZP2021-0095 | 1889 | N/A | 2.33 | 0.12 | 12 | 1 | No | R-4 | Vacant, remnants of fire-damaged Single-Family dwelling | | 24 | 055 182200900 | 2035 Blake | Certificate of Occupancy - 4/20/22 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2016-00895 | 1928 | 0.70 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 84 | 0 | No | C-SA | existing warehouse and a commercial auto repair garage | | 25 | 057 204600100 | 1951-75 Shattuck | Issued - 9/8/22; 1/5/23 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2019-05608, B2021-04893 | N/A | 1.05 | 0.67 | 0.40 | 156 | 0 | No | C-DMU Outer Core | Personal/household service, retail, and religious assembly (one one-story and one two-story building); eight commercial tenant spaces, including retail and service businesses. A two-story building is located at the southeast corner of the lot and contains two commercial tenant spaces. | | 26 | 057 206101000 | 1717 University | Issued 10/28/20 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2020-00206 | 1946 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 28 | 3 | No | C-U | One commercial building and one residence | | 27 | 057 202400102 | 1974 University | Certificate of Occupancy - 10/3/17 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2015-04737 | N/A | 0.10 | 1.43 | 0.53 | 98 | 8 | No | C-DMU Buffer | One-story masonry auto repair building | | | 057 204601101 | 1987 Shattuck (Acheson) | Certificate of Occupancy - 10/20/22 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2015-02998 | 1925 | | 3.42 | 0.32 | | | | C-DMU Outer Core | Ground floor retail and food service, upper floor offices + 8 dwellings | | 28 | 057 204600804 | 2125 University (Acheson) | Certificate of Occupancy - 3/4/22; Certificate of Occupancy 10/25/22 | | B2015-03005; B2015-03000 | 1919 | 1.53 | 2.71 | 0.81 | 205 | 6 | Yes (1.13) | C-DMU Outer Core | | | 29 | 059 231000205 | 1080 Jones | Certificate of Occupancy - 9/11/20 | Not in Sites Inventory | B2017-01855 | N/A | 0.48 | 0.81 | 1.71 | 170 | 15 | No | C-W/R-1A | Vacant commercial building (McNevin Cadillac); used by Honda motors to service vehicles and surface parking lot | C-72 # APPENDIX D Review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element # CONTENTS D1 Progress Towards Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element ................ D-1 D2 Progress Toward Quantified Objectives ..................................................................... D-8 D2.1 New Unit Construction ........................................................................................ D-8 D2.2 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................... D-9 D2.3 Conservation/Retention ....................................................................................... D-9 D3 Effectiveness in Meeting the Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations ............ D-9 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65588(a), each jurisdiction must evaluate the effectiveness of the previous housing element goals, policies, and programs and their appropriateness in contributing to the attainment of the State’s housing goals. The City’s progress in implementing the housing element programs is also documented in this section, including recommendations on program continuance, modification, or elimination. # D1 Progress Towards Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Table D-1 summarizes the housing programs adopted in the 2015-2023 Housing Element, including program objectives and accomplishments demonstrating effectiveness. An evaluation of the appropriateness of each program is included to aid in the development of the 2023-2031 Housing Element programs. TABLE D-1: REVIEW OF HOUSING PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Berkeley Housing Authority | Provide housing assistance for low-income residents | The BHA provided rental assistance to residents through the Section 8 and Moderate Rehabilitation Program throughout the planning period (a total of 1,939 units in 2020). The Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) was selected by HUD to be a Move to Work Agency (MTW) that allows for flexibility programmatically; the cohort for which BHA was selected is “Landlord Incentives” and will allow BHA to attract additional landlords to participate with BHA to house voucher holders in Berkeley. The BHA Board has established a non-profit entity - Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) – as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley. | Housing assistance to low-income residents will continue being provided through established housing programs and initiatives, as well as through the development of a housing preference policy and housing quality standards. These programs are incorporated in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Housing Programs 1- Affordable Housing Berkeley, 2-Housing Choice Vouchers, 10- Housing Preference Policies, and 19-Housing Quality Standards. | | Boards and Commissions | Facilitate citizen input in City decisions | The City holds over 100 public meetings annually on topics related to housing, including housing trust fund, zoning ordinance amendments, affordable housing, and development projects. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element recognizes the importance of these boards and commissions but the 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on specific housing programs with outcomes and schedules. While boards and commissions will continue to meet, this will not be included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a program. | | Condominium Conversion Ordinance | Control the rate of conversion and collect fees to fund affordable housing. | Between 2015 and 2020, a total of 29 rental units were approved for condominium conversion. The City collects an affordable housing mitigation fee for each converted unit. | The City will continue to implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance and will be undertaking a feasibility study by 2025 to determine amendments to the Ordinance. However, the 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on specific housing programs with outcomes and schedules. As such, this will not be included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a program. | | Demolition Controls and Unit Replacement Requirement | Maintain the number of housing units in Berkeley and consider changes to the zoning ordinance to establish criteria for demolition and rental unit replacement. | Implementation of a Demolition Housing Mitigation Fee is still actively under consideration by the City Council. Amendments to the Demolition Ordinance are also under consideration by the 4x4 Committee (which includes members of City Council and the Rent Stabilization Board) in 2020 and 2021. Changes in State Law (SB 330) and State Case Law have added to the complexity of this project. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes a replacement housing provision as required by AB 1397 (Adequate Sites for RHNA). This program is expanded to incorporate other potential components to be considered by the City. See Housing Program 37-Replacement Housing/Demolition Ordinance. | | Energy Conservation Opportunities and Programs | Promote energy efficiency in new and existing construction. | Berkeley’s Natural Gas Prohibition (BMC Chapter 12.80) and reach code (BMC Chapter 19.36) became effective on January 1, 2020 and applies to all newly constructed buildings. Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO): Requires energy assessments during property sales and energy benchmarking for | Energy conservation efforts are included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a resource. See Housing Programs 23-Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund, 24- Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy, 25-Building Emissions Saving Ordinance | | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | large buildings. (245 energy assessments and 135 large building assessments completed in 2020) BayREN Home+ Program: 58 units received cash rebates in 2020 Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements Program: 165 units received energy and water upgrades in 2020 Energy efficiency upgrades completed by CESC (2015-2019): A total of 332 units received efficiency upgrades between 2015 and 2019. CESC closed in 2019. | (BESO), and 26-BayREN Single-Family Homes and Multi-Family Homes Programs. | | Fair Housing Assistance, Outreach and Education and programs addressing impediments to Fair Housing | Provide fair housing services and education to mitigate impediments to fair housing. | Throughout the planning period, the City partnered with a fair housing service provider to provide counseling, investigation, and mediation services. Additionally, educational workshops for landlords/property managers were held along with other outreach events. Below is a summary of activities for 2020: • Total of 44 clients served • 25 investigations completed, resulting in protection of rights for 10 clients • 10 fair housing tests conducted (no violations found) • 2 educational workshops conducted | This program is significantly expanded to include additional education and training workshops for tenant-focused CBOs and property owner associations, as well as to rental property owners and residents, and conduct both tenant/landlord mediation sessions and an Equity Study to target program marketing in the 2023-2031 Housing Element to comply with the AFFH requirements. See Housing Program 6-Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement. | | Addressing Impediments to Fair Housing | Maintain the diversity of Berkeley's population | Throughout the planning period, the City annually funded programs serving persons with disabilities and seniors. In 2020, the City funded programs serving people with disabilities at $1,560,733 and programs for seniors at $9,110. | This program is significantly expanded in the 2023-2031 Housing Element to comply with the AFFH requirements. See Programs 16-Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety, 17-Accessible Housing and 18-Senior/Disabled Home Improvement Loan and Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions. | | Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety (Rebuilding Together and CIL) | Provide home modification for accessibility. | Between 2015 and 2020, a total of 249 homes were remodeled or modified to improve accessibility by Rebuilding Together and the Center for Independent Living. Another 6 homes received improvements through Habitat for Humanity and SDRLP. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 16-Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety. | | HHSP: EveryOne Home Plan | Implement the EveryOne Home Plan | The City continued to participate in the EveryOne Home Leadership Board throughout the planning period. In 2019, Berkeley became the first jurisdiction in Alameda County to adopt the 2018 Strategic Update to the EveryOne Home Plan. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on the 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness, in which specific actions are anticipated to provide shelter and supportive services for the homeless. See Program 13-Homeless Services. | | HHSP: Community Agency Contracting | Provide support services to homeless individuals and families. | The City continued to provide support services to homeless individuals through community agency contracts throughout the planning period. Annual funding for community agency contracts increased from $2.8 million in 2015 to $4.2 million in 2019. In 2020, funding was significantly higher at $15.9 million. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. | | HHSP: Homeless Housing Locations | Provide emergency shelter, transitional housing and | As of 2020, the City provided 226 (109)* year-round shelter beds, 28 (19)* seasonal shelter beds, 5 (3)* family transitional housing | The 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on the 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness, in which specific | | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | permanent supportive housing programs | beds, 15 (9)* individual transitional housing beds, 506 permanent supportive housing units, including 277 permanent supportive housing units through HUD Shelter Plus Care grants, 15 additional Square One (City of Berkeley General Fund) units, 164 site-based units, and 60 HUD Mainstream vouchers for Non-Elderly and Disabled (NED) individuals.

*Numbers in parentheses are the reduced number of beds in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic. | actions are anticipated to provide shelter and supportive services for the homeless. See Program 13-Homeless Services. | | HHSP: Centralized bed reservation system | Reduce nightly vacancies in shelters with reservations. | Berkeley continues to have a centralized reservation system to fill unfilled shelter beds resulting in a very low nightly vacancy rate. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on the 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness, in which specific actions are anticipated to provide shelter and supportive services for the homeless. See Program 13-Homeless Services. | | HHSP: City's Housing Retention Program and ARRA Funding for HPRP | Provide housing retention support to prevent homelessness. | In 2015, the HRP issued 19 grants to individual households totaling $21,346. This program ended in 2015 as funds were shifted to provide rapid rehousing financial assistance. | This program has been discontinued and is not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. | | HHSP: Priority Home Partnership (PHP) Program | Provide a county-wide prevention and rapid rehousing program. | Throughout the planning period, the City allocated PHP funds to the Coordinated Entry Homeless Services System. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on the 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness, in which specific actions are anticipated to provide shelter and supportive services for the homeless. See Program 13-Homeless Services. | | HHSP: Relocation Services | Provide tenants and owner relocation counseling. | Approximately 35-45 tenants and 10-20 landlords received assistance on an annual basis through this program. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element focuses on the 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness, in which specific actions are anticipated to provide shelter and supportive services for the homeless. See Program 13-Homeless Services. | | HHSP: Reverse Mortgagee Counseling | Assist low-income elderly homeowners access home equity | The City no longer contracts with ECHO to provide reverse mortgage counseling. | This program has been discontinued and is not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. | | HHSP: Shelter Plus Care | Provide supportive housing for homeless households. | Through this program, the City provides permanent housing for over 300 households, including 55 new households in 2020. Access to the City of Berkeley Shelter Plus Care Program is managed by the City's Coordinated Entry System (CES) operated by Bay Area Community Services. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 15-Shelter Plus Care. | | Housing code compliance and the Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) | Maintain safe housing stock. | The City's Code Enforcement division continues to respond to compliant driven and proactive violations of city codes and conducts follow up inspections to ensure compliance. The City had an average of about 535 new cases annually throughout the planning period. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 8-Rental Housing Safety. | | Housing Mitigation Fees for Non-residential development | Compensate increased demand for housing from new development | The City continues to apply this fee to major commercial development projects. However, due to limited commercial development in the City and because fees are paid in installments | This is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a funding mechanism, but not as a specific housing program. | D-4 | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | over time, revenues are modest. In 2020, an estimated $400k in revenues was anticipated over the next 12-24 months. | | | Housing Trust Fund | Develop and preserve long-term BMR housing. | Between 2015 and 2018, the Housing Trust Fund led to the constructions of a total of 194 affordable units, including 86 very low income and 17 low income units.

In 2018, voters passed Measure O that would provide $135 million in bond funds for affordable housing.

In 2019, the City awarded $950k in Small Sites Program funds from Measure U1 to the Bay Area Community Land Trust for the renovation and preservation of the 8- unit Stuart Street Apartments, targeted for Berkeley residents making up to 80 percent of Area Median Income. The City also awarded $37 million in local Measure O bond funds to support 6 projects including 430 units.

In 2020, the city executed contracts for $21.5 million in development funds for four new construction affordable housing developments. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 4 – Housing Trust Fund. | | Inclusionary Housing/State Density Bonus | Increase the supply of housing affordable to lower-income HHs | The City continues to implement its Inclusionary Housing program and comply with the State density bonus requirements. By 2023, the City plans to revise its Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements to enhance the effectiveness of the program in delivering affordable housing, especially for extremely low-income households. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 3- Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. | | Mitigating Governmental Constrains | Reduce governmental constraints on production of new housing. | The planning department continued public outreach efforts, interdepartmental roundtable, and expedited project reviews throughout the planning period. Possible constraints continue to be reviewed. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element contains specific programs/actions to address the goal of mitigating governmental constraints, including Zoning Code revisions to comply with new State laws. See Goal F and Housing Programs 29-Middle Housing, 30-Accessory Dwelling Units, and 32-By-Right Approval on Reused Sites for Affordable Housing. | | Preserving Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate | Preserve affordable housing units at risk of converting to market rate. | The 2015 Housing Element identified only one project at higher risk of conversion, Rosewood Manor. That development is still owned by a mission-oriented nonprofit organization and managed by an expert nonprofit property manager, with no indication of intent to convert. | This program is updated in the 2023-2031 Housing Element to reflect the housing projects that may be considered at risk during the 6th cycle Housing Element period. See Program 5-Preservation of At-Risk Housing. | | Priority Development Area Program | Encourage higher density new development near transit. | In December of 2020, the City adopted a new Adeline Corridor Specific Area Plan.

In 2020 the City requested the North Berkeley BART Station be classified as a new PDA and has been working with the community on new development standards that comply with AB 2023. | This program is updated in the 2023-2031 Housing Element to reflect the City's new strategy for meeting the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). See Program 27-Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors. | | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | In 2020, the City applied for grant funding to begin work on the San Pablo Avenue PDA.

The City continued to implement the Downtown and Southside Plans, including continuing work on the Southside Zoning Modifications project that will allow for more density near campus for student housings. | | | Problem Properties Task Force (Team) | Address safety concerns at vacant/blighted properties. | The City continues to activate the PPTF on an as-needed basis for properties with safety concerns. | This program is incorporated with other code enforcement efforts in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Programs 19-Housing Quality Standards, 20-Livable Neighborhoods, and 21-Lead-Poisoning Prevention. | | Project Review Outreach Efforts | Actively solicit input from Berkeley residents on proposed projects. | Information about all major proposed projects was provided at project sites throughout the planning period. | This is a routine project review process and not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a housing program. | | Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance | Process reasonable accommodation requests efficiently. | Reasonable accommodations continue to be available and are processed as-needed by the planning department. | This is a routine implementation of the Municipal Code and is not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a separate program. | | Redevelopment Agency Tax increment Set-Aside Funds for Housing Activity | Fund affordable housing through tax increment set-asides funds. | The 2011 Budget Act approved the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies. In January of 2012 the City elected to serve as the Successor Agency to the RA with an oversight board. | This program is not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a separate housing program. Remaining funds, if any, are included as part of the City's resources for affordable housing. | | Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections | Rent stabilization and good cause for eviction for Berkeley tenants. | The Rent Board continues to provide educational counseling and support for landlords and tenants. Rent Board staff also advised property owners, developers and architects on projects that involve existing residential units and/or existing tenants. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as part of the City's tenant protection efforts. See Program 7-Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections. | | Second Units (Accessory Dwelling Units) | Increase the supply of housing through second dwelling units/ADUs. | The City has adopted amendments to the ADU Ordinance several times over the course of the planning period in response to changes to State law. In December 2019 the City adopted an ADU Urgency Ordinance precluding the development of ADUs on lots that front a street with less than 26 feet in width in the Fire 2 and 3 zones and the ES-R zoning district.

On January 8, 2022, the City adopted maximum ADU building heights of 20 feet in areas outside of the Very High Fire Severity Zones, which is more permissive than the State law requirement of 16 feet. The City will monitor the latest hazard and risk science and assessments for natural and manmade hazards in Berkeley. The City adopted separate development standards based on changing understanding of conditions of risk and hazards. Between 2018 and 2021, the City has issued permits for over 400 ADUs. | The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an ADU program with various components - Zoning Code update to comply with current State law; incentives to facilitate the development ADUs; and monitoring of ADU trends. See Program 30-Accessory Dwelling Units. | | Seismic Preparedness Programs | Improve the safety of housing through seismic retrofits. | The City adopted the Mandatory Retrofit Ordinance in 2014 which applies to soft story buildings containing 5 or more units. A total of 245 retrofits have been completed through this program, with 52 | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 22-Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs. | | Program | Objectives | Accomplishments | Continued Appropriateness | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | required retrofits remaining. The Retrofit Grants program has provided nearly $2 million to property owners, including 45 design grants and 42 construction grants. Of the 593 URM buildings identified, five remain to be retrofitted. In 2020, Berkeley participated in the State's Residential Mitigation Earthquake Brace and Bolt program. 24 homes completed seismic upgrades as part of the program. | | | Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program | Assist senior and disabled HHs preserve their housing. | Between 2015 and 2020, a total of 22 homes were rehabilitated through the Program. | This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. See Program 18-Senior/Disabled Home Improvement Loan. | | Tool Lending Library | Assist Berkeley residents with the preservation of the City's housing stock. | The City continues to operate the Tool Lending Library in order to assist Berkeley residents with home maintenance. A new TLL branch was opened in May 2013, with additional space for an increased tool inventory. | This service continues to operate in the City but is not included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a housing program. | # D2 Progress Toward Quantified Objectives As part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City established quantified objects by which to measure the effectiveness of the City's housing policies and programs. These objectives and the City's progress over the planning period are discussed in further detail below. TABLE D-2: PROGRESS TOWARD QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Above Moderate Income | Total Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | New Construction | | | | | | | Objective (RHNA) | 532 | 442 | 584 | 1,401 | 2,959 | | Achieved (2015-2021) | 309 | 130 | 106 | 3,197 | 3,742 | | Rehabilitation | | | | | | | Objective | 184 | 408 | 29 | 42 | 663 | | Achieved[^p263-1] | - | 589 | 22 | 29 | 640 | | Conservation/Retention | | | | | | | Objective | 354 | - | - | - | 354 | | Achieved | 354 | - | - | - | 354 | Source: City of Berkeley, 2015-2020 Annual Progress Reports [^p263-1]: This summary includes units rehabilitated through the following programs: * Low Income: Housing Trust Fund (8 units), CESC Major Home Repairs (332 units), and Rebuilding Together/CIL (249 units) * Moderate Income: Senior and Disabled Home Loans * Above Moderate Income: Condominium Conversions See Table D-4 for a complete list of rehabilitation programs. ## D2.1 New Unit Construction New unit construction is one way to gauge the effectiveness of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in encouraging the development of new housing for all income groups in the City. However, many other factors also influence the construction of new housing in the City, including market conditions, site availability. Table D-3 summarizes the number of units permitted in the City by year and income level. The City will continue to prioritize the creation of units for lower and moderate income households through the inclusionary housing and housing trust fund programs. TABLE D-3: CITY OF BERKELEY HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION, 2015-2023 | Permitted Units by Year | Very Low Income | Low Income | Moderate Income | Above Moderate Income | Total Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2015 | 70 | 25 | 1 | 392 | 488 | | 2016 | 21 | - | 90 | 183 | 294 | | 2017 | 59 | 3 | - | 531 | 593 | | 2018 | 11 | - | - | 332 | 343 | | 2019 | 33 | - | - | 601 | 634 | | 2020 | 91 | 101 | - | 539 | 731 | | 2021 | 24 | 1 | 15 | 619 | 659 | | 2022 | | | | | | | 2023 | | | | | | | Total 2015-2021 | 309 | 130 | 106 | 3,197 | 3,742 | | 2015-2023 RHNA | 532 | 442 | 584 | 1,401 | 2,959 | | Percent of Goal Achieved | 58% | 29% | 18% | 228% | 126% | Source: City of Berkeley, 2020 Annual Progress Report D-8 ## D2.2 Rehabilitation The City of Berkeley has a number of programs that focus on the repair or rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Some programs result in minor repairs or focus on a particular issue, such as accessibility or seismic safety, while others result in more substantial rehabilitation. Table D-4 provides a summary of the estimated number of units repaired or rehabilitated through each program. The number of units impacted is unknown for some programs; however, the programs are included to illustrate the full scope of programs addressing home repairs. TABLE D-4: UNITS REPAIRED OR REHABILITATED, 2015-2020 | Program Name | Number of Units Repaired/Rehabilitated | | :--- | :--- | | Condominium Conversion Ordinance | 29 | | CESC Home Repairs | 332 | | Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements Program | 165 | | Rebuilding Together/CIL | 249 | | Housing Code Enforcement | Unknown | | Housing Trust Fund | 8 | | Problem Properties Task Force | Unknown | | Seismic Preparedness Programs | | | EBB Program | 24 | | Mandatory Retrofit Ordinance | 245 buildings | | Senior and Disabled Home Loans | 22 | | Total | 829 | *Source: City of Berkeley, 2015-2020 Annual Progress Reports* ## D2.3 Conservation/Retention The 2015-2023 Housing Element identified six properties totaling 354 affordable units with some risk of converting to market rate housing. All six properties receive federal project-based subsidies and are therefore, at some level of risk annually due to the federal appropriations process. However, all six properties are owned and managed by mission-oriented nonprofit organizations and have indicated no intention of converting units to market rate. No restricted affordable units were converted to market rate housing during the 2015-2023 planning cycle. ## D3 Effectiveness in Meeting the Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations As part of the review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City is required to review the effectiveness of the Housing Element programs in addressing the needs of special needs populations. As shown in Table D-3: Review of Housing Program Accomplishments, the 5th Cycle Housing Element included programs that served special needs populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, single parent households, farmworkers, persons living in poverty, and persons experiencing homelessness. Some of the accomplishments include: * Through Rebuilding Together and the Center for Independent Living, a total of 249 homes were remodeled or modified to improve accessibility for seniors and persons with disabilities. * The City also operates the Senior and Disabled Home Rehabilitation Loan Program which assists senior and disabled homeowners with home repairs. Qualifying homeowners can receive an interest free loan of up to $100,000. A total of 22 loans were issued through the Program between 2015 and 2020. * Other City programs for seniors and persons with disabilities include the Berkeley Rides for Seniors & the Disabled (BRSD) and Meals on Wheels. * In 2020, community agency contracts to provide support services to homeless individuals totaled $15.9 million. In addition to other support services, this has resulted in the provision of over 250 emergency shelter and transitional housing beds and over 500 permanent supportive housing units for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. * The City also continues to participate in the regional Everyone Home Leadership Board to address homelessness and adopted the 2018 Strategic Update to the Everyone Home Plan in 2018. * In 2018, Berkeley voters approved Measure O, a $135 million bond for affordable housing. Since then, 972 units of affordable housing have either been built (242), are currently under construction (150), or are in predevelopment (580). One project included Berkeley Way and The Hope Center, which opened in 2022, a 100% affordable housing project that includes a new 44-bed shelter and 53 permanent supportive housing studios, in partnership with BRIDGE housing and Berkeley Food & Housing Project. * In 2022, the City, in partnership with the University of California, funded several transitional housing projects, including $250,000 to open the Sacred Rest Daytime Drop-in Center to serve people experiencing homelessness in the Southside and Telegraph neighborhood; and the opening of the Rodeway Inn, which provides 43 units for people were who were previously unhoused in People’s Park. * Also in 2022, the City opened its first affordable housing project in North Berkeley in over 30 years – Jordan Court. The project provides 34 units of housing for seniors who make 20-60 percent of area median income, with 12 units set aside for seniors experiencing homelessness and mental illness. # APPENDIX E # Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ## CONTENTS E1 Introduction and Overview of AB 686 ............................................................................ E-1 E1.1 Analysis Requirements................................................................................................ E-2 E1.2 Sources of Information ............................................................................................... E-2 E2 Sites Inventory ...................................................................................................................... E-4 E2.1 Northeast Berkeley ..................................................................................................... E-6 E2.2 West Berkeley ............................................................................................................. E-6 E2.3 Central Berkeley.......................................................................................................... E-6 E2.4 South Berkeley............................................................................................................. E-7 E2.5 Southeast Berkeley...................................................................................................... E-7 E2.6 Integration and Segregation....................................................................................... E-12 E2.7 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas................................................................ E-18 E2.8 Access to Opportunities .............................................................................................. E-19 E2.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................... E-23 E3 Conclusions and Actions ..................................................................................................... E-27 E3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ................................................................... E-27 E3.2 Integration and Segregation....................................................................................... E-27 E3.3 Access to Opportunities .............................................................................................. E-28 E3.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................... E-28 E4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues .................................................................................... E-29 E4.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ................................................................... E-29 E4.2 Integration and Segregation....................................................................................... E-36 E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas................................................................ E-67 E4.4 Access to Opportunities .............................................................................................. E-80 E4.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................... E-113 E4.6 Other Relevant Factors............................................................................................... E-155 # E1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686 Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686, 2017) requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity[^p267-1] and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.[^p267-2] AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes.[^p267-3] In addition, AB 686: * Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing; * Prohibits the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation; * Requires that the AFFH obligation be interpreted consistent with HUD’s 2015 regulation, regardless of federal action regarding the regulation; * Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element (an existing planning process that California cities and counties must complete) for plans that are due beginning in 2021; and * Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a required examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: * A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; * An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and * An identification of fair housing goals and actions. This Appendix E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing contains four sections: **E1 Introduction.** Provides an overview of the analysis requirements, data sources, and organization of Appendix E. **E2 Sites Inventory.** Provides a summary of the RHNA sites inventory by neighborhood groupings and predominant zoning types to demonstrate how the inventory meets the criteria for AFFH. Refers to data and analysis described in Section E4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. [^p267-1]: While California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) does not provide a definition of opportunity, opportunity is usually related to access to resources that improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. [^p267-2]: “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law. [^p267-3]: A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait. E3 Conclusions and Actions. Identifies fair housing issues, their contributing factors, assigns a priority level for each factor and addresses them with specific goals and actions. E4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Provides a detailed assessment of the City’s fair housing issues, including enforcement and outreach, demographic integration and segregation, access to opportunities, and other relevant factors including associated housing needs. ## E1.1 ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.[^p268-4] The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities. For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends in the Bay Area (the members of ABAG) and Alameda County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the City of Berkeley. ## E1.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION The City uses a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level. Sources include: * California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer * Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which relies on 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data by the U.S. Census Bureau for most characteristics. The ABAG Data Packets also referenced the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (based on the 2013-2017 ACS). * AFFH Data Report prepared by ABAG, which relies on the 2000, 2010, and 2020 Decennial Census and 2011-2015 ACS. * U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS). * Alameda County 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 County AI) * City of Berkeley 2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2015 AI). * Local knowledge. Some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data differ. For example, the decennial census and ACS report slightly different estimates for the total population, number of households, number of housing units, and household size. This is in part because ACS provides estimates based on a small survey of the population taken over the course of the whole year.[^p268-5] Because of the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by the [^p268-4]: Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42274, 42282-42283, 42322, 42323, 42336, 42339, 42353-42360, esp. 42355-42356 (July 16, 2015). See also 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150, 5.154(b)(2) (2016). [^p268-5]: The American Community Survey is sent to approximately 250,000 addresses in the United States monthly (or 3 million per year). It regularly gathers information previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. ACS is less reliable. For this reason, the readers should keep in mind the potential for data errors when drawing conclusions based on the ACS data used in this chapter. The information is included as it provides an indication of possible trends. The analysis makes comparisons between data from the same source during the same time periods, using the ABAG Data Package as the first source since ABAG has provided data at different geographical levels for the required comparisons. As such, even though more recent Census data may be available, 2015-2019 ACS reports are cited more frequently (and 2013-2017 for CHAS data). The City also used findings and data from the 2020 Alameda County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 County AI) for its local knowledge as it includes a variety of locally gathered and available information, such as a surveys, local history and events that have affected or are affecting fair housing choice. The City also used the HCD’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for its regional findings and data. In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the ABAG package. The City attempted, to the best of its ability, to ensure comparisons between the same time frames. However, in some instances, various time frames are compared (often differing by one year). As explained earlier, the assessment is most useful in providing an indication of possible trends. For clarity, this analysis will refer to the following Berkeley neighborhoods shown in Figure E-1: Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Northbrae, Terrace View, Upper North Berkeley, Westbrae, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Berkeley Marina, Southwest Berkeley, North Berkeley, Northside, University of California Berkeley, Panoramic Hill, Southside, Downtown Berkeley, Central Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley, South Berkeley, Le Conte, Lorin, Elmwood, Claremont. information is then averaged to create an estimate reflecting a 1- or 5-year reporting period (referred to as a “5-year estimate”). 5-year estimates have a smaller margin of error due to the longer reporting period and are used throughout this AFFH analysis. Figure E-1: City of Berkeley Neighborhoods (2022) <
> Source: City of Berkeley, 2022. # E2 SITES INVENTORY HCD requires the City’s sites inventory, identified to meet the RHNA, affirmatively furthers fair housing. This includes ensuring RHNA units, especially lower income units, are not disproportionately concentrated in areas with larger populations of interest or special needs populations such as racial/ethnic minority groups, persons with disabilities, R/ECAPs, cost burden renters, etc. This fair housing analysis evaluates units from BART properties, entitled projects, projects with applications, anticipated projects with pre-applications, and potential additional sites used to meet the City’s RHNA. ADUs and Middle Housing (Program 29 in the Housing Element Update) are not included in this analysis as the placement of future ADUs and Middle Housing is unknown. However, additional infill ADU and middle housing development, particularly in lower density residential zones, is anticipated based on recent development trends and proposed changes to City zoning policy (see Figure E.10: Residential Development – Entitlements and Building Permits (2018-2021)) For the purposes of analyzing the City’s RHNA strategy through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, the sites inventory is shown at the tract level by neighborhood groupings (Table E-1). Neighborhoods are grouped together and referred to as follows. Predominant zoning types in these areas are also included below: E-4 * *Northeast Berkeley:* Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Live Oak, Northbrae, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Upper North Berkeley neighborhoods * Predominantly R-1, Single Family Residential * R-2, Restricted Two-family Residential * R-2A, Restricted Multiple-family Residential * Few C-SO (Solano Avenue Commercial), C-NS (North Shattuck Commercial), R-3 (Multiple-family Residential) zones * *West Berkeley:* 4th Street, Berkeley Marina (no sites), Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley neighborhoods * Mix of M (Manufacturing), MM (Mixed Manufacturing), MULI (Mixed Use-Light Industrial), MUR (Mixed-Use Residential), C-W (West Berkeley Commercial), R-1A (Limited Two-family residential) * Few R-3 (Multiple-family residential), R-4 (Multi-family residential) zones * *Central Berkeley:* Central Berkeley, Northside, North Berkeley, Westbrae neighborhoods * Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Restricted Two-family Residential), R-2A (Restricted Multiple-family residential) * R-1A, Limited Two-family residential * R-3, Multiple-family residential * R-4, Multi-family residential * *South Berkeley:* South Berkeley neighborhood * Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Restricted Two-family residential), R-2A (Limited Two-family Residential) * R-3, Multiple-family Residential * R-4, Multi-family Residential * *Southeast Berkeley:* Claremont, Elmwood District, Le Conte, Lorin, Panoramic Hill, Southside neighborhoods * Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Restricted Two-family residential), R-2A (Limited Two-family Residential) * R-3, Multiple-family Residential * R-4, Multi-family Residential * R-S, Residential High Density Subarea * R-SMU, Residential Mixed Use Subarea The City’s sites inventory is shown in Figure E-2 by Berkeley neighborhood. Please note that the sum of units will not equal total as some tracts may be located in multiple neighborhoods; these units may be accounted for twice. The RHNA strategy is further analyzed through various AFFH issues in the following sections: * Section E.2.6 *Integration and Segregation*, * Section E.2.7 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas*, * Section E.2.8 *Access to Opportunities*, and * Section E.2.9 *Disproportionate Housing Needs*. E-5 ## E2.1 NORTHEAST BERKELEY Northeast Berkeley tracts generally have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI household populations compared to the rest of the City. There are no tracts in this area with RHNA units that are considered LMI areas with more than 50 percent low or moderate income households. There is one R/ECAP (Tract 4226) that is located partially in this section of the City in the Terrace View neighborhood. Only one above moderate income unit exists in this R/ECAP. All tracts in this area containing RHNA units are high or highest resource. There are 297 RHNA units allocated to this area of the City including 139 lower income units (46.8 percent) and 158 above moderate income units (53.2 percent). RHNA units in this area are not disproportionately exposed to adverse existing conditions, but development is more constrained due to its location within a Very High Fire Severity Zone. ## E2.2 WEST BERKELEY West Berkeley tracts with RHNA sites are moderate and high resource. All block groups in this area with RHNA units have non-White populations ranging from 52.5 percent to 78.1 percent and one tract is considered an LMI area with an LMI population of 59.4. There are no R/ECAP tracts with RHNA units in this area of the City. Due to the availability of larger lots – or contiguous lots under the same ownership that can be consolidated—and land uses and assessed values that indicate vacancy or underutilization, there are significantly more RHNA units allocated to West Berkeley compared to Northeast Berkeley. Of the 3,022 units located in West Berkeley, 1,302 are lower income units (43.1 percent), 499 are moderate income units (16.5 percent), and 1,221 are above moderate income units (40.4 percent). The one moderate resource tract (4220) contains mostly above moderate income units, indicating that the City's strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in the tract with a lower TCAC opportunity score. The City's RHNA strategy does place more lower income units in tract 4232, where non-White populations are the largest in West Berkeley, compared to moderate and above moderate income units. However, as discussed above, there are no RHNA units in this area located in a R/ECAP. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing conditions related to fair housing in this area of the City. ## E2.3 CENTRAL BERKELEY Central Berkeley tracts where RHNA units are located are characterized by mostly high resource tracts and two moderate resource tracts. Racial/ethnic minority populations vary in block groups in this area, from 33.3 percent to 57.3 percent, but are generally larger than non-White populations in Northeast Berkeley and smaller than West Berkeley. LMI populations are also variable in Central Berkeley, ranging from 18.8 percent to 81.8 percent. Most tracts with RHNA units in this area of the City are considered LMI areas with low to moderate income households representing more than 50 percent of the total tract population. There is one R/ECAP in Central Berkeley (Tract 4229), that is considered a moderate resource tract with non-White populations ranging from 66.6 to 68.1 percent and an LMI population of 81.8 percent. There are 6,519 RHNA units located in Central Berkeley neighborhoods, 65.9 percent of which are above moderate income units (4,297 above moderate income units). There are also 1,260 lower income units (19.3 percent) and 962 moderate income units (14.8 percent) in Central Berkeley. Though there are more LMI areas and moderate resource tracts in Central Berkeley compared to Northeast Berkeley and West Berkeley, most allocated units in this area are in the above moderate income RHNA, indicating that the City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower and moderate income units in tracts/block groups where fair housing issues are prevalent. A large proportion of allocated units in Central Berkeley are in a R/ECAP (Tract 4229). There are 2,808 units in this tract, but like the overall distribution of Central Berkeley RHNA units, most are allocated towards the above moderate income RHNA (71.4 percent). Only 10.6 percent of units in this tract are lower income units. It is relevant to point out, that though this tract is considered a R/ECAP, it encompasses Downtown Berkeley and has positive environmental conditions, accessible employment opportunities, and a larger proportion of newer housing units (see Table E-50, Figure E-66, Figure E-70, and Figure E-71). Additional housing units in this tract will further expand housing opportunities for the population, including special needs populations, residing in this neighborhood. ## E2.4 SOUTH BERKELEY TCAC Opportunity category scores for tracts containing RHNA units in South Berkeley include five high resource tracts and one (rapidly changing) moderate resource tract. Block groups in South Berkeley have non-White populations ranging from 35.2 percent to 75.3 percent. Three of the six tracts with RHNA units in South Berkeley are considered LMI areas. There are no R/ECAPs in the South Berkeley neighborhood. In general, overcrowding in South Berkeley tracts is comparable to the Citywide trend, where four percent of households are overcrowded. The rate of cost burdened renters in these tracts is also generally consistent with the Citywide rate of 52.1 percent. In total, there are 3,211 RHNA units located in South Berkeley neighborhood tracts, including 1,297 lower income units (40.4 percent), 234 moderate income units (7.3 percent), and 1,680 above moderate income units (52.3 percent). Only two of these units are in the moderate resource (rapidly changing) tract. RHNA units in the South Berkeley neighborhood are predominantly in high resource areas with moderate levels of LMI households, overcrowded households, and cost burdened households. Units in this neighborhood are not disproportionately exposed to adverse existing conditions. ## E2.5 SOUTHEAST BERKELEY Southeast Berkeley has the most variable TCAC Opportunity categorizations for tracts containing RHNA units including two highest resource tracts, three high resource tracts, three moderate resource tracts, and one low resource tract. Block groups in Southeast Berkeley also have variable non-White populations ranging from 15.6 percent to 74 percent. Three of the nine tracts with RHNA units in Southeast Berkeley are considered LMI areas and tracts 4227, 4228, and 4236.02 are R/ECAPs. The City’s RHNA allocation places units in all five R/ECAPs located in Berkeley, however this area of the City (surrounding UC Berkeley) is characterized by large student populations (see Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)), cost burdened renters, and severely overcrowded households (see Figure E-82 and Figure E-89). Additional housing units in these tracts would increase housing opportunities in the area and units, specifically lower income units, and—paired with tenant protections, rent stabilization, and anti-displacement policies—would benefit the existing communities residing in these neighborhoods. Discussions with local developers also indicate additional housing opportunities are needed in this area to serve the large student population. In total, there are 3,966 RHNA units located in South Berkeley neighborhood tracts including 1,581 lower income units (39.9 percent), 422 moderate income units (10.6 percent), and 1,963 above moderate income units (49.5 percent). There are 1,023 RHNA units in Southeast Berkeley R/ECAPs specifically (tracts 4227, 4228, and 4236.02). Most of these units are allocated towards the above moderate income RHNA (41.5 percent), followed by the lower income RHNA (40.2 percent) and the moderate income RHNA (18.3 percent). The City’s sites inventory provides additional housing in these areas but also does not disproportionately expose future lower and moderate income households to adverse conditions. Table E-1: Distribution of RHNA Units by Neighborhood and Tract | Tract | # of HHs | Total Capacity (Units) | Income Distribution | | | TCAC Opp. Category | % Non-White | % LMI Pop. | R/ECAP? | % Over-crowded | Renter Cost Burden | Owner Cost Burden | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Lower | Mod | Above Mod | | | | | | | | | **Northeast Berkeley (Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Live Oak, Northbrae, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Upper North Berkeley neighborhoods)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4211 | 837 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | High | 26.7%-27.3% | 20.3% | No | 0.6% | 21.4% | 31.1% | | 4212 | 1,466 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | Highest | 21.6%-26.0% | 8.1% | No | 0.0% | 26.8% | 33.2% | | 4213 | 1,578 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 31 | Highest | 23.4%-28.0% | 16.3% | No | 0.4% | 34.5% | 32.5% | | 4214 | 625 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | Highest | 18.8% | 26.2% | No | 0.6% | 37.1% | 28.1% | | 4215 | 1,576 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 | High | 20.6%-25.5% | 11.5% | No | 0.0% | 37.1% | 29.8% | | 4216 | 1,537 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 32 | High | 26.1%-29.3% | 29.2% | No | 0.7% | 32.8% | 27.1% | | 4217 | 1,574 | 177 | 139 | 0 | 38 | High | 45.6% | 44.3% | No | 4.2% | 63.5% | 33.8% | | 4218 | 859 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Highest | 26.1% | 29.2% | No | 1.7% | 40.7% | 34.2% | | 4226 | 26 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Highest | 61.5% | 46.2% | Yes | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | **West Berkeley (4th Street, Berkeley Marina (no sites), Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley neighborhoods)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4220 | 928 | 1,812 | 761 | 236 | 815 | Moderate | 52.5%-64.4% | 49.0% | No | 5.2% | 41.5% | 36.1% | | 4221 | 1,212 | 416 | 106 | 174 | 136 | High | 65.0%-66.6% | 49.3% | No | 3.8% | 53.4% | 47.4% | | 4232 | 1,142 | 794 | 435 | 89 | 270 | High | 68.1%-78.1% | 59.4% | No | 2.0% | 52.7% | 42.0% | | **Central Berkeley (Central Berkeley, Northside, North Berkeley, Westbrae neighborhoods)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4219 | 1,732 | 269 | 5 | 40 | 224 | High | 33.3%-46.5% | 18.8% | No | 3.9% | 40.3% | 32.2% | | 4222 | 1,554 | 1,552 | 512 | 104 | 936 | High | 45.0%-51.0% | 55.8% | No | 0.6% | 29.4% | 45.0% | | 4223 | 1,680 | 58 | 3 | 0 | 55 | High | 38.8%-53.8% | 59.7% | No | 3.0% | 46.7% | 39.3% | | 4224 | 2,067 | 909 | 41 | 170 | 698 | High | 50.0%-57.3% | 68.5% | No | 5.6% | 57.6% | 24.1% | | 4225 | 1,439 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 55 | Moderate | 38.5%-54.2% | 57.2% | No | 4.7% | 63.1% | 54.7% | | 4229 | 2,128 | 2,808 | 298 | 505 | 2,005 | Moderate | 66.6%-68.1% | 81.8% | Yes | 11.4% | 56.2% | 0.0% | | 4230 | 2,087 | 307 | 74 | 54 | 179 | High | 47.4% | 40.4% | No | 0.5% | 62.8% | 33.4% | | 4231 | 1,976 | 561 | 327 | 89 | 145 | High | 53.4%-56.8% | 55.8% | No | 0.9% | 48.8% | 24.0% | | **South Berkeley (South Berkeley neighborhood)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4233 | 1,587 | 388 | 37 | 34 | 317 | High | 62.7%-66.6% | 48.2% | No | 2.5% | 67.0% | 37.8% | | 4235 | 1,486 | 1,725 | 816 | 159 | 750 | High | 49.6%-55.0% | 49.8% | No | 2.0% | 53.7% | 43.3% | | 4239.01 | 818 | 889 | 264 | 41 | 584 | High | 35.2%-56.2% | 44.2% | No | 6.4% | 51.2% | 24.9% | | 4240.01 | 1,426 | 207 | 180 | 0 | 27 | High | 63.6%-73.1% | 62.4% | No | 3.4% | 58.4% | 27.3% | | 4240.02 | 934 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Moderate (Rapidly Changing) | 75.3% | 64.4% | No | 5.9% | 46.5% | 45.0% | | **Southeast Berkeley (Claremont, Elmwood District, Le Conte, Lorin, Panoramic Hill, Southside neighborhoods)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tract | # of HHs | Total Capacity (Units) | Income Distribution | TCAC Opp. Category | % Non-White | % LMI Pop. | R/ECAP? | % Over- crowded | Renter Cost Burden | Owner Cost Burden | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Lower | Mod | Above Mod | | | | | | | | 4227 | 1,053 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Moderate | 41.9%-57.1% | 78.9% | Yes | 19.2% | 69.9% | 26.6% | | 4228 | 1,293 | 727 | 212 | 150 | 365 | Low | 71.1%-74.0% | 88.5% | Yes | 15.1% | 68.8% | 100.0% | | 4235 | 1,486 | 1,725 | 816 | 159 | 750 | High | 49.6%-55.0% | 49.8% | No | 2.0% | 53.7% | 43.3% | | 4236.01 | 1,214 | 52 | 4 | 0 | 48 | High | 38.9% | 46.8% | No | 2.8% | 38.0% | 47.9% | | 4236.02 | 2,193 | 294 | 199 | 37 | 58 | Moderate | 51.5%-72.5% | 82.7% | Yes | 10.6% | 64.9% | 0.0% | | 4237 | 1,305 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 30 | Moderate | 52.5% | 41.9% | No | 2.5% | 48.4% | 31.2% | | 4238 | 1,306 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 21 | Highest | 15.6%-21.9% | 14.6% | No | 0.5% | 36.1% | 31.0% | | 4239.01 | 818 | 889 | 264 | 41 | 584 | High | 35.2%-56.2% | 44.2% | No | 6.4% | 51.2% | 24.9% | | 4239.02 | 712 | 225 | 85 | 35 | 105 | Highest | 28.6%-33.0% | 30.6% | No | 1.7% | 36.4% | 23.9% | Note: Sum of units will not equal total as some tracts may be located in multiple neighborhoods; these units may be accounted for twice. Figure E-2: Berkeley Neighborhoods and Sites Inventory <
> Source: City of Berkeley, 2022 Note: For purposes of the sites inventory analysis, the Ashby and North Berkeley BART sites are considered “Pipeline Sites” because the City and BART have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement on the development of these lots and are actively working together to release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for potential developer teams for the two sites in Summer 2022. # E2.6 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION ## Race/Ethnicity The distribution of RHNA units by income category and racial/ethnic minority population (block group) is shown in Table E-2 and Figure E-3. Most RHNA units are located in block groups where between 41 percent and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. This generally reflects the overall composition of the City; block groups with non-White populations smaller than 40 percent are concentrated only in the northeastern and southeastern areas of the City. Block groups in the remainder of the City have non-White populations exceeding 40 percent. There are no RHNA units in block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81 percent. Consistent with the overall composition of the City, only 0.2 percent of RHNA units are block groups where less than 20 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. All of these units are allocated towards the above moderate income RHNA. Areas of the City where racial/ethnic minority populations are fewer (Northeast Berkeley, Claremont neighborhood) are characterized by single-family residential zones (R-1). Single-family homes are generally allocated to the above moderate income RHNA. The placement of above moderate income RHNA units in block groups with smaller racial/ethnic minority populations is a reflection of housing type. It is important to note that as part of the Housing Element, the City is proposing to allow for multi-unit development in all residential zones, including R-1 (see Program 29-Middle Housing). While more above moderate income units are in block groups with smaller racial/ethnic minority populations compared to lower and moderate income units, 46.6 percent of above moderate income units are also in block groups where 61 to 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group compared to 56.3 percent of moderate income units and only 40.7 percent of lower income units. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 46.7 percent of the Berkeley population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. The City’s RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley, including zoning districts, and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity. <
> Table E-2: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Population | Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (Block Group) | Lower | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | <=20% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 23 | 0.3% | 23 | 0.2% | | 21-40% | 136 | 3.0% | 116 | 6.1% | 494 | 6.2% | 746 | 5.2% | | 41-60% | 2,530 | 56.2% | 722 | 37.7% | 3,747 | 46.9% | 6,999 | 48.6% | | 61-80% | 1,833 | 40.7% | 1,079 | 56.3% | 3,721 | 46.6% | 6,633 | 46.1% | | >81% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-3: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI, 2018), 2022; Veronica Tam & Associates (VTA), 2022. ### Persons with Disabilities As discussed in Section E4.2 *Persons with Disabilities*, Berkeley has a smaller, but comparable, population of persons with disabilities to the County (8.7 vs. 9.2 percent, respectively). There are no tracts in the City where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 20 percent. Of the 33 tracts in the City, 13 (39.4 percent) have populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent. As presented in Table E-3 and Figure E-4, despite the overall composition of the City (more tracts with less than 10 percent persons with disabilities), there are slightly more RHNA units located in tracts where 10 to 20 percent of the population experiences a disability. Approximately 51.3 percent of RHNA units, 49.4 percent of lower income units, 61.6 percent of moderate income units, and 49.9 percent of above moderate income units, are located in tracts where 10 to 20 percent of the population has one or more disability. The City’s RHNA strategy distributes units throughout Berkeley, but areas where higher density housing is feasible, especially West and South Berkeley, tend to have larger populations of persons with disabilities. Topographically, South and West Berkeley is flatter compared to the Northeast and Eastern parts of the City, and also is in proximity to several major transit lines and street corridors, which supports accessibility for persons with disabilities. E-13 Table E-3: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities | Disabled Population (Tract) | Lower Units | Lower Percent | Moderate Units | Moderate Percent | Above Moderate Units | Above Moderate Percent | Total Units | Total Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | <10% | 2,277 | 50.6% | 736 | 38.4% | 4,003 | 50.1% | 7,016 | 48.7% | | 10-20% | 2,222 | 49.4% | 1,181 | 61.6% | 3,982 | 49.9% | 7,385 | 51.3% | | 20-30% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | 30-40% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | >40% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-4: Sites Inventory and Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022.* ### Familial Status Tracts with lower populations of children in married couple households tend to correlate with zoning districts where higher density housing is more feasible. HCD considers a density of at least 30 units per acre to be suitable for lower income units in Alameda County. As such, 39.9 percent RHNA units are in tracts where only 40 to 60 percent of children live in married couple households (Table E-4). As shown in Table E-5, there are more lower income units in tracts where more than 40 percent of children live in single-parent female-headed households. As presented in Figure E-6, there is only one tract in the City where more than 40 percent of children live in female-headed households, but 18.1 percent of lower income units, 8.3 percent of moderate income units, and 9.4 percent of above moderate income units are in this tract (Table E-5). Though this tract has a larger percentage of children in female-headed households, it is considered a TCAC high resource area. The addition of housing units in this neighborhood, specifically lower income units, will increase housing opportunity for current residents. More than 50 percent of renters are cost burdened in this tract, but this area received medium to high scores for economic, education, and environmental opportunities. This tract also had positive scores for accessibility to employment opportunities. Table E-4: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Children in Married Couple Households | Children in Married Couple HHs (Tract) | Lower Units | Lower Percent | Moderate Units | Moderate Percent | Above Moderate Units | Above Moderate Percent | Total Units | Total Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 20-40% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | 40-60% | 1,655 | 36.8% | 927 | 48.4% | 3,163 | 39.6% | 5,745 | 39.9% | | 60-80% | 2,163 | 48.1% | 598 | 31.2% | 3,403 | 42.6% | 6,164 | 42.8% | | >80% | 469 | 10.4% | 242 | 12.6% | 1,054 | 13.2% | 1,765 | 12.3% | | No Data | 212 | 4.7% | 150 | 7.8% | 365 | 4.6% | 727 | 5.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-5: Sites Inventory and Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022. E-15 Table E-5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households | Children in Female- | Lower | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Headed HHs (Tract) | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | <20% | 525 | 11.7% | 144 | 7.5% | 1,434 | 18.0% | 2,103 | 14.6% | | 20-40% | 2,482 | 55.2% | 1,222 | 63.7% | 4,480 | 56.1% | 8,184 | 56.8% | | 40-60% | 816 | 18.1% | 159 | 8.3% | 750 | 9.4% | 1,725 | 12.0% | | 60-80% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | >80% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | No Data | 676 | 15.0% | 392 | 20.4% | 1,321 | 16.5% | 2,389 | 16.6% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-6: Sites Inventory and Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022.* ### Income Level Table E-6 and Figure E-7 show the distribution of RHNA units by LMI population. Approximately 55 percent of all RHNA units are located in LMI tracts where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. A larger proportion of above moderate income units (57.8 percent) and moderate income units (59.7 percent) are in LMI areas compared to lower income units (49.1 percent), indicating the City's RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in LMI areas. There are more above moderate income units in tracts where fewer than 25 percent of households are LMI, however this reflects the zoning district composition in the City. Tracts where less than 25 percent of households E-16 are LMI tend to be predominantly single-family residential. Berkeley’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing LMI household trends by disproportionately placing lower income units in LMI areas at a higher rate. Table E-6: Distribution of RHNA Units by LMI Household Population | LMI Household Population (Tract) | Lower Units | Lower Percent | Moderate Units | Moderate Percent | Above Moderate Units | Above Moderate Percent | Total Units | Total Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | <25% | 5 | 0.1% | 40 | 2.1% | 323 | 4.0% | 368 | 2.6% | | 25-50% | 2,287 | 50.8% | 733 | 38.2% | 3,044 | 38.1% | 6,064 | 42.1% | | 50-75% | 1,498 | 33.3% | 452 | 23.6% | 2,188 | 27.4% | 4,138 | 28.7% | | 75-100% | 709 | 15.8% | 692 | 36.1% | 2,430 | 30.4% | 3,831 | 26.6% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-7: Sites Inventory and LMI Households by Tract (2015) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2011-2015 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022. E-17 # E2.7 RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS ## R/ECAPs As discussed previously, five R/ECAPs have been identified in Berkeley. The City’s sites inventory and R/ECAP tracts are shown in Figure E-8. Of all 14,401 units selected to meet the City’s RHNA, 26.6 percent are located in R/ECAPs. A significantly smaller proportion of lower income units (15.8 percent) are located in R/ECAPs compared to moderate income units (36.1 percent) and above moderate income units (30.4 percent). This trend shows that the City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in R/ECAPs and exacerbate existing fair housing conditions. Table E-7: Distribution of RHNA Units by R/ECAP Tract | R/ECAP (Tract) | Lower | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | Not in R/ECAP | 3,790 | 84.2% | 1,225 | 63.9% | 5,554 | 69.6% | 10,569 | 73.4% | | In R/ECAP | 709 | 15.8% | 692 | 36.1% | 2,431 | 30.4% | 3,832 | 26.6% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-8: Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs (2013) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013), 2022; VTA, 2022.* E-18 # E2.8 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES ## TCAC Opportunity Areas As presented in Figure E-9, Berkeley is comprised of mostly highest and high resource tracts. Consistent with this trend, approximately 60 percent of RHNA units, including 67.3 percent of lower income units, 51.6 percent of moderate income units, and 58.2 percent of above moderate income units, are in highest or high resource tracts. This distribution shows that the City’s RHNA strategy helps fair housing conditions by placing future lower income households in high resource areas. There is only one low resource tract in the City, encompassing the Southside neighborhood. The City allocated a mix of units are various income levels in this tract, including 365 above moderate income units, 150 moderate income units, and 212 lower income units. This shows that the City’s sites inventory does not disproportionately expose lower or moderate income households to areas with fewer opportunities. The City’s RHNA strategy exposes lower income households to high resource areas and therefore affirmatively furthers fair housing. It is also relevant to note that based on recent development trends in the City, development projects are located throughout Berkeley and are not concentrated in a single area of the City. Figure E.10 shows approved entitlements and building permits in the City from 2018 to 2021. Entitlements and building permits during this period are not concentrated in a single area of the City and include projects in high and highest resource areas. Development trends in Berkeley indicate new housing units will not be concentrated in tracts of a single TCAC categorization. <
> Table E-8: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Area Category | TCAC Opportunity Area Category (Tract) | Lower Units | Lower Percent | Moderate Units | Moderate Percent | Above Moderate Units | Above Moderate Percent | Total Units | Total Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Highest Resource | 85 | 1.9% | 35 | 1.8% | 178 | 2.2% | 298 | 2.1% | | High Resource | 2,943 | 65.4% | 954 | 49.8% | 4,472 | 56.0% | 8,369 | 58.1% | | Moderate Resource | 1,259 | 28.0% | 778 | 40.6% | 2,968 | 37.2% | 5,005 | 34.8% | | Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.0% | | Low Resource | 212 | 4.7% | 150 | 7.8% | 365 | 4.6% | 727 | 5.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-9: Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score by Tract (2021) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022; VTA, 2022.* Figure E.10: Residential Development – Entitlements and Building Permits (2018-2021) <
> ### Environmental (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) Table E-9 and Figure E-11 show the distribution of RHNA units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. As discussed in this AFFH analysis previously, the central and western sections of the City have higher (worse) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores compared to the northeastern, eastern, and southeastern areas of the City. This pattern correlates with several other segregation trends in the City, including historical redlining. More than half (53.7 percent) of RHNA units fall into the 21st to 40th percentile range. A larger proportion of above moderate income units (64.6 percent) and moderate income units (59.3 percent) are in tracts scoring in the 40th percentile or below (best scores), compared to lower income units (45.9 percent). As discussed previously, this trend may be in part due to the zoning district composition in the City. Areas where CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are the highest are predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods (Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Claremont) where there is a higher concentration of above moderate income units. Multi-family zoning districts and sites that can accommodate higher density housing, including lower income units, tend to be more concentrated in the central, southern, and western areas of the City. These areas are also in closer proximity to major vehicular and transit corridors, and is more topographically flat than in the northeastern and eastern portions of the city. E-21 Table E-9: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score | CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | Lower | | Moderate | | Above Moderate | | Total | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Percentile Score (Tract) | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | 1-10% | 140 | 3.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 209 | 2.6% | 349 | 2.4% | | 11-20% | 89 | 2.0% | 35 | 1.8% | 153 | 1.9% | 277 | 1.9% | | 21-30% | 1,276 | 28.4% | 556 | 29.0% | 2,207 | 27.6% | 4,039 | 28.0% | | 31-40% | 562 | 12.5% | 546 | 28.5% | 2,589 | 32.4% | 3,697 | 25.7% | | 41-50% | 254 | 5.6% | 54 | 2.8% | 206 | 2.6% | 514 | 3.6% | | 51-60% | 618 | 13.7% | 278 | 14.5% | 1,072 | 13.4% | 1,968 | 13.7% | | 61-70% | 364 | 8.1% | 123 | 6.4% | 464 | 5.8% | 951 | 6.6% | | 71-80% | 1,196 | 26.6% | 325 | 17.0% | 1,085 | 13.6% | 2,606 | 18.1% | | 81-90% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | 91-100% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-11: Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score by Tract (2021) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021), 2022; VTA, 2022. E-22 # E2.9 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS ## Cost Burden Cost burdened households by tenure and sites used to meet the City's RHNA are presented in Figure E-12 and Figure E-13. There is one tract (Southside neighborhood) in Berkeley where more than 80 percent of owners are cost burdened. This tract is comprised of nearly all renter-occupied households (97.6 percent) and students (89.9 percent) (see Figure E-72 and Table E-30). Only 4.7 percent of lower income RHNA units are located in this tract compared to 7.8 percent of moderate income units and 4.6 percent of above moderate income units. The City's RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in the tract with the highest concentration of costs burdened owners. Most RHNA units are in tracts where 20 to 40 percent of owners are cost burdened, including 42.6 percent of lower income units, 36.5 percent of moderate income units, and 42.1 percent of above moderate income units. Table E-10: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Cost Burdened Owner Households | Cost Burdened Owners (Tract) | Lower | | Moderate | | Above Moderate | | Total | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | <20% | 497 | 11.0% | 542 | 28.3% | 2,063 | 25.8% | 3,102 | 21.5% | | 20-40% | 1,917 | 42.6% | 699 | 36.5% | 3,360 | 42.1% | 5,976 | 41.5% | | 40-60% | 1,873 | 41.6% | 526 | 27.4% | 2,197 | 27.5% | 4,596 | 31.9% | | 60-80% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | >80% | 212 | 4.7% | 150 | 7.8% | 365 | 4.6% | 727 | 5.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | Figure E-12: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022.* Most RHNA units (70.9 percent) are in tracts where 40 to 60 percent of renters are cost burdened, including 71.8 percent of lower income units, 76.3 percent of moderate income units, and 69.1 percent of above moderate income units. This is consistent with the overall makeup of the City, where 40 to 60 percent of renters overpay for housing in most tracts. A larger share of above moderate income units and moderate income units are in tracts where more renters are cost burdened compared to lower income units. The City does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in tracts where renter cost burden is prevalent. The distribution of units generally reflects the overall composition of Berkeley and does not exacerbate existing conditions related to cost burden. Table E-11: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Cost Burdened Renter Households | Cost Burdened Renters | Lower | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (Tract) | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | <20% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | 20-40% | 606 | 13.5% | 179 | 9.3% | 1,452 | 18.2% | 2,237 | 15.5% | | 40-60% | 3,232 | 71.8% | 1,463 | 76.3% | 5,519 | 69.1% | 10,214 | 70.9% | | 60-80% | 661 | 14.7% | 275 | 14.3% | 1,014 | 12.7% | 1,950 | 13.5% | | >80% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | E-24 Figure E-13: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022.* ### Overcrowding There are no tracts in Berkeley where more than 8.2 percent of households, the Statewide average, are overcrowded (Figure E-14). Therefore, the City’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing conditions related to overcrowding. E-25 Figure E-14: Sites Inventory and Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022; VTA, 2022.* ### Displacement There are 12 tracts in Berkeley that have been identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. Most of these tracts are located in the Central Berkeley and South Berkeley neighborhoods. Approximately 54 percent of all RHNA units are in tracts that are not considered sensitive communities including 58.7 percent of above moderate income units and 70.3 percent of moderate income units (Table E-12). A majority (62 percent) of lower income units are located in one of the identified sensitive communities at risk of displacement. In part, this is because Central and South Berkeley neighborhoods are in close proximity to transit access, including Downtown BART and Ashby Stations. As transit priority areas, these areas are developed at higher densities, which can facilitate the development of affordable projects. Table E-12: Distribution of RHNA Units by Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement | Sensitive Community (Tract) | Lower | Moderate | Above Moderate | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | Units | Percent | | Not a Sensitive Community | 1,711 | 38.0% | 1,347 | 70.3% | 4,689 | 58.7% | 7,747 | 53.8% | | Sensitive Community | 2,788 | 62.0% | 570 | 29.7% | 3,296 | 41.3% | 6,654 | 46.2% | | Total | 4,499 | 100.0% | 1,917 | 100.0% | 7,985 | 100.0% | 14,401 | 100.0% | E-26 # E3 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS State law requires that jurisdictions identify fair housing issues and their contributing factors, and assign a priority level for each factor. Furthermore, specific goals and actions must be identified that would reduce the severity of each fair housing issue. ## E3.1 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH *Issue #1: Insufficient fair housing testing and limited outreach capacity* While ECHO does conduct fair housing testing in the City, none of the tests conducted between 2019 and 2021 found any differential treatment. This finding is at odds with the number of fair housing inquiries per 1,000 residents in the City. Between 2013 and 2021, HCD received 0.48 fair housing inquiries per 1,000 residents in Berkeley, the second highest rate amongst Alameda County cities. Furthermore, despite the higher rate of inquiries, there were no official complaints filed by Berkeley residents through HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) or ECHO between 2016 and 2021. According to the City’s 2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, 23 complaints were filed by Berkeley residents between 2010 and 2014, more than half of which were related to disability status. The 2020 Alameda County AI found that the City of Berkeley lacked local private outreach and enforcement. | Contributing Factors | Priority Level | Goals and Actions | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Insufficient fair housing testing | Medium | Seek additional grant funding to receive more support from fair housing agencies. | | Lack of targeted outreach | High | Ensure adequate resources and staffing levels to conducted targeted outreach, particularly in South Berkeley, Southside, and Downtown. | ## E3.2 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION *Issue #2: Patterns of segregation in the South Berkeley areas* Racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI households are largely concentrated in the same areas of the City (South Berkeley, Southside, and Downtown Berkeley neighborhoods). Renters in these neighborhoods are cost burdened at a higher rate than the remainder of the City. South Berkeley also has a higher concentration of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households. These areas were redlined or C-graded by the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s. This is also an area of high segregation and poverty in Berkeley. | Contributing Factors | Priority Level | Goals and Actions | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Historical redlining | High | Pursue place-based strategies and outreach programs to both produce more affordable housing and protect tenants from displacement in cost-burdened neighborhoods. | | Lack of private investment | High | Seek additional grants to fund affordable housing, in addition to local bond measures and housing trust fund. | | Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities | Medium | Provide mobility counseling and attract landlords to participate with the Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) in the housing voucher program, with continued investment in its Housing Quality Standards program to ensure safe and decent living conditions for all voucher holders.

Establish a development arm of the Berkeley Housing Authority to develop new affordable units. | # E3.3 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES *Issue #3: Lower opportunity areas and environmental conditions concentrated on the western side of the City* The City of Berkeley is comprised of mostly TCAC-designated high resource tracts. Compared to other Alameda County jurisdictions along the coastal East Bay area, such as Oakland and San Leandro, Berkeley residents have better economic, environmental, and education conditions. The Berkeley Marina neighborhood on the western City boundary and tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus have lower TCAC-classifications. These tracts are considered moderate resource areas and one is an area of high segregation and poverty. While these tracts tend to have lower TCAC opportunity composite scores and worse environmental conditions according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, educational opportunities in these areas are high. The Berkeley Marina neighborhood specifically has the lowest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores but scored in the highest quartile in TCAC education scores. The City is characterized by high quality public schools throughout the City, and high graduation rates. Transportation opportunities are also highly accessible to residents Citywide. Economic scores in tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus are lower compared to the rest of the City. There are also discrepancies amongst environmental conditions in the City. The eastern side has superior environmental conditions compared to the western side, specifically in the Berkeley Marina, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, and Southwest Berkeley neighborhoods. It is important to note that nearly 40 percent of units selected to meet the RHNA are in tracts with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the 51st percentile or above (worse), including 50.5 percent of lower income units. However, a majority of sites selected to meet the RHNA are in tracts with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the 50th percentile or below (best). | Contributing Factors | Priority Level | Goals and Actions | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Exposure of some neighborhoods to poor environmental conditions | Medium | Require building upgrades and proactive inspections to reduce exposure to environmental factors as well as eliminate fossil fuels and reduce emissions Citywide, but particularly in residential areas in proximity to manufacturing districts. | | Lack of private or public investment in certain neighborhoods | High | Partner with organizations including Rebuilding Together, Habitat for Humanity, and Center for Independent Living to fund home modifications for lower income households. | | | | Target outreach for home modification programs in areas identified as low or moderate resources by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. | | Historical redlining | High | Create opportunity for in-fill middle housing to allow for greater density and flexibility and ownership opportunities in single-family districts. | # E3.4 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS *Issue #4: Concentrations of sensitive communities at risk of displacement in the South and Central Berkeley neighborhoods* As discussed in Section E2.9 Displacement, there are 12 tracts that have been identified in the City as areas at risk of displacement. These tracts are generally concentrated in the South Berkeley and Central Berkeley neighborhoods. This section of Berkeley was redlined in the 1930s. Redlined areas, including the sensitive tracts at-risk of displacement, are more prone to racial and economic segregation, economic inequality, and inferior environmental, climate, and health conditions. These areas also tend to have aging housing units and higher rates of cost burden. | Contributing Factors | Priority Level | Goals and Actions | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Historical redlining | High | Develop a housing preference policy to assist residents at-risk of displacement, as well as those who have already been displaced, to receive priority for new, local affordable housing units. | | Age of housing stock | Medium | Continue applying for grant and state funding to support housing preservation, maintenance, and resiliency. These include programs for seismic safety and preparedness and electrification upgrades and energy efficiency, as well as loans to assist home improvements for senior and disabled populations. | | Increasing rental prices and cost burden | High | Create a legal pathway for tenants to have the opportunity to collectively purchase or assign rights to an affordable housing developer when a property owner is ready to sell. Pair with targeted outreach and education to both tenants and property owners. | # E4 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES ## E4.1 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH The City of Berkeley has committed to comply with the federal Fair Housing Act which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (families with children), and disability. California law adds protections related to ancestry and marital status, and local Berkeley law protects individuals based on sexual orientation and HIV/AIDS status. As outlined on the City’s website, the following activities are illegal if based on one of the protected classes mentioned previously under the Fair Housing Act: * Refuse to rent or sell housing * Refuse to negotiate for housing * Make housing unavailable * Set different terms, conditions, or privileges for sale or rental * Provide different housing services or facilities * Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale or rental * For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) * Deny any access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale of housing * Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules or services if necessary for a disabled person to use the housing * Refuse to allow a disabled person to make reasonable accommodations to their dwelling * Threaten or interfere with anyone making a fair housing complaint * Refuse to provide municipal services, property insurance, or hazard insurance for dwellings, or providing such services or insurance differently The City of Berkeley has demonstrated commitment to Fair Housing for many years through its funding of community agencies to provide assistance with fair housing complaints, help people find housing, and make new and existing housing more accessible. As a recipient of federal funds, the City of Berkeley also has an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Periodically (generally every five years) the City completes an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice, a HUD-mandated assessment of fair housing issues and the development of strategies to address them. The Analysis of Impediments was last created in 2015. Every year, the City reports on its efforts to implement the Analysis of Impediments in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. Eden Council of Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing provides fair housing services, including fair housing counseling, complaint investigation, discrimination complaint assistance, rental assistance programs, homeseeking services, shared housing counseling and placement, and homebuyer education workshops to Alameda County residents. ECHO is a non-profit agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. ECHO also provides fair housing services and classes in English and Spanish, online information in multiple languages, and interpretation and translation services. Workshops educate tenants on fair housing law and include information on discriminatory practices, protections for immigrants, people with disabilities, and families with children, occupancy standards, and landlord-tenant laws. The East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) also provides fair housing services to Berkeley residents. The EBCLC defends eviction lawsuits brought against low income tenants and enforces local rent and eviction ordinances. The program emphasizes defense of long-term tenancies to preserve the value of rent-controlled units. EBCLC also prioritizes subsidized tenancies such as those in Section 8 and conventional public housing programs, as well as on behalf of tenants with disabilities. In addition to State and Federal fair housing laws, the City of Berkeley has implemented the following ordinances related to fair housing and affordability. *Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance:* The City of Berkeley limits rent increases on units built before 1980 to the extent allowed by State law. Landlords may charge market rate rents when a unit is vacated and leased to a new tenant.[^p296-6] The Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance also provides eviction controls and defines just causes for eviction. As of April 2022, approximately 19,000 rental units in the City were covered by the rent stabilization ordinance. *Condominium Conversion Ordinance:* The City’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance limits the number of condominium conversions in the City to a maximum of 100 per year and charges a mitigation fee to offset the loss of affordable housing due to conversions. *Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee:* The City of Berkeley adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance in 1973. In response to a 2009 court ruling that invalidated inclusionary requirements for rental housing in California, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee on new market-rate rental units, which provides revenue to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and methodology was updated in 2020 by Resolution 68,074 – N.S. ### Fair Housing Enforcement The 2020 Alameda County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified the following impediments in the County related to fair housing enforcement capacity: [^p296-6]: Vacancy decontrol was mandated after the State legislature passed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Act in 1995, which allows rent to increase to market rates when a qualifying vacancy occurs and reinstates rent control for a new tenant. * Inadequate funding and organizational capacity for fair housing enforcement due to caps on HUD CDBG allocations; * Lack of private funding sources for fair housing organizations; * Reduction in the number of fair housing organizations has lessened fair housing activities overall; * Federal and state funding to Alameda County for affordable housing has declined by 80 percent since 2008 for a deficit of approximately $124 million annually; * LIHTC production and preservation in Alameda County has increased by 67 percent overall from 2016, but state production and preservation has decreased by 23 percent; * Alameda County needs 52,291 more affordable rental homes to meet the need; * Local tax initiatives included Berkeley’s Measure O, but the amount of funding available does not meet the demand for affordable housing. Fair housing inquiries filed through HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) can be used to identify concerns that residents have about possible discrimination. Fair housing inquiries are not official housing discrimination cases, rather comments or questions posed by residents that may or may not have been pursued as an official complaint. Total fair housing inquiries by City are presented in Figure E-15 and inquiries per 1,000 persons by City are included in Figure E-16. HUD received the highest number of housing inquiries from Oakland residents (156 inquiries), followed by Berkeley (59), and Hayward (49). Despite the high volume of inquiries originating in Oakland, Emeryville had by far the highest volume of inquiries of 0.83 inquiries per 1,000 persons. Berkeley had the next highest volume of inquiries of 0.48 inquiries per 1,000 persons, followed by Oakland (0.36). **Figure E-15: FHEO Fair Housing Inquiries by City (January 2013-March 2021)** <
> *Note: Piedmont had no inquiries during this period.* *Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (HUD, 2020), 2022.* E-31 Figure E-16: FHEO Fair Housing Inquiries per 1,000 Persons by City (January 2013-March 2021) <
> Note: Piedmont had no inquiries during this period. Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (HUD, 2020), 2022. Discrimination complaints from both resident and prospective County tenants can be filed through ECHO, which refers complaints to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Office. Complaints filed through FHEO by Alameda County residents from 2017 to 2020 are shown in Table E-13 and complaints filed through ECHO from 2016 to 2021 are shown in Table E-14. A total of 203 complaints were filed through the FHEO between 2017 and 2020. Nearly half of all complaints filed through FHEO were related to disability status. This finding is consistent with federal and state trends. According to the 2020 State AI, 51 percent of housing-related complaints filed with FHEO between 2015 and 2019 were filed under disability claims, making disability the most common basis for a complaint. The second most common complaint in the County was related to retaliation (12.3 percent). Complaints related to race accounted for 11.3 percent of all complaints, most of which (7.9 percent) were related to discrimination against Black residents. Table E-13: FHEO Complaints – Alameda County (2017-2020) | | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2017-2020 Total | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | Cases | % of Total | | Color | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1.5% | | Disability | 32 | 26 | 28 | 15 | 101 | 49.8% | | Familial Status | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 20 | 9.9% | | National Origin | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 4.4% | | Hispanic Origin | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2.0% | | Race | 7 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 23 | 11.3% | | Asian | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5% | | Black | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 7.9% | | Black and White | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5% | | Native American | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.0% | | White | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.5% | | Religion | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 2.5% | | Retaliation | 7 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 25 | 12.3% | | Sex | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 17 | 8.4% | | Total Cases | 69 | 61 | 52 | 21 | 203 | 100% | E-32 Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (HUD, 2020), 2022. Between 2016 and 2021, 1,369 fair housing complaints were filed with ECHO. Complaints related to disability status also made up the highest share amongst complaints filed with ECHO (31.4 percent), followed by a basis not listed (21.9 percent), and race (20.2 percent). Complaints related to race have decreased significantly as of 2021, while complaints on the basis of disability status have increased slightly. Table E-14: Fair Housing Complaints Filed with ECHO (2016-2021) | | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Total | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | | Complaints | Percent | | Race | 20.3% | 23.6% | 27.0% | 22.2% | 9.3% | 276 | 20.2% | | National Origin | 4.9% | 2.8% | 2.6% | 3.8% | 10.7% | 70 | 5.1% | | Disability | 28.8% | 33.3% | 33.0% | 26.6% | 34.0% | 430 | 31.4% | | Familial Status | 10.1% | 11.1% | 5.2% | 7.6% | 7.2% | 116 | 8.5% | | Marital Status | 1.1% | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.3% | 0.3% | 15 | 1.1% | | Religion | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 2.1% | 31 | 2.3% | | Sex | 3.6% | 6.6% | 3.4% | 11.4% | 4.5% | 72 | 5.3% | | Source of Income | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.5% | 7.0% | 8.9% | 47 | 3.4% | | Age | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 3.1% | 12 | 0.9% | | Other | 30.7% | 17.7% | 25.8% | 6.3% | 19.9% | 300 | 21.9% | | Total | 365 | 288 | 267 | 158 | 291 | 1,369 | 291 | Notes: 1. Complaints were only filed in the City of Alameda (281 complaints), San Leandro (144 complaints), Hayward (124 complaints), and Oakland (820 complaints). 2. A flood in 2020 of ECHO’s records room may have destroyed records of early 2020 complaints. FY 2019-2020 may be incomplete. Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (ECHO Fair Housing, 2021), 2022. As shown in Figure E-15 and Figure E-16 above, Berkeley had the second highest number of total HCD Fair Housing inquiries and second highest number of inquiries based on cases per population in Alameda County. Between January 2013 and March 2021. FHEO received 59 inquiries from Berkeley residents, or 0.48 inquiries per 1,000 persons. According to 2016-2021 ECHO Fair Housing data, no official fair housing complaints have been filed by Berkeley residents. During this period, 820 complaints were filed by Oakland residents, 281 by City of Alameda residents, 144 by San Leandro residents, 124 by Hayward residents, and 95 by Fremont residents. Fair housing cases filed in Fremont are recorded and handled by Project Sentinel while cases filed in the City of Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, and Oakland are recorded and handled by ECHO. Of the 1,369 cases filed through ECHO, 56.2 percent were offered counseling, 25.3 percent were found to have insufficient evidence, 5.6 percent were successfully conciliated, three percent were dropped, 8.2 percent were provided landlord education, and 1.5 percent were referred to an attorney, DFEH, or HUD. One case is still pending. The most recent Alameda County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (2020) stated the following regarding fair housing enforcement capacity: Stakeholders and participating jurisdictions have commented that inadequate funding and organizational capacity are the primary limitations on expanding or improving fair housing enforcement. HUD directs recipients of CDBG funds to use the grant’s administrative or social services allocations for fair housing activities, including creation of an analysis of impediments. However, HUD also caps those allocation amounts, which limits participating jurisdictions from using more of these funds on fair housing activities. Participating jurisdictions generally do not use any other public or private source of funding for their fair housing activities. While participating jurisdictions have limited funding to offer fair housing organizations, fair housing organizations have other funding sources, such as HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP); however, these organizations generally do not have many other private funding sources. Other fair housing activities are funded from federal and state resources, such as services provided by the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The number of fair housing organizations and their respective capacities has also constrained the amount of fair housing activities. Participating jurisdictions commented that a reduction in the number of fair housing organizations has lessened fair housing activities overall. According to HUD guidance, a common factor for fair housing complaints can be a lack of affordable housing supply. According to the California Housing Partnership’s Housing Emergency Update for Alameda County, federal and state funding to Alameda County for affordable housing has declined by 80 percent since 2008, leaving a deficit of approximately $124 million annually (California Housing Partnership, 2018). Additionally, while LIHTC production and preservation in Alameda County has increased by 67 percent overall from 2016, the state production and preservation has decreased by 23 percent. Lastly, the report finds that Alameda County needs 52,291 more affordable rental homes to meet the need. To combat this lack of state and federal funding, local tax initiatives have been approved, including the County’s Measure A1, Berkeley’s Measure O, and Emeryville’s Measure C; however, due to the demand for affordable housing, the need still far exceeds these local measures. Additional information on capacity constraints from ECHO Housing is included below:[^p300-7] * Inadequate funding - funding from a couple jurisdictions in the County is insufficient. * HUD capping allocation amounts - public services (15%) allocation should be increased. * Reduction in the number of fair housing organizations in the region - at least two fair housing agencies in the East Bay have closed their doors. * Lack of affordable housing supply - the affordable housing that is needed is housing that is affordable to persons on public assistance, accessible housing for persons with disabilities, and senior citizens. * Findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments related to fair housing or civil rights - we have not filed any administrative complaints in recent years. Our mediation attempts, in place of litigation, have been very successful. ### Fair Housing Testing ECHO Housing conducts fair housing testing in Alameda County cities including Alameda, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, San Leandro, Union City, Pleasanton, and Berkeley. Fair housing audit results for Alameda County cities are presented in Table E-15. ECHO Housing found that tests conducted in Oakland had the highest rate of differential treatment (17.3 percent), followed by Livermore (12 percent), and Hayward (11.4 percent). Of all fair housing audits conducted by ECHO between 2016 and 2021, 11.7 percent showed differential treatment. Ten fair housing audits were conducted in Berkeley in both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 fiscal years. Of all 20 audits conducted, none showed evidence of differential treatment. [^p300-7]: Rocha, Marjorie A., Executive Director, ECHO Housing. 2022. Personal communication with Alameda County Collaborative. March 15. Table E-15: ECHO Fair Housing Audit Results – Audits Showing Differential Treatment (2016-2021) | | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Total w/ Differential Treatment | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | Audits | Percent | | Alameda | 10% | 10% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 4 | 8.0% | | Hayward | 40% | 0% | 0% | 10% | 10% | 4 | 11.4% | | Livermore | 20% | 30% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 6 | 12.0% | | Oakland | 20% | 30% | 10% | 3% | 23% | 26 | 17.3% | | San Leandro | 11% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4 | 8.7% | | Union City | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 0% | 2 | 6.7% | | Pleasanton | -- | -- | -- | 10% | 0% | 1 | 5.0% | | Berkeley | -- | -- | -- | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.0% | Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (ECHO Fair Housing, 2021), 2022. ## Fair Housing Education and Outreach During the process of drafting the 2020 Alameda County Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Choice, the Alameda County Regional Housing (2019) Survey was distributed throughout the County and 3,296 responses were collected. Community engagement meetings were also held in Berkeley, Oakland, and Hayward. According to the 2020 AI, “these locations were chosen due to their proximity to the highest number of priority groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, people residing in R/ECAPs, and people with limited English proficiency. The most northern and central parts of the County have R/ECAPS and large homeless populations, two locations in the northern part of the County, Berkeley and Oakland, and one centrally located in Hayward were chosen. Berkeley was also chosen because a large portion of the population includes people with disabilities.” The County prioritized engagement with racial and ethnic minority populations, persons with disabilities, persons residing in R/ECAPs, and people with limited English proficiency due to lack of historical engagement in housing issues and because these groups are most likely to have disproportionate housing needs. The survey was provided in English, Dari, Spanish, Tagalog, Traditional Chinese, and Vietnamese. The following outreach efforts were conducted by the County and City of Berkeley related to the 2020 AI: * Published a legal notice advertising community engagement meetings and resident survey in Daily Review, Oakland Tribune, and Fremont Argus on June 28, 2019, and the Alameda Times and Tri-Valley Star on June 29, 2019. * First 5 Alameda County distributed a newsletter with a link to the survey. * July 4: Piedmont – 4th of July Parade – Piedmont City staff set up a flyer display. * July 5: Pleasanton – Alameda County Fair, agricultural display area; 10 a.m.-3 p.m.; County employee engaged with public. * July 27: Hayward – DSAL Boxing, Hayward Adult School; 1–6 p.m.; DSAL distributed survey flyers. * August 6: San Lorenzo – National Night Out, St. John’s Church; 5–8 p.m.; County employee engaged with public at the table. * August 16: Ashland – School backpack giveaway. * August 24: Emeryville Block Party; 11:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. * Sent notice to: * Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee * Alameda County Housing and Community Development staff (then sent to homeless providers and housing developers) o Board of Supervisors o Urban County cities – Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, and Piedmont o Grantees: HARD, Eden I&R, Alameda County Child Care Council, Deputy Sheriff’s Activities League, ECHO, 7th Step Foundation o Other Dublin and Tri-Valley services providers/grantees: CityServe, CRIL, Tri-Valley Haven, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Las Positas Community College, Axis Community Health, Open Heart Kitchen o Dublin Human Services Commission o First 5 Alameda County • Published notice of availability of Draft Regional Analysis of Impediments for review by the public • *Berkeley* – Emailed contacts about the survey and community engagement meetings; encouraged participation in and forwarding the survey to friends, clients, colleagues, and other organizations. • *Berkeley* – Distributed press release about the survey and the Berkeley-based community engagement meeting. • *Berkeley* – Published notice of availability of Draft Regional Analysis of Impediments for review by the public ## E4.2 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION ### Race/Ethnicity Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”- households with extended family members and non-kin.[^p302-8] These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).[^p302-9] To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, ABAG provided AFFH Segregation Reports that include isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Thiel’s H indices for ABAG jurisdictions such as Alameda County and the City of Berkeley. **Isolation Index.** Isolation indices compare a neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole. The index returns values of 0 to 1, where higher values indicate a particular racial or ethnic group is more isolated from other groups. An isolation index of 0.65 for Latinx residents, for example, indicates the average Latinx resident in the City lives in a neighborhood that is 65 percent Latinx. [^p302-8]: Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821-846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9101102. [^p302-9]: Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J., Mannon, S.E., & Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. (Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. E-36 **Dissimilarity Index.** Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as tracts within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 denoting no segregation and 1 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, an index score above 0.60 indicates 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index: * <0.40: Low Segregation * 0.40-0.54: Moderate Segregation * >0.55: High Segregation **Thiel’s H Index.** The Thiel’s H Index is used to measure segregation between all racial/ethnic groups within a jurisdiction by comparing neighborhood diversity to citywide diversity. Neighborhoods are weighted by size so larger neighborhoods are more influential in determining the total measure of segregation. The Thiel’s H Index also ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates all neighborhoods have the same demographics as the whole City, and 1 indicates each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood. **Regional Trends.** Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices for the Bay Area are presented in Table E-16. Isolation indices show that Asian/Pacific Islander and Latinx communities have become increasingly isolated since 2000. Conversely, Black and White communities have seen a decrease in isolation during the same period. White populations maintain the highest value of isolation of 0.491, while Black populations are the least isolated (0.053). These values indicate that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction, a White resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1 percent White, while a Black resident lives in a neighborhood where only 0.05 percent of the population is Black. Dissimilarity indices for the Bay Area show that Black and White communities are the most segregated compared to segregation between other non-White and White communities. Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the least segregated from White residents compared to Latinx and Black residents. Segregation between all non-White groups and Whites has decreased in the Bay Area since 2000. Based on HUD’s definitions for dissimilarity values, segregation between all non-White and White communities is low. The Thiel’s H index in the Bay Area has declined, indicating there is now less neighborhood-level racial segregation. This pattern is consistent with isolation and dissimilarity index trends described previously. **Table E-16: Racial/Ethnic Segregation Indices – Bay Area (2000-2020)** | | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Isolation Index | | | | | Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.161 | 0.204 | 0.245 | | Black | 0.071 | 0.062 | 0.053 | | Latinx | 0.199 | 0.237 | 0.251 | | White | 0.652 | 0.572 | 0.491 | | Dissimilarity Index | | | | | Asian or Pacific Islander/White | 0.194 | 0.192 | 0.185 | | Black/White | 0.265 | 0.249 | 0.244 | | Latinx/White | 0.232 | 0.219 | 0.207 | | Non-White/White | 0.194 | 0.185 | 0.168 | | Thiel’s H | 0.052 | 0.048 | 0.042 | *Source: ABAG AFFH Data Report (based on Decennial Census 2000, 2010, and 2020), 2022.* E-37 White (31.4 percent), Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) (30.7 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (22.4 percent) populations make up the largest share of Alameda County (Table E-17). Compared to the Bay Area as a whole, Alameda County has larger Asian/API and Black/African American populations. Nearly 31 percent of the population in the County is Asian and 10 percent is Black compared to only 27 percent and 6 percent, respectively, in the Bay Area. The County also has a smaller White population of 31.4 percent compared to 39.3 percent in the Bay Area. Of the selected jurisdictions adjacent to Berkeley, Orinda has the largest White population (72 percent) and Richmond has the smallest White population (17.8 percent). Richmond is comprised of a large Hispanic/Latino population, accounting for 42.5 percent the total population. Figure E-17 shows racial/ethnic minority populations by block group in the region. Racial/ethnic minority populations tend to be more concentrated in coastal cities such as Richmond, Oakland, San Leandro, and Daly City. Compared to these jurisdictions, Berkeley and San Francisco have lower concentrations of non-White populations. Most Marin County jurisdictions and inland Contra Costa and Alameda County jurisdictions have much smaller racial/ethnic minority populations. As shown in Figure E-18, most tracts in the region have White predominant populations. There are pockets of tracts with Asian predominant populations located in San Francisco, Daly City, coastal East Bay areas, and central Contra Costa/Alameda County. Hispanic predominant populations are concentrated in and around the cities of San Leandro and Richmond. Black predominant populations follow a similar pattern and are also concentrated around the City of Oakland. <
> Table E-17: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Berkeley, Alameda County, The Bay Area, and Neighboring Jurisdictions (2019) | Race/Ethnicity | Berkeley | Alameda County | Bay Area | El Cerrito | Emeryville | Oakland | Orinda | Piedmont | Richmond | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3% | | Asian and API, non-Hispanic | 21.3% | 30.7% | 26.7% | 30.9% | 29.0% | 15.9% | 16.4% | 17.9% | 15.5% | | Black or African American, non-Hispanic | 7.7% | 10.3% | 5.8% | 4.7% | 14.7% | 23.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 19.5% | | White, non-Hispanic | 53.3% | 31.4% | 39.3% | 47.5% | 40.3% | 28.3% | 72.0% | 70.9% | 17.8% | | Other Race or Multiple Races, non-Hispanic | 6.1% | 4.8% | 4.5% | 6.2% | 6.3% | 5.2% | 5.2% | 5.6% | 4.4% | | Hispanic or Latinx | 11.4% | 22.4% | 23.5% | 10.2% | 9.6% | 27.0% | 5.3% | 4.2% | 42.5% | | Total | 121,485 | 1,656,754 | 7,710,026 | 25,398 | 11,899 | 425,097 | 19,646 | 11,317 | 109,884 | Note: API = Asian Pacific Islander. Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. E-38 Figure E-17: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:04:25 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (R) Racial Demographics (2018) - Block Group [ ] $\leq$ 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] > 81% 1:288,895 0 | 2.75 | 5.5 | 11 mi 0 | 4.5 | 9 | 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), 2018), 2022. E-39 Figure E-18: Regional Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population by Tract (2010) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:08:01 PM | | | | 1:288,895 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | (R) Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority Tracts | Sizeable (gap 10% - 50%) | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi | | (R) Predominant Population - White Majority Tracts | Slim (gap < 10%) | Predominant (gap > 50%) | 0 4.5 9 18 km | | Slim (gap < 10%) | Sizeable (gap 10% - 50%) | (R) Predominant Population - African American Majority Tracts | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | | Sizeable (gap 10% - 50%) | Predominant (gap > 50%) | Slim (gap < 10%) | | | Predominant (gap > 50%) | (R) Predominant Population - Asian Majority Tracts | Sizeable (gap 10% - 50%) | | | | Slim (gap < 10%) | Predominant (gap > 50%) | | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © CA HCD Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census), 2022. E-40 **Local Trends.** As shown in Table E-17 above, Berkeley has a larger White population compared to both Alameda County and the Bay Area. In the City, 53.3 percent of the population is White, 21.3 percent is Asian or API, and 11.4 percent is Hispanic or Latino. The White population in Berkeley is comparable to El Cerrito, but larger than Emeryville, Oakland, and Richmond and smaller than Orinda and Piedmont. Figure E-19 shows the racial and ethnic composition trends in Berkeley from 2000 to 2019. Though the White population has decreased since 2000, it remains the predominant population in the City, accounting for 53 percent. The Black population has steadily decreased over the past two decades, representing 14 percent of the population in 2000 compared to only 8 percent in 2019. Conversely, the Asian/API population has increased from 17 percent to 21 percent. The Hispanic population has increased slightly (from 10 percent to 11 percent) during the same period. These trends are consistent with patterns in the County and Bay Area. The Black population in the County and Bay Area was 14.6 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively, in 2000. As of 2019, only 10.3 percent of the County population and 5.8 percent of the Bay Area population is Black or African American. The Asian population in the County increased from 20.3 percent to 30.7 percent during the same period. **Figure E-19: Racial/Ethnic Composition Trends (2000-2019)** <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census 2000, 2010; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.* Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices are presented in Table E-18. Isolation indices for all racial/ethnic groups, except Latinos, are higher in Berkeley than in the Bay Area as a whole. Since 2000, Asian/Pacific Islander and Latino communities have become increasingly isolated. During the same period, isolation of Black and White communities decreased. Dissimilarity indices indicate that segregation in Berkeley amongst all non-White and White communities is higher than in the Bay Area. Like the region, segregation between Black and White communities is the highest. According to HUD’s definitions for dissimilarity, segregation between Black and White populations in Berkeley is moderate. Segregation is considered low between White and Asian, Latino, and non-White communities. Over the past two decades, Asian and White residents have become increasingly segregated, while segregation has decreased between Black, Latino, non-White and White communities. Table E-18: Racial/Ethnic Segregation Indices – Berkeley (2000-2020) | | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Isolation Index | | | | | Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.232 | 0.269 | 0.255 | | Black | 0.316 | 0.211 | 0.134 | | Latinx | 0.137 | 0.14 | 0.167 | | White | 0.623 | 0.598 | 0.543 | | Dissimilarity Index | | | | | Asian or Pacific Islander/White | 0.276 | 0.324 | 0.303 | | Black/White | 0.590 | 0.524 | 0.418 | | Latinx/White | 0.382 | 0.310 | 0.279 | | Non-White/White | 0.338 | 0.290 | 0.240 | | Thiel's H | 0.128 | 0.097 | 0.065 | *Source: ABAG AFFH Data Report (based on Decennial Census 2000, 2010, and 2020), 2022.* Figure E-20 and Figure E-21 compare racial/ethnic minority concentrations geographically in 2010 and 2018. The non-White population increased from 45.3 percent in 2010 to 46.7 percent in 2019. This pattern is shown below, where the racial/ethnic minority population increased in most Berkeley block groups between 2010 and 2018. Racial/ethnic minorities are most concentrated in block groups in the Southside, Downtown Berkeley, and UC Berkeley neighborhoods (adjacent to the University of California-Berkeley (UC Berkeley) campus), South Berkeley neighborhood, Gilman neighborhood, and Northwest Berkeley neighborhood. There are only three block groups, two in the southeast corner of the City and one in the Berkeley Hills neighborhood, where less than 20 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. The Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Northbrae, and Claremont neighborhoods generally have smaller populations of people of color compared to the remainder of the City. Predominant racial and ethnic populations by tract are included in Figure E-22. Most tracts in the City have predominant White populations. The northeastern section of the City and Claremont neighborhood have the largest White predominant populations, whereas tracts in the central, southern, and western parts of the City, and tracts surrounding UC Berkeley, have smaller White predominant populations. One tract, located southwest of UC Berkeley (Southside neighborhood), has an Asian predominant population, and one tract, located in the southwestern corner of the City (South Berkeley neighborhood), has an African American predominant population. # Figure E-20: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2010) <
> 3/9/2022, 3:25:01 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (A) Racial Demographics (2010) - Block Group [ ] ≤20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] > 81% Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban CA HCD *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI, 2010), 2022.* # Figure E-21: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:12:51 AM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (R) Racial Demographics (2018) - Block Group [ ] ≤20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] > 81% Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI, 2018), 2022.* E-43 Figure E-22: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population by Tract (2010) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census), 2022. ### Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations associated with their disability. Regional Trends. Nearly 10 percent of the population in the Bay Area experiences one or more disability. Compared to the Bay Area, Alameda County and Berkeley have smaller population of persons with disabilities of 9.2 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. Typically, elderly populations have higher rates of disability. However, according to the 2015-2019 ACS, 13.5 percent of the population in Alameda County is aged 65 or older compared to 14.5 percent in Berkeley. Table E-19: Disability Status (2019) | | No Disability | With Disability | Percent with Disability | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Berkeley | 110,597 | 10,529 | 8.7% | | Alameda County | 1,496,381 | 151,368 | 9.2% | | Bay Area | 6,919,762 | 735,533 | 9.6% | Note: Data reflects civilian noninstitutionalized population. Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. E-44 Disability status by race/ethnicity and age for Alameda County is shown in Table E-20. The proportion of persons with disabilities has increased from 8.7 percent in 2010 to 9.2 percent in 2019. The population of children 5 years and younger, 5 to 17, and adults 18 to 34 was higher in 2010 than during the 2015-2019 ACS. A larger proportion of the Black/African American population, Asian population, population of some other race, and Hispanic/Latino population experiences a disability during the 2015-2019 ACS compared to the 2010 ACS. Currently, nearly 50 percent of residents aged 75 and 20.4 percent aged 65 to 74 experience a disability. Disabilities are most common amongst American Indian and Alaska Native populations (18.3 percent), followed by Black or African American populations (16 percent), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations (11.4 percent), and White non-Hispanic populations (10.8 percent). Table E-20: Disability Status by Race/Ethnicity and Age – Alameda County (2019) | | 2010 | 2019 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Total Population | Percent with Disability | Total Population | Percent with Disability | | **Race/Ethnicity** | | | | | | Black or African American alone | 182,074 | 13.5% | 173,685 | 16.0% | | American Indian and Alaska Native alone | 7,669 | 18.3% | 10,994 | 18.3% | | Asian alone | 399,087 | 5.8% | 498,238 | 6.5% | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone | 12,058 | 12.8% | 13,860 | 11.4% | | Some other race alone | 129,721 | 4.8% | 178,444 | 6.3% | | Two or more races | 83,001 | 8.1% | 106,471 | 8.0% | | White alone, not Hispanic or Latino | 509,065 | 11.0% | 517,094 | 10.8% | | Hispanic or Latino (of any race) | 338,676 | 5.7% | 369,021 | 7.3% | | **Age** | | | | | | Under 5 years | 97,132 | 0.8% | 96,846 | 0.4% | | 5 to 17 years | 243,258 | 2.9% | 246,829 | 3.6% | | 18 to 34 years | 375,312 | 3.6% | 414,206 | 4.4% | | 35 to 64 years | 619,198 | 8.3% | 669,979 | 7.9% | | 65 to 74 years | 90,338 | 22.4% | 130,769 | 20.4% | | 75 years and over | 75,297 | 49.4% | 89,120 | 49.5% | | Total civilian noninstitutionalized population | 1,500,535 | 8.7% | 1,647,749 | 9.2% | *Source: 2010 ACS (1-Year Estimate) and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* *Note: 5-Year Estimates are not available for 2010 ACS disability status data.* The regional populations of persons with disabilities by tract are shown in Figure E-23. In most tracts, less than 20 percent of the population experiences a disability. There are small concentrations of tracts with populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 20 percent in and surrounding the cities of Oakland, San Francisco, Martinez, Concord, Walnut Creek, and Antioch. Tracts within the City of Berkeley have populations of persons with disabilities comparable to surrounding areas. E-45 Figure E-23: Regional Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 10% - 20% | | | (R) Population with a Disability (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract | 20% - 30% | | | < 10% | 30% - 40% | | Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-46 **Local Trends.** As discussed previously, Berkeley has a population of persons with disabilities of 8.7 percent, smaller than both Alameda County and the Bay Area. Despite having a smaller senior population that Berkeley, Alameda County has a population of persons with disabilities of 9.2 percent. According to the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), there are 279 adults and 161 children under 18 in the City with a developmental disability, representing 0.3 percent of the adult population and 1.1 percent of the child population, respectively. The California DDS is responsible for overseeing 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. Disability status often affects employment status. The 2015-2019 ACS estimates that of the population in the labor force, the unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is 12 percent compared to 5 percent amongst persons without a disability. Disability status by disability type for the adult population is presented in Figure E-24. Cognitive difficulties are the most common followed be ambulatory difficulties and independent living difficulties. Ambulatory and independent living difficulties are generally more common amongst the elderly population. Disability by disability type for the senior population is shown in Figure E-26. Approximately 14 percent of the population aged 65 and older experience an ambulatory difficulty. Independent living and hearing difficulties are also common. Of the elderly Berkeley population, 10.7 percent experience an independent living difficulty and 9.7 percent experience a hearing difficulty. **Figure E-24: Adult Population by Disability Type (2019)** <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.* E-47 Table E-21: Senior Population (65+) by Disability Type (2019) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. As shown in Table E-22, the population of persons with disabilities grew from 6.2 percent during the 2010 ACS to 8.7 percent during the 2015-2019 ACS. A significantly smaller share of the Black/African American population experienced a disability during the 2010 ACS (9.2 percent) compared to the 2010-2015 ACS (22.3 percent). A larger proportion of persons aged 5 to 64 experienced a disability in 2019 than in 2010. Currently, like the County, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (29.5 percent), Black or African American (22.3 percent), and American Indian and Alaska Native (11.4 percent) populations have the highest rate of disability in the City. Asian, White, and Hispanic/Latino populations, and populations two or more races or a race not listed, all have rates of disability below the citywide average. As discussed previously, Berkeley has a larger elderly population compared to the County. However, seniors in Berkeley experience disabilities at a lower rate compared to the County. Only 39 percent of persons 75 or older and 17.2 percent of persons aged 65 to 74 experience a disability. Table E-22: Disability Status by Race/Ethnicity and Age – Berkeley (2019) | | 2010 | | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Total Population | Percent with Disability | Total Population | Percent with Disability | | **Race/Ethnicity** | | | | | | Black or African American alone | 12,364 | 9.2% | 9,492 | 22.3% | | American Indian and Alaska Native alone | NA | NA | 634 | 11.4% | | Asian alone | 23,274 | 4.2% | 25,437 | 4.9% | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone | NA | NA | 566 | 29.5% | | Some other race alone | NA | NA | 4,618 | 8.2% | | Two or more races | 4,974 | 5.0% | 9,121 | 8.1% | | White alone, not Hispanic or Latino | 60,784 | 7.2% | 64,614 | 8.3% | | Hispanic or Latino (of any race) | NA | NA | 13,795 | 7.6% | | **Age** | | | | | | Under 5 years | 4,559 | 1.2% | 4,323 | 0.3% | | 5 to 17 years | 10,227 | 1.8% | 10,834 | 3.4% | | 18 to 34 years | 48,989 | 1.1% | 52,245 | 4.6% | E-48 | 35 to 64 years | 34,832 | 6.1% | 36,495 | 9.5% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 65 to 74 years | 8,394 | 19.4% | 11,128 | 17.2% | | 75 years and over | 5,255 | 47.1% | 6,101 | 39.0% | | Total civilian noninstitutionalized population | 112,256 | 6.2% | 121,126 | 8.7% | Source: 2010 ACS (1-Year Estimate) and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Note: 5-Year Estimates are not available for 2010 ACS disability status data. NA = Not Available. Figure E-25 and Figure E-26 show the population of persons with disabilities by tract in the City using 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS data, respectively. The population of persons with disabilities has increased in several tracts, specifically in the Central and South Berkeley neighborhoods. In general, the western side of the City has a higher rate of persons with disabilities, were between 10 and 20 percent of the population experiences a disability. In most tracts on the eastern side, less than 10 percent of the population experiences a disability. Despite the lower concentration of persons with disabilities, the north-and southeastern corners of the City have smaller populations of seniors aged 65 and older (Figure E-27). The western side of the City has a moderate population of elderly adults, indicating that it is not the senior population alone contributing to patterns of persons with disabilities in the City. The heightened concentration of persons with disabilities on the western side of the City may be, in part, due to the higher concentration of racial/ethnic minorities. As discussed above, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations have significantly higher rates of disability compared to the City as a whole. Figure E-25: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2014) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Figure E-26: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) <
> * City/Town Boundaries * 10% - 20% * < 10% (R) Population with a Disability (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* Figure E-27: Population Aged 65 and Older by Tract (2019) <
> *Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* E-50 ### Familial Status Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status covers: the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. **Regional Trends.** The composition of household types in Alameda County is comparable to the Bay Area. In both jurisdictions, approximately half of households are married couple families and a quarter are single-person households (Figure E-28). The County has a slightly higher concentration of female-headed family households compared to the Bay Area (11 percent vs. 10 percent, respectively). Both jurisdictions are comprised of nine percent other non-family households and five percent male-headed family households. Berkeley has a significantly larger proportion of single-person households (34 percent) and other non-family households (20 percent). This trend is likely due to the large percentage of students living in the City. Students and young adults are more likely to live alone or in non-family households.[^p317-10] According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 8.5 percent of the total population Countywide is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to 29 percent in Berkeley. Similarly, 8.5 percent of the Alameda County population and 24.8 percent of the Berkeley population is aged 18 to 24. **Figure E-28: Household Type Composition – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2019)** <
> [^p317-10]: A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related. Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. As shown in Table E-23, Alameda County and the Bay Area have comparable proportions of households with and without children. Approximately 34 percent of households in the County and 32 percent of households in the Bay area have one or more children under the age of 18. Consistent with the household trends described above, Berkeley has a substantially smaller proportion of households with children. Only 19.7 percent of Berkeley households have one or more children. The Census considers 18 to 34-year-olds young adults. Adults aged 34 and older are more likely to be married and/or have children. Only a quarter of the Alameda population is aged 18 to 34 compared to 43.2 percent of the Berkeley population. Additionally, 40.6 percent of the County population and 30 percent of the Berkeley population is aged 35 to 64. Table E-23: Households by Presence of Children – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2019) | Household Type | Berkeley | Alameda County | Bay Area | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | With one or more children under 18 | 19.7% | 33.6% | 32.0% | | With no children | 80.3% | 66.4% | 68.0% | | Total Households | 45,352 | 577,177 | 2,731,434 | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. Figure E-29 shows the percent of children living in married couple households by tract for the region. Tracts with higher percentages of children living in married couple households are scattered throughout the region; however, they are most concentrated in the inland areas of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Tracts with larger populations of children living in married couple households are also distributed throughout San Francisco and some Marin County jurisdictions. Tracts with fewer children living in married couple households are more concentrated in coastal East Bay cities including Oakland and Richmond. These areas tend to have larger racial/ethnic minority populations (see Figure E-16). Populations of children living in single-parent female-headed households are shown in Figure E-30. Tracts with larger populations of children in female-headed households are most concentrated on the western side of San Francisco, Oakland, and northern Contra Costa County. The western side of Alameda County has a higher concentration of children in female-headed households compared to central Contra Costa County jurisdictions to the east. As mentioned previously, these areas tend to have higher concentrations of non-White populations (see Figure E-16). E-52 Figure E-29: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:15:15 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (R) Percent of Children in Married - Couple Households (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract [ ] < 20% [ ] 20% - 40% [ ] 40% - 60% [ ] 60% - 80% [ ] > 80% 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-53 Figure E-30: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:13:58 PM | 1:288,895 --- | --- ⬜ City/Town Boundaries | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi (R) Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract | 0 4.5 9 18 km | | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-54 Local Trends. Due to the large population of students and young adults, the City has a larger concentration of non-family households including single-person households. As presented in Table E-24, the number of married couple families has increased most substantially since 2010 (+15.5 percent), followed by male-headed families (+9.3 percent), and other non-family households (+7.3 percent). The City saw a decrease in female-headed families (-11 percent) and single-person households (-2.1 percent) during the same period. In 2010, students enrolled in college or graduate school represented 31.3 percent of the population, decreasing to 29 percent in 2019.[^p321-11] However, the overall population increased from 34,207 student to 35,210 students, or three percent. The increase in other non-family households and decrease in single-person households may be, in part, due to rising rent prices that may be unaffordable to students. Cost burden and rent increases are further described in Section E4.5 Cost Burden, of this Appendix. Table E-24: Change in Household Type Composition (2010-2019) | Household Type | 2010 | | 2019 | | Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Households | Percent | Households | Percent | Change | | Female-Headed Family | 3,615 | 8.4% | 3,216 | 7.1% | -11.0% | | Male-Headed Family | 1,272 | 2.9% | 1,390 | 3.1% | 9.3% | | Married Couple Family | 13,928 | 32.2% | 16,092 | 35.5% | 15.5% | | Other Non-Family | 8,433 | 19.5% | 9,045 | 19.9% | 7.3% | | Single-person | 15,941 | 36.9% | 15,609 | 34.4% | -2.1% | | Total Households | 43,189 | 100.0% | 45,352 | 100.0% | 5.0% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021; 2006-2010 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Family households are more likely to own their homes than non-family households. Figure E-31 shows that 68.8 percent of married couple families and 42.2 percent of other families (male- or female-headed households with no spouse) are owners. In comparison, only 31.5 percent of single-person households and 17.2 percent of other non-family households own their home. Despite the increase in married couple families in the City, the proportion of owner-occupied households decreased from 43.3 percent in 2010 to 42.9 percent in 2019. The percentage of married couple families who rent their home increased from 27.5 to 31.5 during the same period. Increasing housing costs, discussed further in Section E4.5 Cost Burden, likely contribute to the increase in married couple family renters. As presented in Table E-23, 19.7 percent of Berkeley households have children, an increase from 19.4 percent in 2010. According to UC Berkeley Career Center data, 66 percent of the 2017-2019 graduating classes stayed in the Bay Area post-graduation.[^p321-12] Young adults remaining in the City likely contribute to the increase in married couple family households and households with children. [^p321-11]: Based on 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). [^p321-12]: Zhao, Alex (2020). The Daily Californian, Where do UC Berkeley students go? http://projects.dailycal.org/2020/uc-berkeley-students-after-grad/. E-55 Figure E-31: Household Type by Tenure (2019) <
> Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). In most tracts, less than 40 percent of the population lives with a spouse. Tracts where fewer than 20 percent of the population live with a spouse have large student populations. Student populations by tract are further described in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). While the HCD Data Viewer does show that there is one tract in the City, encompassing the UC Berkeley campus, where more than 80 percent of the adult population lives with their spouse (Figure E-18), according to the 2021 UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), there are no existing beds (households/population) in Campus Park (western side of tract 4226- dark blue where >80% of population lives with spouse). Furthermore, the only student family housing available is in Albany, north of the City. Based on this knowledge, none of the population in this tract lives with a spouse. There are no areas in the City where more than 40 percent of the population lives alone (Figure E-33). In most of Berkeley, less than 20 percent of the population lives alone and tracts where 20 to 40 percent of the population lives alone are generally not concentrated in a single area of the City. The Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Northbrae, and Claremont neighborhoods have larger populations of persons living with a spouse and small populations of persons living alone. These areas have lower concentrations of non-White residents and higher concentrations of elderly adults (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-27). This pattern probably reflects the demographic changes in the City over time, with some of the longest tenure residents being White and are generally aging in place. E-56 Figure E-32: Percent of Population Living with Spouse by Tract (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 3:35:57 PM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (R) Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract ☐ < 20% ☐ 20% - 40% ☐ 40% - 60% ☐ 60% - 80% ☐ > 80% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Note on UC Berkeley campus: The AFFH Data Viewer data on the UC Berkeley campus is inaccurate. There are no existing beds or population living in Campus Park and three student dormitories (Stern Hall, Bowles Hall, and International House) on Campus West. Student family housing is available only in University Village in the City of Albany. Figure E-33: Percent of Population Living Alone by Tract (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 3:36:31 PM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (R) Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living Alone (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract ☐ < 20% ☐ 20% - 40% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-57 Children living in married couple households are most condensed in tracts on the eastern side of the City, particularly the Berkeley Hills, Live Oak, UC Berkeley, Panoramic Hill, Elmwood District, and Claremont neighborhoods (Figure E-34). In five tracts, three on the eastern side of the City, one in Downtown Berkeley, and one in South Berkeley/Le Conte, between 40 and 60 percent of children live in married couple households. Between 60 and 80 percent of children live in married couple households in the remaining tracts. Most tracts where fewer than 60 percent of children live in married couple households also have slightly higher concentrations of persons with disabilities (more than 10 percent) and contain block groups with moderate to high proportions of racial/ethnic minorities (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-26). Consistent with Figure E-34, Figure E-35 shows that more children on the western side of Berkeley live in single-parent female-headed households compared to the eastern side. There is only one tract in Berkeley where more than 40 percent of children live in female-headed households, located in South Berkeley/Le Conte bound by Dwight Way to the north, Fulton Street to the east, Ashby Avenue to the south, and Martin Luther King Jr. Way to the west. Nearly 50 percent of children in this tract live in female-headed households. This tract does not contain particularly high concentrations of racial or ethnic minority populations (less than 60 percent) or persons with disabilities (less than 10 percent) (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-26). According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 13.6 percent of female-headed households with children and 12.5 percent of female-headed households without children are below the poverty level, fewer than the Citywide average of 19.2 percent.[^p324-13] [^p324-13]: Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). Figure E-34: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:15:54 AM | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 40% - 60% | | (R) Percent of Children in Married - Couple Households (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract | 60% - 80% | | < 20% | > 80% | | 20% - 40% | | Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Figure E-35: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:14:06 AM | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | | | (R) Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract | | | ≤ 20% | | | 20% - 40% | | Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-59 *Income Level* Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines an LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the households are LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)). Regional Trends. Lower income households are considered households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI. Since the 2006-2010 ACS (HUD CHAS data), the proportion of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI has increased from 50.9 percent to 52.7 percent. Based on HUD CHAS data using the 2006-2010 ACS, 39.7 percent of households are considered lower income, a smaller proportion compared to recent HUD CHAS data. Renter-occupied households tend to have lower incomes compared to owner-occupied households. In Alameda County, 38.4 percent of households are considered lower income, including 24.1 percent of owner-occupied households and 54.5 percent of renter-occupied households (Table E-25). There are slightly more owners than renters in the County (53 percent vs. 47 percent, respectively). Approximately 68 percent of owners earn more than 100 percent of the AMI compared to only 35.5 percent of renters. Table E-25: Household Income Level by Tenure – Alameda County (2010 and 2017) | Income Category | Owner-Occupied Households | Owner-Occupied Percent | Renter-Occupied Households | Renter-Occupied Percent | All Households Households | All Households Percent | All Households (2010) Households | All Households (2010) Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 0%-30% of AMI | 21,310 | 7.1% | 67,065 | 25.1% | 88,375 | 15.5% | 78,920 | 14.8% | | 31%-50% of AMI | 23,455 | 7.8% | 40,385 | 15.1% | 63,840 | 11.2% | 58,335 | 11.0% | | 51%-80% of AMI | 27,845 | 9.2% | 38,270 | 14.3% | 66,115 | 11.6% | 73,975 | 13.9% | | 81%-100% of AMI | 24,140 | 8.0% | 26,855 | 10.0% | 50,995 | 9.0% | 49,855 | 9.4% | | > 100% of AMI | 204,915 | 67.9% | 94,830 | 35.5% | 299,745 | 52.7% | 270,935 | 50.9% | | Totals | 301,665 | 100.0% | 267,405 | 100.0% | 569,070 | 100.0% | 532,025 | 100.0% | *Source: HUD CHAS data (based on 2006-2010 and 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.* Figure E-36 compares household income levels for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. Both the Bay Area and Alameda County have slightly higher proportions of households earning more than 100 percent of the AMI compared to Berkeley. There is a higher concentration of lower income households in the City compared to the County and Bay Area. Specifically, 21 percent of Berkeley households are considered extremely low income, earning 30 percent or less than the AMI, whereas only 16 percent of Alameda County households and 15 percent of Bay Area households fall into the same income category. Figure E-36: Households by Household Income Level – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2017) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2021. Regional LMI households by tract are presented in Figure E-37. LMI areas, where more than 51 percent of households are low or moderate income, are found throughout the region, specifically in San Francisco, Daly City, and coastal Contra Costa and Alameda County (from San Leandro to Richmond). LMI areas are also dispersed to a lesser extent in Marin County and northern Contra Costa County. In general, LMI areas follow patterns similar to racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of children in female-headed households (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-28). E-61 Figure E-37: Regional Low to Moderate Income (LMI) Households by Tract (2015) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:17:52 PM 1:288,895 | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 25% - 50% | | | (A) Low to Moderate Income Population (HUD) - Tract | 50% - 75% | | | < 25% | 75% - 100% | | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2011-2015 ACS), 2022. E-62 Local Trends. Berkeley has a larger population of lower income households compared to the County and Bay Area region (see Figure E-36, above). Like the County, the proportion of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI has increased since the 2006-2010 ACS. According to 2010 estimates, 44.7 percent of households were considered lower income, a larger proportion than more recent 2017 data. Approximately 42 percent of Berkeley households earn 80 percent or less than the AMI, compared to 38.4 in the County. A smaller proportion of owners, but larger proportion of renters, in the City are considered lower income. Only 18.6 percent of owners are lower income. Nearly 60 percent of renter-occupied households are lower income, likely due to the concentration of students and young adults in the City. Students and young adults tend to have lower paying jobs or no job at all. As mentioned previously, 19.2 percent of the Berkeley population is below the poverty level, significantly higher than 9.9 percent Countywide. Table E-26: Household Income Level by Tenure (2010 and 2017) | Income Category | Owner-Occupied | | Renter-Occupied | | All Households | | All Households (2010) | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Households | Percent | Households | Percent | Households | Percent | Households | Percent | | 0%-30% of AMI | 1,140 | 5.8% | 8,510 | 32.7% | 9,650 | 21.2% | 8,665 | 20.1% | | 31%-50% of AMI | 1,035 | 5.3% | 3,880 | 14.9% | 4,915 | 10.8% | 4,555 | 10.5% | | 51%-80% of AMI | 1,449 | 7.4% | 3,104 | 11.9% | 4,553 | 10.0% | 6,095 | 14.1% | | 81%-100% of AMI | 1,204 | 6.2% | 2,259 | 8.7% | 3,463 | 7.6% | 3,845 | 8.9% | | > 100% of AMI | 14,699 | 75.3% | 8,245 | 31.7% | 22,944 | 50.4% | 20,030 | 46.4% | | Totals | 19,527 | 100.0% | 25,998 | 100.0% | 45,525 | 100.0% | 43,190 | 100.0% | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2022; HUD CHAS Data (based on 2006-2010 ACS). Berkeley has a college and graduate student population of 29 percent, significantly higher than 8.5 percent Countywide. As shown in Table E-27, young adults aged 18 to 34 have the highest poverty rate and represent the largest proportion of the Citywide population. It is important to note that the ACS does not include persons in college dormitories when estimating poverty status, although less than 25 percent of UC Berkeley students currently live in dormitories and the majority live in off-campus housing. Poverty status of students and young adults alone, however, may not accurately represent the population living below the poverty level. A 2017 study found that the median family income of a UC Berkeley student is $119,000 and more than half are in the top 20 percent of income earners, while only 7.3 percent of students come from families in the bottom 20 percent (approximately $20,000 or less per year).¹⁴ While this may reveal that ACS poverty estimates are inflated, it also indicates upward mobility may be hindered for lower income students. Student poverty and mobility is further discussed in Section E4.6 Student Poverty and Mobility of this Appendix. Table E-27: Poverty Status by Age (2019) | | Total Population | | Percent Below Poverty | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Persons | Percent | Level | | Under 18 years | 14,618 | 13.4% | 5.7% | | 18 to 34 years | 40,890 | 37.5% | 38.2% | | 35 to 64 years | 36,446 | 33.4% | 8.4% | | 65 years and over | 17,229 | 15.8% | 8.5% | | Population for whom poverty status is determined | 109,183 | 100.0% | 19.2% | [^p329-14]: Chetty, R. (Stanford University and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Friedman, J. N. (Brown University and NBER); Saez, E. (UC Berkeley and NBER); Turner, N. (US Treasury); Yagan, D. (UC Berkeley and NBER). (2017). Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-berkeley. Note: Includes only population for whom poverty status is determined. Excludes institutionalized persons, persons in military group quarters and in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices are described in detail in Section E4.2 Race/Ethnicity. Isolation indices, presented in Table E-28, show that above moderate income households are most isolated in Berkeley, followed by very low income households. Between 2010 and 2015, isolation indices have decreased for households of all income levels except very low income. Isolation values indicate that on average, an above moderate income Berkeley resident lives in a neighborhood that is 51.2 percent above moderate income. Isolation indices for very low income and above moderate income residents are higher in Berkeley compared to the Bay Area as a whole. As shown by 2010 and 2015 dissimilarity indices for Berkeley, segregation between lower income and higher income residents has decreased. However, 33.4 percent of lower income residents and 40.6 percent of very low and extremely low income residents would have to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect income category integration. Berkeley has significantly higher income segregation than the Bay Area. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, income segregation in the County is low, whereas very low income and above moderate income households in Berkeley are moderately segregated. The Thiel’s H index in Berkeley has declined, indicating there is now less neighborhood-level income segregation. This pattern is consistent with isolation and dissimilarity index trends. However, Berkeley’s Thiel’s H index of 0.109 in 2015 remains higher than 0.043 in the Bay Area. Table E-28: Income Segregation Indices (2010-2015) | | Berkeley | | Bay Area | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | 2010 | 2015 | 2015 | | **Isolation Index** | | | | | Very Low Income (<50% AMI) | 0.475 | 0.484 | 0.269 | | Low Income (50%-80% AMI) | 0.151 | 0.110 | 0.145 | | Moderate Income (80%-120% AMI) | 0.180 | 0.149 | 0.183 | | Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) | 0.514 | 0.512 | 0.507 | | **Dissimilarity Index** | | | | | Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI | 0.361 | 0.334 | 0.198 | | Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI | 0.464 | 0.406 | 0.253 | | Thiel’s H | 0.128 | 0.109 | 0.043 | Source: ABAG AFFH Data Report (based on 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 ACS), 2022. LMI areas where more than 51 percent of the household population is low or moderate income are shown geographically in Figure E-38. Block groups adjacent to the UC Berkeley campus in the Southside, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods have the highest concentration of LMI households, where more than 75 percent are low or moderate income. These areas have large student populations that tend to be lower income. Student populations by tract are discussed in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). The South Berkeley, Lorin, Northside, and western neighborhoods also tend to have higher concentrations of LMI households. Most block groups in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Terrace View, and Claremont neighborhoods have LMI populations of 50 percent or lower. In general, LMI areas also have larger populations of people of color (see Figure E-21). Figure E-38: LMI Households by Block Group (2015) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2011-2015 ACS), 2022.* Poverty status by tract in Berkeley is included in Figure E-40. Since the 2010-2014 ACS (Figure E-39), the population of persons below the poverty level has decreased in several tracts, specifically in the Berkeley Marina, Gilman, Southwest Berkeley, Northside, and South, Central and North Berkeley neighborhoods. The population of persons below the poverty level has increased in some tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus. Consistent with the aggregation of LMI areas, tracts with large populations below the poverty level are located around the UC Berkeley campus. Tracts south of the campus in the Southside, Downtown Berkeley, Panoramic Hill, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods have the highest poverty rate (>40 percent). Approximately 34 percent of the population in tract 4225 (Northside neighborhood) and 25 percent of the population in tract 4224 (North Berkeley neighborhood) is below the poverty level. This pattern reflects the large population of students with low or no income. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1 of the Housing Element, students tend to have very low incomes which would skew the City's median household income downward. However, students are generally not considered “lower income” for the purposes of public housing programs because they often rely on support from families or public loans. Between 10 and 20 percent of the population in most tracts are below the poverty level. Less than 10 percent is below the poverty level in most northeastern tracts (Berkeley Hills and Thousand Oaks neighborhood areas). The areas with the lowest poverty rates also have the smallest racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of children living in female-headed households (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-30). E-65 Figure E-39: Poverty Status by Tract (2014) <
> 10/12/2022, 10:21:11 AM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (A) Poverty Status (ACS, 2010 - 2014) - Tract ☐ < 10% ☐ 10% - 20% ☐ 20% - 30% ☐ 30% - 40% ☐ > 40% *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 ACS), 2022.* E-66 Figure E-40: Poverty Status by Tract (2019) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. # E.4.3 RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS ### Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. Areas of High Segregation and Poverty are also identified by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), jointly known as the Fair Housing Task Force. Areas of High Segregation and Poverty are defined as tracts where at least 30 percent of the population is living below the poverty line and relies on the location quotient of residential segregation (LQ).[^p333-15] Regional Trends. R/ECAPs and TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty are most concentrated on the eastern side of San Francisco and in coastal Alameda County cities from San Leandro to Berkeley (Figure E-42). There are very few of these tracts in Marin County or Contra Costa County. R/ECAPs and [^p333-15]: The LQ is a small-area measure of relative segregation calculated at the residential census tract level that represents how much more segregated an area (e.g., a census tract or block group) is relative to the larger area (in this case, the county). For the filter, tracts that have a LQ higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color are flagged as being racially segregated in comparison to the county. E-67 TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty are consistent with racial/ethnic minority population and LMI household trends described above (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-35). Poverty status by race and ethnicity for Alameda County is included in Table E-29. Since 2014, the population of persons below the poverty level has decreased, representing 12.9 percent of the population in 2014 compared to 9.9 percent in 2019. Non-Hispanic White populations have the lowest poverty rate of 6.7 percent. The poverty rate is highest amongst the Black/African American population (20 percent), followed by the American Indian and Alaska Native population (15 percent), and the population of a race not listed (14.4 percent). The Hispanic/Latino population also experiences poverty at a rate exceeding the Countywide average of 9.9 percent. Table E-29: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2014 and 2019) | Race/Ethnicity | 2014 | 2019 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Total Population | Percent Below Poverty Level | Total Population | Percent Below Poverty Level | | White alone | 694,967 | 10.6% | 658,902 | 7.7% | | Black or African American alone | 180,317 | 24.1% | 172,438 | 20.0% | | American Indian and Alaska Native alone | 9,082 | 19.0% | 10,905 | 15.0% | | Asian alone | 417,472 | 9.7% | 492,498 | 7.9% | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone | 12,761 | 11.9% | 13,695 | 9.1% | | Some other race alone | 123,715 | 19.5% | 176,536 | 14.4% | | Two or more races | 93,032 | 13.1% | 105,317 | 8.9% | | Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) | 346,045 | 17.9% | 364,402 | 12.5% | | White alone, not Hispanic or Latino | 510,373 | 8.2% | 512,146 | 6.7% | | Population for whom poverty status is determined | 1,531,346 | 12.9% | 1,630,291 | 9.9% | Source: 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Employment status is often a variable that describes poverty status. As shown in Figure E-41, the American Indian and Alaska Native population in Alameda County has the lowest labor force participation and highest unemployment rate, followed by the Black/African American population. As discussed previously, the American Indian and Alaska Native and Black/African American populations also have the highest poverty rates in the County. Asian and White populations have the lowest unemployment rate of 3.9 percent with moderate labor force participation rates (66.4 percent and 67.5 percent, respectively). The White population has the lowest poverty rate countywide (6.7 percent), followed by the Asian population (7.9 percent). Figure E-41: Employment Status by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2019) <
> * ■ Labor Force Participation Rate * ■ Unemployment Rate Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Figure E-42: Regional R/ECAPs and TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (2020, 2021) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:21:54 PM | | | |---|---| | | City/Town Boundaries | | | (R) TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty (2021) - Tract | | | (R) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty "R/ECAP'S" (HUD, 2009 - 2013) - Tract | | | 0 - Not a R/ECAP | | | 1 - R/ECAP | 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013; 2021 TCAC), 2022. E-70 **Local Trends.** There are no TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty that have been identified in the City of Berkeley. Figure E-43 shows there are five tracts that have been recognized by HUD as R/ECAPs. The following tracts are considered R/ECAPs: 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4236.02. All five of these tracts are located on the eastern side of the City surrounding and including the UC Berkeley campus. As presented in Section E4.2 *Income Level*, this area has a high concentration of LMI households and persons below the poverty level (see Figure E-38 and Figure E-40). More than 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group in most block groups in this part of the City (see Figure E-21). **Figure E-43: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) (2013)** <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013), 2022* The presence of R/ECAPs in this area of the City correlates with the student populations in these tracts. In addition to UC Berkeley, the Berkeley City College is also located in this area in the Downtown Berkeley neighborhood. In Fall 2021, UC Berkeley had an enrollment of 45,057 students[^p337-16] and in 2017, Berkeley City College had an enrollment of approximately 7,000 students.[^p337-17] Students tend to have no income or if employed, only as part-time and generate limited incomes. Approximately 29 percent of the Berkeley population is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to 93 percent in tract 4226 (UC Berkeley campus), 83.1 percent in tract 4227 (south of UC Berkeley campus), 89.9 percent in tract 4228 (Southside neighborhood), 54.2 percent in tract 4229 (Downtown Berkeley neighborhood), and 64.5 percent in tract 4236.02 (northern Elmwood/South Berkeley neighborhood) (Table E-30). As mentioned in Section E4.2 *Income Level*, young adults aged 18 to 34, which includes college-aged persons, have significantly higher [^p337-16]: UC Berkeley Quick Facts, Fall 2021 Enrollment. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts. [^p337-17]: Berkeley City College, About. https://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/about-bcc/. E-71 poverty rates compared to other age groups. However, poverty status of students and young adults alone, may not accurately represent the population living below the poverty level as many college students are dependents and may come from higher income families. Discussions on student poverty and income status are expanded upon in Section E4.6 Student Poverty and Mobility, of this Appendix. Table E-30: Population Enrolled in College or Graduate School – R/ECAP Tracts (2019) | Tract/City | Population Enrolled in College or Graduate School | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Persons | Percent | | Census Tract 4226 | 970 | 93.0% | | Census Tract 4227 | 4,374 | 83.1% | | Census Tract 4228 | 8,152 | 89.9% | | Census Tract 4229 | 3,125 | 54.2% | | Census Tract 4236.02 | 4,209 | 64.5% | | Berkeley | 35,210 | 29.0% | Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Of the population aged 16 and older in the City, 38.2 percent are not in the labor force (Table E-31). Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force, including retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Likely due to the high proportion of students, R/ECAP tracts have larger populations of persons not in the labor force. Most R/ECAP tracts, with the exception of tract 4228, have employment rates comparable or lower than the City average. The concentration of persons experiencing poverty in R/ECAPs can likely, in part, be explained by the low labor force participation rates in these tracts. Tract 4228 (Southside neighborhood) the largest population of persons not in the labor force and highest unemployment rate. Many of the UC Berkeley residence halls are located in the Southside neighborhood including Blackwell Hall, Cleary Hall, Channing-Bowditch Apartments, Martinez Commons, Unit 1 Residence Hall, Unit 2 Residence Hall, Unit 3 Residence Hall, and the Ida Louise Jackson Graduate Housing. Table E-31: Labor Force Participation – R/ECAP Tracts (2019) | Tract/City | Population Aged 16+ | In Labor Force | | Not in Labor Force | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Employed | Unemployed | | | Census Tract 4226 | 1,018 | 41.7% | 1.8% | 56.6% | | Census Tract 4227 | 5,229 | 40.6% | 3.8% | 55.6% | | Census Tract 4228 | 9,053 | 31.5% | 5.1% | 63.4% | | Census Tract 4229 | 5,592 | 52.3% | 2.3% | 45.5% | | Census Tract 4236.02 | 6,401 | 56.5% | 3.1% | 40.4% | | Berkeley | 108,360 | 58.4% | 3.3% | 38.2% | Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Poverty status by race and ethnicity is shown in Figure E-44. Unlike the County, the Asian/API population in Berkeley has the highest poverty rate of 36.9 percent, followed by the Black/African American population (25.4 percent), and the American Indian or Alaska Native population (24.5 percent). As discussed in Section E4.2 Race/Ethnicity, the Asian and API population make up the second largest population in the City. White non-Hispanic residents represent more than half of the population and have the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent. According to UC Berkeley Fall 2021 enrollment data, the Asian population represents the largest share of the UC Berkeley student body (33.8 percent), followed by the White population (23.6 percent), and Chicanx/Latinx population (16.2 percent).[^p338-18] Nearly a third of the Berkeley City College population is also [^p338-18]: UC Berkeley Quick Facts, Fall 2021 Enrollment. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts. Asian or API.[^p339-19] The large population of Asian/API students in the City likely contributes to the high poverty rate. Black or African American students represent only 4.1 percent of the UC Berkeley student body but 15 percent of the Berkeley City College student body, while American Indian or Alaska Native students represent only 0.5 percent of the UC Berkeley student body and one percent of the Berkeley City College student body. Despite the smaller Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native student bodies, poverty rates amongst these groups citywide remain high. The high poverty rates amongst Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native populations cannot be attributed to student populations alone. Conversely, 23.6 percent of UC Berkeley students and 25 percent of Berkeley City College students are White, but only 12.1 percent are below the poverty level citywide. Based on student populations and poverty rates, Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native residents are most disproportionately affected by poverty in Berkeley. **Figure E-44: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity (2019)** <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.* Income category distribution for various racial/ethnic groups in Berkeley is included in Figure E-45. Approximately 42 percent of Berkeley households are considered lower income, earning 80 percent of less than the AMI. Consistent with the poverty rates described above, the American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American household populations have the largest proportion of lower income households of 84.6 percent and 70.6 percent, respectively. Fewer Asian or API households (56.4 percent) are lower income, despite having the highest poverty rate (Figure E-44). This discrepancy is due to the [^p339-19]: Berkeley City College, About. https://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/about-bcc/. Census Bureau’s definition for “household,” which does not include people living in group quarters.[^p340-20] UC Berkeley has an undergraduate Asian/API population of 39.5 percent. According to the UC Berkeley Office of Undergraduate Admissions, approximately 7,000 undergraduate students, representing 27 percent of the student body, live in university housing. The non-Hispanic White household population is the only racial group with a proportion of lower income households (32.6 percent) below the citywide average. It is relevant to note that nearly all lower income American Indian/Alaska Native households, 95 out of 117 total households, fall into the extremely low income category, earning less than 30 percent of the AMI. The proportion of extremely low income American Indian/Alaska Native households is substantially higher than all other racial/ethnic groups in the City. **Figure E-45: Household Income Distribution by Race/Ethnicity (2017)** <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2021.* ### Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated - a key to fair housing choice. Identifying RCAAs is also important for underserved populations to be able to participate in resources experienced by populations living in areas of influence. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to HUD's policy paper, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is [^p340-20]: Group quarters are defined as places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an organization providing housing and/or services for the residents, such as nursing homes, military barracks and college/university student housing. associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. While HCD has created its own metric for RCAAs, as of February 2022, RCAA maps were not available on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer tool. Thus, this analysis relies on the definition curated by the scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs cited in HCD’s memo: “RCAAs are defined as census tracts where: 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).” Regional Trends. The median income in Alameda County is $99,406 (Table E-32). The median income countywide has increase significantly since 2010. The median household income in 2010 was $69,384. The median household income for all racial/ethnic groups has increased during this period. Between 2010 and 2019, the median household income increased by 43.3 percent. The median income for households with a householder of two or more races and Asian householders increased at rates exceeding the countywide average, while the median incomes for all other racial/ethnic groups saw increases ranging from 28.8 percent (Black/African American householders) to 40.7 percent (Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander householders). Currently, Asian households have the highest median income of $124,079, followed by non-Hispanic White households ($114,0427). Asian and White households are the only racial or ethnic groups with median incomes exceeding the countywide median. The median income for Black/African American households of $51,049 is significantly lower than all other racial/ethnic groups in the County. Median income trends for racial groups in the County are consistent with poverty status trends presented in Table E-29. Table E-32: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2010 and 2019) | Race/Ethnicity of Householder | 2010 | 2010 | 2019 | 2019 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Percent of Population | Median Income | Percent of Population | Median Income | | White | 51.7% | $77,850 | 46.8% | $108,506 | | Black or African American | 15.0% | $40,187 | 12.4% | $51,749 | | American Indian and Alaska Native | 0.5% | $52,297 | 0.7% | $71,268 | | Asian | 22.4% | $83,831 | 27.3% | $124,079 | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander | 0.6% | $62,120 | 0.7% | $87,408 | | Some Other Race | 6.7% | $54,246 | 7.8% | $73,614 | | Two or More Races | 3.0% | $63,305 | 4.3% | $95,736 | | Hispanic or Latino | 15.5% | $55,613 | 16.4% | $77,990 | | White alone, non-Hispanic | 43.9% | $82,617 | 39.6% | $114,427 | | All Households | 100.0% | $69,384 | 100.0% | $99,406 | Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Median incomes by block group for the region surrounding Berkeley are shown in Figure E-46. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the median income in Alameda County is $99,406, higher than $85,530 in Berkeley. Berkeley has a lower median income compared to most adjacent cities including Alameda ($104,756), El Cerrito ($108,298), Emeryville ($102,725), Orinda ($223,217), and Piedmont ($224,659), but higher than Oakland ($73,692) and Richmond ($68,472). Block groups with median incomes exceeding $125,000 are most concentrated in central Contra Costa County, Marin County, and San Francisco, while median incomes below the HCD Statewide median of $87,100 tend to be located in coastal East Bay cities from San Leandro to Richmond. Smaller concentrations of block groups with low median incomes are also shown in northern Contra Costa County, southern and western San Francisco, and small sections of Marin County. Areas in the region with higher median incomes also tend to have smaller populations of people of color compared to areas with lower median incomes. However, most block groups in the region have non-White populations exceeding 20 percent (see Figure E-17). RCAA block groups with White populations exceeding 80 percent and median incomes above $125,000 are most prevalent in Marin County and Contra Costa County. Figure E-46: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:24:24 PM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (R) Median Income (ACS, 2015-2019) - Block Group ☐ < $30,000 ☐ < $55,000 ☐ < $87,100 (HCD 2020 State Median Income) ☐ < $125,000 ☐ Greater than $125,000 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-77 Local Trends. As mentioned previously, the median household income in Berkeley of $85,530 is lower than the median countywide. Since 2010, the median household income in Berkeley has increased at a slightly higher rate than the County (45.9 percent vs. 43.3 percent, respectively). The median incomes for different racial/ethnic groups have increased at rates ranging from 28.1 percent (Black/African American householders) to 89.5 percent (householder of two or more races). The American Indian/Alaska Native median household income decreased significantly during this period. The large student population in the City likely contributes to the low median income and high poverty rate of 19.2 percent. Non-Hispanic White households have a median income of $107,660, significantly higher than all other racial/ethnic groups in the City (Table E-33). Consistent with the poverty rates and household income distributions described in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), American Indian/Alaska Native and Black/African American households have the lowest median incomes of $27,232 and $39,441, respectively. Though the Asian population has the highest poverty rate in the City, the median income for Asian households remains moderate. It is important to note that this is likely affected by the large population of Asian/API students in the City. Students living in group quarters (residence halls, student housing) are not included in the ACS data for median household income. Table E-33: Median Income by Race/Ethnicity (2019) | Race/Ethnicity | 2010 | | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Percent Distribution | Median Income | Households | Percent Distribution | Median Income | | White | 65.6% | $75,151 | 29,606 | 65.3% | $107,050 | | Black or African American | 10.8% | $30,794 | 3,820 | 8.4% | $39,441 | | American Indian and Alaska Native | 0.2% | $76,042 | 298 | 0.7% | $27,232 | | Asian | 17.6% | $38,225 | 7,929 | 17.5% | $58,253 | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander | 0.2% | $55,227 | 152 | 0.3% | | | Some Other Race | 2.2% | $45,000 | 1,281 | 2.8% | $70,483 | | Two or More Races | 3.3% | $43,608 | 2,266 | 5.0% | $82,647 | | Hispanic or Latino | 7.6% | $44,273 | 3,585 | 7.9% | $71,051 | | White alone, non-Hispanic | 60.8% | $77,273 | 27,955 | 61.6% | $107,660 | | All Households | 100.0% | $58,617 | 45,352 | 100.0% | $85,530 | *Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* Employment status for Berkeley, including labor force participation and unemployment rates, by race and ethnicity are presented in Table E-34. Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the unemployment rate has decreased from 6.7 percent to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate has decreased for all racial/ethnic groups except the Asian population (remained constant), the population of some other race, and the population of two or more races. Citywide, the labor force participation rate is 61.8 percent, and the unemployment rate is 5.3 percent. Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations all have labor force participation rates falling short of the citywide average. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Black/African American populations also have the highest unemployment rates of 13 percent and 12.5 percent respectively. Conversely, the American Indian/Alaska Native population has the lowest unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. The low unemployment rate and low median income for American Indian/Alaska Native residents indicates persons in this group may have lower paying jobs. Table E-34: Employment Status by Race/Ethnicity (2010 and 2019) | Race/Ethnicity | Total Population | Labor Force Participation Rate | Unemployment Rate | Unemployment Rate (2010) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Population 16 Years and Older | 108,360 | 61.8% | 5.3% | 6.7% | | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---| | White | 63,961 | 66.5% | 4.3% | 5.6% | | Black or African American | 8,264 | 52.9% | 12.5% | 17.7% | | American Indian and Alaska Native | 535 | 53.6% | 1.4% | 21.8% | | Asian | 24,619 | 51.4% | 5.5% | 5.5% | | Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander | 570 | 58.1% | 13.0% | 25.1% | | Some Other Race | 4,133 | 65.6% | 8.4% | 6.8% | | Two or More Races | 6,278 | 65.0% | 5.9% | 2.9% | | Hispanic or Latino | 11,596 | 65.5% | 7.6% | 10.4% | | White alone, non-Hispanic | 58,213 | 66.6% | 4.0% | 5.0% | *Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* Median income and populations of persons of color by block group are shown geographically in Figure E-47. Block groups with median incomes exceeding $125,000 are most densely populated in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Terrace View, Live Oak, and Northbrae neighborhoods. Block groups in the Southside, Northside, Downtown Berkeley neighborhoods have the lowest median incomes. These neighborhoods have large student populations as described in Section E.4.3 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).* There are two block groups in the City with median incomes exceeding $125,000 and White populations exceeding 80 percent that can be categorized as RCAAs. One is in the Live Oak neighborhood on the southwest corner of Marin Avenue and Spruce Street, and the other is in the Claremont neighborhood in the southeast corner of the City intersected by California State Route 13 or Tunnel Road. **Figure E-47: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population and Median Income by Block Group (2018, 2019)** <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2018; 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* E-79 # E4.4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess Alameda County residents’ access to key opportunity assets by race/ethnicity and poverty level. Table E-36 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices: * **Low Poverty Index:** The low poverty Index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood through poverty rate calculations and percentile rankings. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. * **School Proficiency Index:** The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. * **Jobs Proximity Index:** The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. * **Labor Market Engagement Index:** The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. * **Transit Trips Index:** This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. * **Low Transportation Cost Index:** This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. * **Environmental Health Index:** The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table E-35 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or "filter" to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters are: * **Poverty:** Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; * **Racial Segregation:** Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County. Table E-35: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps (2020) | Domain | Indicator | | :--- | :--- | | Economic | Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value | | Environmental | CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values | | Education | Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates | *Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020* TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domains in Table E-35 by census tract and computes “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains. Scores from each individual domain range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize show areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty and can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas. Regional Trends. HUD Opportunity indicators for Alameda County included in Table E-36 reveal that White residents are exposed to the least poverty and highest quality school systems. White County residents also have the highest access to employment opportunities, highest labor market participation, and highest human capital compared to other racial and ethnic groups. The Black population is most likely to utilize public transit and have the lowest transportation costs. The Asian/Pacific Islander population scored the highest for environmental health, indicating they tend to live in neighborhoods with better environmental conditions. Populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, have lower low poverty index, school proficiency index, labor market index, and environmental health index scores compared to the total population. The Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black populations below the federal poverty line tend to have better access to employment opportunities than the respective total populations. All populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, are more likely to use transit and have lower transportation costs. **TCAC Opportunity Areas.** Tract-level TCAC Opportunity score categories for the region are shown in Figure E-48 below. Highest and high resource tracts are most prevalent in southern and central Contra Costa County, from San Ramon to Walnut Creek, central and northwestern San Francisco, and southern Marin County. There are smaller pockets of highest and high resource areas in the City of Alameda and Berkeley. Most coastal East Bay tracts in and around the cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburg, and Antioch are categorized as low resource. The eastern and southeastern side of San Francisco also has a concentration of low resource areas. Moderate resource tracts located sparsely throughout the East Bay but appear most frequently in Daly City, Marin County, and the northwestern corner of Contra Costa County. Areas of high segregation and poverty are most common in Oakland and San Francisco. High segregation and poverty tracts are described in detail in Section E4.3 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).* In general, low resource tracts tend to have larger populations of persons of color, LMI households, and children living in single-parent female-headed households (see Figure E-16, Figure E-28, and Figure E-35). Table E-36: HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty Status – Alameda County and Berkeley (2020) | | Low Poverty Index | School Proficiency Index | Jobs Proximity Index | Labor Market Index | Transit Trips Index | Low Transportation Cost index | Environmental Health Index | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Alameda County** | | | | | | | | | Total Population | | | | | | | | | White, Non-Hispanic | 72.77 | 63.54 | 49.53 | 74.55 | 66.89 | 90.14 | 50.88 | | Black, Non-Hispanic | 44.49 | 31.94 | 48.71 | 48.31 | 82.01 | 92.68 | 47.17 | | Hispanic | 51.24 | 36.14 | 39.68 | 48.53 | 75.71 | 91.47 | 51.38 | | Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic | 67.49 | 59.00 | 43.20 | 66.53 | 75.47 | 90.32 | 53.28 | | Native American, Non-Hispanic | 56.63 | 45.28 | 45.70 | 56.25 | 73.86 | 91.57 | 51.02 | | Population below federal poverty line | | | | | | | | | White, Non-Hispanic | 62.73 | 55.76 | 48.95 | 66.69 | 77.09 | 91.96 | 46.91 | | Black, Non-Hispanic | 34.26 | 24.75 | 50.48 | 39.82 | 84.51 | 93.47 | 46.13 | | Hispanic | 38.27 | 25.08 | 40.01 | 40.17 | 80.37 | 92.68 | 50.21 | | Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic | 52.06 | 47.56 | 52.88 | 57.37 | 84.51 | 93.46 | 46.16 | | Native American, Non-Hispanic | 40.35 | 28.16 | 39.56 | 41.16 | 82.37 | 92.68 | 50.47 | | **Berkeley** | | | | | | | | | Total Population | | | | | | | | | White, Non-Hispanic | 69.83 | 78.20 | 67.22 | 83.31 | 88.76 | 94.05 | 29.09 | | Black, Non-Hispanic | 51.29 | 80.36 | 76.74 | 74.74 | 90.47 | 95.16 | 27.98 | | Hispanic | 60.16 | 79.94 | 73.32 | 74.20 | 90.10 | 94.94 | 29.02 | | Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic | 66.12 | 77.23 | 69.26 | 68.33 | 90.47 | 95.17 | 30.10 | | Native American, Non-Hispanic | 60.56 | 78.29 | 72.48 | 73.05 | 90.29 | 95.07 | 28.69 | | Population below federal poverty line | | | | | | | | | White, Non-Hispanic | 64.02 | 77.44 | 69.81 | 78.40 | 90.79 | 95.27 | 29.62 | | Black, Non-Hispanic | 50.86 | 79.80 | 75.75 | 75.70 | 90.76 | 95.52 | 28.68 | | Hispanic | 60.52 | 80.24 | 72.64 | 75.07 | 91.32 | 95.64 | 28.65 | | Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic | 66.16 | 76.43 | 69.03 | 70.54 | 92.40 | 95.86 | 29.97 | | Native American, Non-Hispanic | 78.58 | 76.03 | 64.53 | 77.31 | 85.35 | 92.05 | 34.61 | Source: HUD AFFH-T Data, 2020. Figure E-48: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score by Tract (2021) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:26:29 PM | | | | 1:288,895 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | Moderate Resource | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi | | (R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Composite Score - Tract | Low Resource | 0 4.5 9 18 km | | Highest Resource | High Segregation & Poverty | | | High Resource | Missing/Insufficient Data | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | | Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) | | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), 2021), 2022. E-84 **Local Trends.** HUD Opportunity Indicators for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E-36 above. Compared to the County, Berkeley populations, regardless of race or ethnicity, have higher school proficiency, jobs proximity, labor market, transit trips, and low transportation cost index scores. However, environmental conditions for all groups are worse in Berkeley than in the County. White and Asian/Pacific Islander populations in the City are also exposed to poverty at a higher rate than the County as a whole. Like the County, White residents in the City have the lowest exposure to poverty and highest labor market participation compared to other racial/ethnic groups; however, they also have the lowest access to employment opportunities. White populations are also least likely to use public transit and have the highest transportation costs. The Black population tends to live near the highest quality school systems in the City and have the best access to employment opportunities. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are equally and most likely to utilize public transportation. The Asian/Pacific Islander population also has the lowest transportation costs and highest exposure to better environmental quality. In Berkeley, poverty status appears to have less of an effect on Opportunity Indicator scores compared to Alameda County. Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American populations below the federal poverty line are less exposed to poverty and have higher labor force participation/human capital than the respective total populations. Environmental quality is also better for White, Black, and Native American populations below the federal poverty line. **TCAC Opportunity Areas.** TCAC Opportunity Area scores for Berkeley have been compiled by tract (Table E-37) and are presented geographically in Figure E-49. Over half of the tracts in the City are high resource tracts (18 tracts), followed by highest resource tracts (seven tracts, 21.2 percent), and moderate resource tracts (six tracts, 18.2 percent). There is one low resource tract and one tract categorized as moderate resource (rapidly changing). Moderate resource (rapidly changing) tracts are designed to identify areas that may become high resource. There are five highest resource tracts: in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, and Northbrae neighborhoods, two in the southeast corner of the City in the Claremont and Elmwood District neighborhoods, and one encompassing the UC Berkeley campus. Most tracts in the Berkeley Hills, Westbrae, North Berkeley, Central Berkeley, and South Berkeley neighborhoods are high resource. Moderate resource areas are identified surrounding the UC Berkeley campus in the Downtown Berkeley, Northside, Panoramic Hill, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods, as well as the eastern side of the City (Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and Berkeley Marina neighborhoods). The moderate resource (rapidly changing) area is in southwestern corner of the South Berkeley neighborhood. The Southside neighborhood is considered a low resource area. Highest resource areas tend to have smaller populations of people of color while block groups in and around moderate and low resource tracts tend to have larger populations of people of color (see Figure E-21). The low and moderate resource areas adjacent to UC Berkeley also have a higher percentage of LMI households (see Figure E-38). Several of these tracts have also been identified by HUD as R/ECAPs (see Figure E-43). There does not appear to be any correlation between populations of persons with disabilities or children in single-parent female-headed households and TCAC opportunity score (see Figure E-26 and Figure E-35). Tract 4228, the Southside neighborhood and low resource area, has a student population of approximately 90 percent. This tract has the highest unemployment rate and lowest labor force participation rate compared to other R/ECAPs in the City surrounding UC Berkeley. Tract 4228 is further characterized in Section E.4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). However, as discussed before, the Census Bureau’s reporting of student households as low incomes or even at poverty levels may not accurately reflect the actual financial status of the students. Table E-37: TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2021) | Census Tract | Economic Score | Environmental Score | Education Score | Composite Score | Final Category | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 6001421100 | 0.785 | 0.98 | 0.565 | 0.435 | High Resource | | 6001421200 | 0.873 | 0.971 | 0.565 | 0.5 | Highest Resource | | 6001421300 | 0.915 | 0.794 | 0.701 | 0.591 | Highest Resource | | 6001421400 | 0.877 | 0.974 | 0.565 | 0.51 | Highest Resource | | 6001421500 | 0.814 | 0.967 | 0.565 | 0.446 | High Resource | | 6001421600 | 0.782 | 0.799 | 0.685 | 0.462 | High Resource | | 6001421700 | 0.544 | 0.957 | 0.759 | 0.438 | High Resource | | 6001421800 | 0.803 | 0.936 | 0.759 | 0.59 | Highest Resource | | 6001421900 | 0.673 | 0.599 | 0.799 | 0.436 | High Resource | | 6001422000 | 0.552 | 0.017 | 0.765 | -0.031 | Moderate Resource | | 6001422100 | 0.546 | 0.346 | 0.743 | 0.257 | High Resource | | 6001422200 | 0.676 | 0.613 | 0.749 | 0.407 | High Resource | | 6001422300 | 0.51 | 0.922 | 0.746 | 0.39 | High Resource | | 6001422400 | 0.464 | 0.924 | 0.724 | 0.349 | High Resource | | 6001422500 | 0.249 | 0.666 | 0.724 | 0.108 | Moderate Resource | | 6001422600 | 0.985 | 0.641 | 0.624 | 0.635 | Highest Resource | | 6001422700 | 0.076 | 0.63 | 0.616 | -0.18 | Moderate Resource | | 6001422800 | 0.001 | 0.708 | 0.638 | -0.453 | Low Resource | | 6001422900 | 0.111 | 0.853 | 0.676 | -0.021 | Moderate Resource | | 6001423000 | 0.689 | 0.668 | 0.757 | 0.437 | High Resource | | 6001423100 | 0.622 | 0.596 | 0.765 | 0.378 | High Resource | | 6001423200 | 0.362 | 0.469 | 0.765 | 0.176 | High Resource | | 6001423300 | 0.435 | 0.466 | 0.756 | 0.234 | High Resource | | 6001423400 | 0.678 | 0.649 | 0.612 | 0.297 | High Resource | | 6001423500 | 0.538 | 0.832 | 0.634 | 0.274 | High Resource | | 6001423601 | 0.692 | 0.863 | 0.69 | 0.429 | High Resource | | 6001423602 | 0.119 | 0.819 | 0.638 | -0.058 | Moderate Resource | | 6001423700 | 0.338 | 0.809 | 0.616 | 0.115 | Moderate Resource | | 6001423800 | 0.845 | 0.883 | 0.793 | 0.619 | Highest Resource | | 6001423901 | 0.758 | 0.855 | 0.515 | 0.311 | High Resource | | 6001423902 | 0.849 | 0.85 | 0.69 | 0.532 | Highest Resource | | 6001424001 | 0.576 | 0.676 | 0.653 | 0.285 | High Resource | | 6001424002 | 0.487 | 0.52 | 0.558 | 0.104 | Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) | Source: UC Berkeley – TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract. 2021. Figure E-49: TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score by Tract (2021) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), 2021), 2022. As outlined in Section E4.2 *Race/Ethnicity*, 53.3 percent of the Berkeley population is White. A disproportionate share of residents in high or highest resource areas, 60 percent, are White (Figure E-50). Only 44 percent of the population in moderate resource areas and 39 percent of the population in low resource areas are White. Of the population in the low resource area, 38 percent is Asian, and 14 percent is Hispanic or Latino. It is relevant to note that nearly 90 percent of the population in the low resource tract is enrolled in college or graduate school. Therefore, the racial/ethnic distribution in the low resource area is mostly a reflection of the UC Berkeley, and to a less extent Berkeley Community College, student body. E-87 Figure E-50: Population Living in High Resource Areas by Race <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2020), 2021. ### Education Regional Trends. There are 18 school districts in Alameda County, including 11 adult schools and three community colleges. The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) consists of 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and one independent high school program. Graduation rates by race and ethnicity for Alameda County are presented in Table E-38. Alameda County had higher graduation rates than the State of California for both the 2010-11 and 2020-21 classes. In both 2011 and 2021, the Asian population had the highest graduation rate, increasing from 90 percent in 2011 to 95.4 percent in 2021. African American students (79.8 percent), Hispanic/Latino students (79.3 percent), and students that did not report their race (76.9 percent) had the lowest graduation rates in 2021. Since 2011, graduation rates amongst students without race reported, African American students, and American Indian/Alaska Native students saw the largest increase in graduation rates. There are no racial or ethnic groups in the County that saw a reduction in graduation rates during the same period. E-88 Table E-38: High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2011-2021) | | 2010-2011 | | 2020-2021 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Students | Graduation Rate | Students | Graduation Rate | | African American | 2,892 | 60.8% | 1,706 | 79.8% | | American Indian or Alaska Native | 90 | 61.1% | 47 | 80.9% | | Asian | 3,474 | 90.0% | 4,439 | 95.4% | | Filipino | 894 | 87.7% | 972 | 92.0% | | Hispanic or Latino | 4,663 | 68.9% | 6,304 | 79.3% | | Pacific Islander | 276 | 74.6% | 168 | 85.1% | | White | 4,246 | 89.0% | 3,252 | 91.8% | | Two or More Races | 306 | 83.0% | 837 | 89.7% | | Not Reported | 150 | 53.3% | 121 | 76.9% | | Alameda County | 16,991 | 78.0% | 17,846 | 86.9% | | California | 503,273 | 77.1% | 500,179 | 83.6% | Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2010-11 and 2020-21. HUD’s school proximity indices for Alameda County, shown previously in Table E-36, indicate White and Asian populations tend to live in neighborhoods with higher quality school systems compared to Native American, Hispanic, and Black populations. All populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, have lower quality school systems compared to the total population. TCAC education scores are determined using the following variables: math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E-35. Coastal East Bay areas such as Antioch, Concord, Richmond, Oakland, and San Leandro have the highest concentration of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile for education. A high concentration of tracts in eastern San Francisco also scored in the lowest quartile. High scoring tracts, with education scores of 0.50 and above, are most prevalent in central and southern Contra Costa County, Berkeley, western San Francisco, and part of Marin County. Lower scoring tracts in the East Bay and San Francisco tend to have larger racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI households (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-35). E-89 Table E-39: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Scores by Tract (2021) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:28:16 PM | | | 1:288,895 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ☐ City/Town Boundaries | 0.50 - 0.75 | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi | | (R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Education Score -Tract | > 0.75 (More Positive Education Outcomes) | 0 4.5 9 18 km | | 🟨 < 0.25 (Less Positive Education Outcomes) | ⬜ No Data | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | | 🟨 0.25 - 0.50 | | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022. E-90 Local Trends. Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average,” 5-6 “average.” and 7-10 “above average.” Figure E-51 shows that most Berkeley schools are considered average or above average. There is one school, Longfellow Middle School in the South Berkeley neighborhood, which currently scores below average. Longfellow Middle School is in a block group where approximately 60 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group and where 51 percent of households are LMI (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-38). REALM Charter, Berkeley’s only charter school which was in the Southwest Berkeley neighborhood, closed in 2019. **Figure E-51: Great Schools Ratings (2022)** <
> *Note: Private schools are shown in gray.* *Source: GreatSchools.org, GreatSchools Rating – Berkeley, CA, 2022.* Of the 17 schools in the BUSD, including 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools, there are 11 Title 1 schools. Title 1, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA): > *“…provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. Federal funds are currently allocated through four statutory formulas that are based primarily on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state.”* Title 1 schools in Berkeley are listed below. These schools are not generally concentrated in one area of the City. * Berkeley Arts Magnet at Whittier * Berkeley Technology Academy E-91 * Cragmont Elementary * Emerson Elementary * John Muir Elementary * Longfellow Arts and Technology Middle * Malcolm X Elementary * Oxford Elementary at West Campus * Sylvia Mendez Elementary * Thousand Oaks Elementary * Willard Middle Cragmont Elementary and Thousand Oaks Elementary are in the northeastern corner of the City (Berkeley Hills/Cragmont and Thousand Oaks neighborhoods), Berkeley Arts Magnet at Whittier and Oxford Elementary at West Campus are in central Berkeley (North and Central Berkeley neighborhoods), Berkeley Technology Academy, Longfellow Arts and Technology Middle, Malcom X Elementary, and Sylvia Mendez Elementary are in southern Berkeley (South Berkeley and Le Conte neighborhoods), and Emerson Elementary, John Muir Elementary, and Willard Middle are in the southeast corner of the City (Elmwood District and Claremont neighborhoods). Graduation rates for BUSD students for the 2016-2017 and 2020-2021 classes are shown in Table E-40. Berkeley has higher graduation rates than both the County and State. The Asian student population has the highest graduation rate in the City compared to other racial and ethnic student groups. The graduation rate for Asian students during the 2020-2021 school year was 94.2 percent, followed by the Hispanic/Latino population (89.5 percent), and White population (89.1 percent). The African American and two or more races student populations had slightly lower graduation rates of 87.3 percent and 87.7 percent, respectively. Like the County and State, graduation rates in BUSD have increased since the 2016-2017 school year, from 86.6 percent to 89.4 percent in 2020-2021. The graduation rates for African American and Hispanic/Latino students in Berkeley is higher than the County, but lower for Asian students, White students, and students of two or more races. In addition to higher graduation rates, between the 2014-2015 and 2017-2018 school years, Berkeley had higher rates of students entering college (72.4 percent) compared to the County (70 percent) and State (64.9 percent). Table E-40: High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity – BUSD (2017-2021) | | 2016-2017 | | 2020-2021 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Students | Graduation Rate | Students | Graduation Rate | | African American | 181 | 83.4% | 110 | 87.3% | | Asian | 84 | 84.5% | 86 | 94.2% | | Filipino | 11 | 100.0% | -- | -- | | Hispanic or Latino | 174 | 84.5% | 219 | 89.5% | | White | 333 | 88.0% | 368 | 89.1% | | Two or More Races | 87 | 93.1% | 106 | 87.7% | | BUSD | 873 | 86.6% | 905 | 89.4% | | Alameda County | 15,225 | 85.4% | 15,933 | 86.6% | | California | 428,998 | 86.7% | 425,585 | 87.7% | Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2016-17 and 2020-21. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students in BUSD are more prone to chronic absence and lower college readiness rates (Figure E-52, Figure E-53). The rate of Black/African American and Hispanic Latino students who are chronically absent has decreased since the 2014-2015 school year but remains significantly higher than White students. Approximately 21 percent of Black/African American students and 12 percent of Hispanic/Latino students were chronically absent during the 2016-2017 school year compared to only seven percent of White students. During this period, African American and Hispanic/Latino students also had lower graduation rates than White students. **Figure E-52: School Attendance – BUSD (2014-2017)** <
> *% of students who are "chronically absent" (missed more than 10% of school days in the year)* *Source: Berkeley's 2020 Vision: Equity in Education, Update to the Berkeley City Council, September 2018.* Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students at Berkeley high school are also less likely to complete courses required for University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) schools. During the 2015-2016 school year, 88 percent of White students complete UC/CSU required courses with a C or better compared to only 62 percent of Hispanic/Latino students and 37 percent of Black/African American students. Between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the proportion of Black/African American student with completed UC/CSU courses decreased. Figure E-53: College and Career Readiness – Berkeley High School (2014-2016) <
> % of Berkeley High School graduates who completed courses required for UC/CSU entry with "C" or better Source: Berkeley's 2020 Vision: Equity in Education, Update to the Berkeley City Council, September 2018. HUD’s school proximity indices for Berkeley, shown previously in Table E-36, indicate Black and Hispanic populations tend to live in neighborhoods with higher quality school systems compared to White, Asian, and Native American populations. School proficiency scores for the City ranged from 77.2 for the Asian population to 80.4 for the Black population. All populations below the federal poverty line, other than the Hispanic population, have less access to high quality school systems compared to the total population. BUSD has a higher rate of English only (EO) students (78.5 percent), compared to the County (53.8 percent) and the State (59 percent) (Table E-41). Only 6.7 percent of BUSD students are considered English learners (EL). Conversely, 18.5 percent of Alameda County students and 17.7 percent of California students are EL. Due to the low rate of English learners in BUSD, the district also has a lower rate of reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP) students. During the 2020-2021 school year, of English language-learners, 55 percent were Spanish-speakers, 9.9 percent were Arabic-speakers, 3.5 percent were Pashto-speakers, 3.3 percent were Urdu-speakers, 1.9 percent were Tigrinya-speakers, 1.6 percent were Thai-, Vietnamese-, Russian-, French-, and Japanese-speakers, 1.4 percent were Punjabi-speakers, and 1.1 percent were Amharic-speakers. Less than 2 percent of English-language learners spoke any other language. Table E-41: English Language Learners – BUSD, Alameda County, California (2020-21) | | Elementary | Middle | High | BUSD | Alameda County | California | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | English Only (EO) | 81.1% | 79.0% | 75.2% | 78.5% | 53.8% | 59.0% | | Initial Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) | 5.8% | 6.2% | 8.1% | 6.7% | 7.3% | 4.3% | | English Learner (EL) | 7.8% | 7.4% | 5.1% | 6.7% | 18.5% | 17.7% | | Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) | 2.9% | 7.3% | 11.5% | 7.0% | 18.3% | 17.6% | | To Be Determined (TBD) | 2.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 1.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | | Total | 4,005 | 2,077 | 3,327 | 9,409 | 222,573 | 6,002,523 | *Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2020-21.* TCAC Opportunity Area education scores for Berkeley tracts are shown in Figure E-54. All tracts have higher scores exceeding 0.50. In general, the eastern side of the City has slightly lower scores, between 0.50 and 0.75, while the western side has scores in the highest quartile. TCAC scores for Berkeley tracts range from 0.52 to .080, indicating there are adequate educational opportunities Citywide. Higher education scores do not directly correlate with larger populations of persons of color. Tracts with higher education scores generally have larger populations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households, indicating that these protected groups are not exposed to lower education scores at a higher rate (see Figure E-21, Figure E-26, and Figure E-35). Figure E-54: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score by Tract (2021) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.* E-95 ### Transportation **Regional Trends.** In the County, most workers (70.7 percent) drive to work (Figure E-55). Nearly 61 percent of workers drive alone and 9.8 percent carpool. Public transit is the second most common mode of transportation in the County, followed by walking, and bicycling. Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the proportion of workers who worked from home increased from 5.1 percent to 6.4 percent. One-year, 2019 ACS estimates show that 6.6 percent of workers worked from home. Between the 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS, the rate of workers using public transportation also increased (from 11.3 percent to 15.8 percent). **Figure E-55: Means of Transportation for Work – Alameda County (2019)** <
> *Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* There are seven transit agencies that operate in Alameda County.[^p362-21] Services include heavy rail, commuter rail, bus, ferry, and automated guideway services. Transit agencies serving Alameda County are as follows: * Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) * Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) * Capital Corridor * Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) * San Francisco (SF) Bay Ferry * Union City Transit [^p362-21]: Alameda County Transportation Commission, Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020. https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Transit_System_FS_Jan2020.pdf. * Wheels – Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Transit routes and services areas for these agencies in the Alameda County region are shown in Figure E-56. Most of these agencies serve cities throughout northeastern Alameda County. The eastern County is served only by BART, Wheels (LAVTA), and ACE. **Figure E-56: Transit Service Areas in Alameda County (2020)** <
> *Alameda County Transportation Commission | www.AlamedaCTC.org* *Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission – Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020.* According to the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Alameda County has the second highest share of transit commuters after San Francisco. A majority of transit trips in the County are on BART or bus. Boardings per capita for all services, BART, Commuter Rail, Bus, and Ferry, has increased since 2010 (Figure E-57). Operator expenses for BART and AC transit have increased over the last decade. The County Transportation Commission attributes this increase to congestion on arterials for buses, strongly-peaked demand, and rising maintenance and labor costs. The County Transportation Commission also noted that the cost per trip for operators has increased as AC transit and BART have expanded services but seen a dip in ridership over the past four years. E-97 Figure E-57: Boardings per Capita - Alameda County (2010-2019) <
> *Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission – Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020.* HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Alameda County through the transit index[^p364-22] and low transportation cost index.[^p364-23] Index values can range from zero to 100 and are reported by race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on racial or ethnic background. Indices scores for the County were shown previously in Table E-36. In the County, transit index values range from 67 to 82, with White residents scoring the lowest and Black residents scoring highest. Given that the higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black residents are more likely to use public transit. Hispanic and Asian/API residents were about equally likely to use public transit (transit trip index scores of 75.7 and 75.5, respectively). For residents living below the poverty line, the index values have a smaller range from 77 for White residents to 84.5 for Black and Hispanic residents. Regardless of income, White residents have lower index values- and thus a lower likelihood of using transit. For all racial/ethnic groups, the lower income population is more likely to use public transit. Low transportation cost index values have a smaller range than transit index values of 90.1 for the White population to 92.7 for the Black population. Low transportation cost indices across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. White residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores, regardless of poverty status, While Black residents have the highest. All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Alameda County has an AllTransit Performance Score of 7.1 (out of 10). The map in Figure E-58 shows [^p364-22]: Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. [^p364-23]: Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. E-98 that the coastal areas of the County, from Fremont to Berkeley, have the highest scores compared to inland Alameda County areas. According to AllTransit, in the County, 85.7 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 92.8 percent workers live within ½ mile of transit. 93.3 percent of households are within a ½ mile of transit including 100 percent of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) buildings totaling 14,317 units. **Figure E-58: Alameda County All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019)** <
> *Source: AllTransit Performance Score – Berkeley, CA 2019, 2022.* **Local Trends.** Compared to the County, Berkeley has a significantly lower proportion of workers who drive to work. Only 38.7 percent of Berkeley workers get to work by car, truck, or van, including 33 percent who drive alone and 5.7 percent who carpool (Figure E-59). Over a quarter of workers in the City use public transit. Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the proportion of workers who drive to work has decreased significantly, while the proportion of workers using public transit has increased. The proportion of persons working from home also increased by one percent during the same period. In general, the City is characterized by a high level of public transit users and pedestrians compared to the County. E-99 Figure E-59: Means of Transportation for Work – Berkeley (2010-2019) <
> Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). HUD Opportunity Indicator scores for the City were shown previously in Table E-36. In Berkeley, transit index values range from 88.8 to 90.5, with White residents scoring the lowest and Black and Asian residents scoring highest. Given that the higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black and Asian residents are more likely to use public transit. Hispanic and Native American residents were almost as likely to use public transit as Black and Asian residents (index scores of 90.1 and 90.3, respectively). For residents living below the poverty line, the index values have a larger range from 85.4 for Native American residents to 92.4 for Asian residents. All groups below the poverty level, except Native American populations, were more likely to use public transit compared to the population as a whole. All Berkeley residents, regardless of race or income, were more likely to use public transit compared to the County population. Low transportation cost index values have a smaller range than transit index values of 94.1 for the White population to 95.2 for the Asian population. Low transportation cost indices across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. White residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores for the total population, while Native American residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores for populations below the federal poverty level. All racial/ethnic groups in the City, except for Native Americans below the poverty level, have lower transportation costs compared to the County. Transit agencies serving the City of Berkeley include: * AC Transit * Amtrak * Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) * Bear Transit – UC Berkeley Shuttle * Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority * Emery Go-Round * Tideline Water Taxi * Berkeley Lab – Employee shuttle * CALTRANS Commuter Bike Shuttle – Van service takes bikes from MacArthur BART to San Francisco Transbay Terminal during commute hours The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to estimate healthy community conditions. Figure E-60 shows that most tracts in Berkeley scored in the lowest quartile for automobile access. This is consistent with the low rate of workers who commute by car, truck, or van. Tracts in the northeastern corner of the City, in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, and Terrace View neighborhoods, have larger populations with access to automobiles. Though automobile access is limited throughout the City, all tracts scored in the highest quartile for active commuting (Figure E-61). Active commuting includes persons who commute to work by transit, walking, or cycling. **Figure E-60: Healthy Places Index – Automobile Access by Tract** <
> E-101 *Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.* **Figure E-61: Healthy Places Index – Active Commuting** <
> *Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.* There are three major transit centers located in Berkeley. Transit centers are considered “major transit connection hubs, where multiple transit modes and agencies converge.”²⁴ Berkeley transit centers include: * Ashby BART Station (BART, AC Transit, West Berkeley Shuttle) * Downtown Berkeley BART Station (BART, AC Transit, Bear Transit (Shuttle)) * North Berkeley BART Station (BART, AC Transit) Berkeley received an All Transit performance score of 8.8, higher than the County score of 7.1. According to All Transit, 98.8 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 99.9 percent of workers live within ½ mile of transit, higher than the rates Countywide. Nearly all households (99.9 percent) are also within ½ mile of transit, including 100 percent of LIHTC buildings totaling 781 units. As presented in both Figure E-62 and Figure E-63, most of Berkeley has high access to transit and jobs. Transit opportunities are generally less accessible to areas along the City boundaries, especially the Berkeley Hills neighborhood in the northeastern corner of the City. This part of Berkeley has a higher concentration of elderly adults, White residents, and has median incomes exceeding $125,000 (see Figure E-27 and Figure E-47). [^p368-24]: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 511 SF Bay – Transit Centers, accessed March 2022. https://511.org/transit/centers. E-102 Figure E-62: Berkeley All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019) <
> Source: AllTransit Performance Score – Berkeley, CA 2019, 2022. Figure E-63: Healthy Places Index – Transit Access <
> Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022. ## Economic **Regional Trends.** The Bay Area economy has grown to be the fourth largest metropolitan region in the United States today, with over 7.7 million people residing in the nine-county, 7,000 square-mile area. In recent years, the Bay Area economy has experienced record employment levels during a tech expansion surpassing the “dot-com” era of the late 1990s. The latest boom has extended not only to the South Bay and Peninsula — the traditional hubs of Silicon Valley — but also to neighborhoods in San Francisco and cities in the East Bay, most notably Oakland. The rapidly growing and changing economy has also created significant housing and transportation challenges due to job-housing imbalances. HUD provide values for labor market index[^p370-25] and jobs proximity index[^p370-26] that can be used to measure for economic development in Alameda County. Like other HUD opportunity indicators, scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher score means higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Alameda County’s labor market index values have a significant range from 48.3 to 74.6, with Black residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. White residents have significantly higher labor market participation than all other racial/ethnic groups according to labor market index scores. Scores for Marin County residents living below the poverty line drop notably for residents of all races. HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicate better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 39.7 to 49.5 and are highest for White and Black residents. The jobs proximity value map in Figure E-64 shows the distribution of scores in the region. Regionally, tracts along the northern San Pablo Bay shore and northern San Francisco Bay shore (Oakland and San Francisco) have the highest job proximity scores. Block groups in northern Contra Costa County, surrounding Richmond, Clayton, and Antioch, and block groups in southwestern San Francisco, Daly City, and around Hayward have significantly lower jobs proximity scores. TCAC economic scores are determined using the following variables: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E-35. TCAC economic scores by tract are presented in Figure E-67. Tracts with TCAC education scores in the highest quartile are concentrated in San Francisco, Berkeley, northern Oakland, and southern Marin County. Most of Contra Costa County as well as the area spanning southern Oakland to San Leandro have lower TCAC economic scores. [^p370-25]: Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. [^p370-26]: Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Figure E-64: Regional HUD Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2014-2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data), 2022. E-105 Figure E-65: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score by Tract (2021) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:27:59 PM | | | | 1:288,895 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ☐ City/Town Boundaries | ■ 0.50 - 0.75 | 0 | 2.75 | 5.5 | 11 mi | | (R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Economic Score - Tract | ■ > 0.75 (More Positive Economic Outcome) | 0 | 4.5 | 9 | 18 km | | ■ < 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcome) | ☐ No Data | | | | | | ■ 0.25 - 0.50 | | | | | | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022. E-106 **Local Trends.** HUD Opportunity indicators for labor market indices and jobs proximity indices for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E-36. As discussed previously, the labor market index is based on employment levels, labor force participation, and human capital in a neighborhood. Labor market index values for the City range from 68.3 to 83.3 for the total City population, higher than the range Countywide. The White population has the highest labor market index values, followed by the Black population, Hispanic population, Native American population, and Asian population (lowest values). The low labor market index value for Asian communities is likely in part due to the large population of Asian students residing in the City. As discussed previously, students tend to have lower labor force participation rates and employment levels. Labor market index values are higher for the populations below the poverty level for all racial/ethnic groups other than the White population. Jobs proximity index values reflect the level of employment accessibility for certain racial groups. The Black population in the City has the highest jobs proximity index value of 76.7, followed by the Hispanic population (73.3), Native American population (72.5), Asian population (69.3), and White population (67.2). Jobs proximity index values are higher for all racial/ethnic groups in the City compared to Alameda County as a whole. Index values are lower for all racial/ethnic groups below the federal poverty level except for the White population. Jobs proximity index values by block group are shown in Figure E-66. There are no block groups in the City with jobs proximity index scores below 40. The northeastern corner of the City, in the Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak and Northbrae neighborhoods, have the lowest jobs proximity index scores between 40 and 60. The Claremont neighborhood in the southeast corner of the City also has scores in the same range. Most block groups in the City scored between 60 and 80 for jobs proximity. The western section of the City, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and Berkeley Marina neighborhoods, have the highest jobs proximity index values exceeding 80. Lower index scores correlate with larger White populations, smaller populations of children in female-headed households, and smaller populations of persons below the poverty line (see Figure E-21, Figure E-35, and Figure E-40). Lower access to employment opportunities does not disproportionately affect any of the special needs groups or populations described previously in this Appendix. TCAC economic scores for the City by tract are presented in Figure E-67. The areas of the City with lower jobs proximity index scores have higher TCAC economic scores. As discussed above, TCAC economic scores are based on the following variables: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The northeastern and southeastern corners of the City, where TCAC economic scores are the highest, have the lowest poverty rates and highest median incomes compared to other tracts in Berkeley (see Figure E-40 and Figure E-47). The Northside, Southside, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Panoramic Hill, Le Conte, and Elmwood District neighborhoods all have TCAC economic scores in the lowest quartile. These tracts surround the UC Berkeley campus and are considered R/ECAPs (see Figure E-43). They also have large student populations and low labor force participation (see Table E-30 and Table E-31). Figure E-66: HUD Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 40 - 60 | | (A) Jobs Proximity Index (HUD, 2014 - 2017) - Block Group | 60 - 80 | | 20 - 40 | > 80 (Closest Proximity) | *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2014-2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data), 2022.* Figure E-67: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score by Tract (2021) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 0.25 - 0.50 | | (R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Economic Score - Tract | 0.50 - 0.75 | | < 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcome) | > 0.75 (More Positive Economic Outcome) | *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.* E-108 # Environmental **Regional Trends.** Environmental conditions residents live in can be affected by past and current land uses like landfills or proximity to freeways The TCAC Environmental Score shown in Figure E-68 is based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E-35. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. TCAC Environmental Scores range from 0 to 1, where higher scores indicate a more positive environmental outcome (better environmental quality) Regionally, TCAC environmental scores are lowest in the tracts in coastal East Bay cities from San Leandro to Richmond, northern Contra Costa County, eastern San Francisco and Daly City, and in some Marin County tracts (Figure E-68). Tracts with environmental scores in the highest quartile are located in inland Contra Costa County, eastern San Francisco/Daly City, and western Marin County. The eastern side of Berkeley has significantly higher TCAC environmental scores compared to the western side. This trend is consistent with nearby jurisdictions to the north and south of the City. Figure E-68 shows the TCAC Environmental Score based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.0 scores in Figure E-69 are based on percentiles and show trends similar to the TCAC environmental score map. Western portions of San Leandro, Oakland, Richmond, and southeastern San Francisco have the highest (worst) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. Most of Contra Costa County, Marin County, and San Francisco have lower (better) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. Like the TCAC environmental scores, eastern Berkeley has better CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores compared to the western side of the City. In general, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in Berkeley are lower (better) than jurisdictions to the north and south of the City. HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. In Alameda County, environmental health index values range from 47.4 for the Black population to 53.3 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population (Table E-36). The range is similar for the population living below the federal poverty line, with Black residents living in poverty still scoring lowest (46.1) but Native American residents living in poverty scoring highest among all races (50.5). Environmental scores for all populations below the poverty line are lower compared to the respective racial/ethnic populations as a whole. Figure E-68: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score by Tract (2021) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:28:41 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Environmental Score -Tract [ ] < .25 (Less Positive Environmental Outcomes) [ ] .25 - .50 [ ] .50 - .75 [ ] .75 - 1 (More Positive Environmental Outcomes) [ ] No Data 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022. E-110 Figure E-69: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract (2021) <
> 3/25/2022, 2:29:27 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (A) CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 - Tract [ ] 1 - 10% (Lowest Scores) [ ] 11 - 20% [ ] 21 - 30% [ ] 31 - 40% [ ] 41 - 50% [ ] 51 - 60% [ ] 61 - 70% [ ] 71 - 80% [ ] 81 - 90% [ ] 91 - 100% (Highest Scores) 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (OEHHA, 2021), 2022. E-111 **Local Trends.** As discussed previously, TCAC environmental scores in Berkeley are higher on the eastern side compared to the western side. All tracts on the eastern side of the City have environmental scores of 0.50 or above. Western Berkeley neighborhoods, including Berkeley Marina, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and part of South Berkeley, have the lowest TCAC environmental scores below 0.50. This area of the City has populations of people of color exceeding 40 percent, persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent, and children in female-headed households exceeding 20 percent (see Figure E-21, Figure E-26, and Figure E-35). Some block groups in this section of the City are also considered LMI areas with populations of low to moderate income household exceeding 50 percent (see Figure E-38). Tracts with lower environmental scores are categorized as high resource and moderate resource areas (see Figure E-49). **Figure E-70: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score by Tract (2021)** <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.* CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores follow trends similar to TCAC environmental scores (Figure E-71). The eastern side of the City, especially the northeastern neighborhoods of Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, upper North Berkeley, and Northbrae, have the lowest (best) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores in the City. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores get progressively worse towards the western side of the City. There are no tracts in the City scoring in the 90th percentile or above (worst scores). E-112 Figure E-71: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score by Tract (2021) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021), 2022.* HUD Opportunity indicator scores for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E-36. Environmental health scores for all racial/ethnic groups in the City are lower than the Countywide scores. Environmental health scores range from 28 for the Black population to 30.1 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population, and 28.7 for the Hispanic population below the federal poverty level and 34.6 for the Native American population below the federal poverty level. Unlike the County, the White, Black, and Native American populations below the federal poverty level are higher compared to the respective total populations. Environmental health index scores for the Native American population below the poverty level is significantly higher than the index score for the total Native American population. ## E4.5 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Marin County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include: * Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; E-113 * Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; * Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and * Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to CHAS data based on the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately 41 percent of Alameda County households experience housing problems, compared to 43 percent of households in Berkeley. In both the County and City, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners. It is important to note that Berkeley has a large population of renters, likely in part due to the large student population in the City. Renter populations by tract are shown in Figure E-72. More than 80 percent of households in tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus are renter-occupied. As mentioned above, 29 percent of the Berkeley population is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to only 8.5 in the County. The northeastern corner of the City is comprised of mostly owner-occupied households. 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data shows than 57.1 percent of households in the City are renters compared to only 46.7 Countywide. Figure E-72: Percent of Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2020) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020 based on 2012-2016 ACS), 2022.* ### Cost Burden **Regional Trends.** Households paying 30 percent or more of their income in housing costs are considered cost burdened and households paying 50 percent or more on their income are considered severely cost burdened. As discussed previously, 40.7 percent of households in Alameda County experience one or more housing problem, including 35.7 percent that are cost burdened. According to more recent 2015-2019 ACS data included in the ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 37 percent of Alameda County E-114 households are cost burdened including 17 percent severely cost burdened households (Figure E-73). Cost burden is only slightly more prevalent in the County compared to the Bay Area. Only 36 percent of households in the Bay Area are cost burdened including 16 percent severely cost burdened. There are significantly more severely cost burdened households (23 percent) in the City compared to both the County and Bay Area. Figure E-73: Cost Burden Severity (2019) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. Housing problems and cost burden by race and ethnicity for Alameda County is shown in Table E-42. Estimates may differ slightly from Figure E-73 as this dataset utilizes the 2021 HUD CHAS data based on the 2014-2018 ACS. This table also includes rates of housing problems, including cost burden, for Alameda County households using the 2006-2010 ACS. The proportion of owners experiencing a housing problem has decreased significantly during this period while the proportion of renters experiencing a housing problem has increased slightly. Overall, there is currently a smaller share of cost burdened households, owners and renters, compared to in 2010. As mentioned above, renter-occupied households are more likely to experience housing problems and cost burden. Over half of renter-occupied households in the City experience a housing problem compared to only 29.5 percent of owner-occupied households. In the County, Black renters followed by American Indian renters are most likely to be cost burdened (56.9 percent and 50.6 percent cost burdened, respectively). Hispanic renter-occupied households also experience cost burden exceeding the Countywide average of 45.9 percent. Black and Hispanic owner-occupied households are also most likely to experience cost burdened compared to owners of a difference race or ethnicity. The Hispanic population represents 22.4 percent of the population in Alameda County, the third largest racial or ethnic group Countywide, followed by the Black/African American population (10.3 percent) (see Table E-17). As discussed in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), the Black/African American (20 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (15 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (12.5 percent) populations also experience poverty at rates exceeding the Countywide average of 9.9 percent. Table E-42: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2018) | | White | Black | Asian | American Indian | Pacific Islander | Hispanic | All | All (2010) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **With Housing Problem** | | | | | | | | | | Owner-Occupied | 24.2% | 40.7% | 30.5% | 29.6% | 32.2% | 40.1% | 29.5% | 42.6% | | Renter-Occupied | 44.6% | 60.6% | 50.6% | 54.5% | 59.9% | 63.2% | 53.4% | 52.1% | | All Households | 32.0% | 51.3% | 38.2% | 43.9% | 48.4% | 54.2% | 40.7% | 46.8% | | **With Cost Burden** | | | | | | | | | | Owner-Occupied | 23.4% | 38.8% | 26.4% | 26.5% | 28.5% | 32.5% | 26.7% | 40.9% | | Renter-Occupied | 41.6% | 56.9% | 38.5% | 50.6% | 45.7% | 49.8% | 45.9% | 47.5% | | All Households | 30.3% | 51.3% | 31.1% | 40.3% | 38.5% | 43.1% | 35.7% | 43.9% | *Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.* Housing problems and cost burden often affect special needs populations, such as elderly households and large households, disproportionately.[^p382-27] Only 26.7 percent of owner-occupied households in the County are cost burdened, compared to 31.8 percent of owner-occupied elderly households. Fewer owner-occupied large households are cost burdened compared to the County average, however significantly more experience one or more housing problem. The high proportion of large owner-occupied households experiencing a housing problem is likely due to overcrowding. Similarly, only 45.9 percent of all renters in the City are cost burdened while 66 percent of elderly renters and 46.7 percent of large renter households are cost burdened. Both elderly and large renter-occupied households experience housing problems at a high rate. As discussed above, housing problems other than cost burden include lack of complete facilities (kitchen or bathroom) and overcrowding. Table E-43: Housing Problems Elderly and Large Households – Alameda County (2018) | | With Any Housing Problem | Cost Burden >30% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Owner-Occupied** | | | | Elderly Households | 32.1% | 31.8% | | Large Households | 42.8% | 23.4% | | All Owner-Occupied | 29.5% | 26.7% | | **Renter-Occupied** | | | | Elderly Households | 69.8% | 66.0% | | Large Households | 78.7% | 46.7% | | All Renter-Occupied | 53.4% | 45.9% | | All Households | 40.7% | 35.7% | *Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.* Figure E-74 and Figure E-75 shows cost burden by tenure geographically for the region. While there are some tracts throughout the Bay Area where fewer than 20 percent of the renter population is cost burdened, there are generally more cost burden amongst renter-occupied households compared to owner-occupied households. Tracts where more than 40 percent of owners are cost burden are most concentrated in areas surrounding Richmond, San Leandro, southern San Francisco and Daly City, Marin County, and northern Contra Costa County. Less than 40 percent of owner are cost burdened in most [^p382-27]: Elderly households include elderly families, two persons with either or both age 62 or older, and elderly non-families (i.e., single-person elderly households). Large households are considered households with five or more related persons. Berkeley tracts. The composition of cost burdened owner tracts in the City is generally comparable to the nearby jurisdictions of El Cerrito, Albany, Emeryville, and Oakland. Cost burdened renter-occupied households are prevalent throughout the region, specifically in coastal Alameda County, northern Contra Costa County and central Contra Costa County along Interstate 680, southern San Francisco/Daly City, and eastern Marin County. More than 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in most Berkeley tracts. The City has a slightly higher concentration of tracts where more than 60 percent of renters are cost burdened compared to tracts directly north and south of Berkeley. In general, areas where cost burden is more prevalent are more highly populated and have larger proportions of people of color (see Figure E-16). Children living in single-parent female-headed households, LMI households, and low resource tracts are also more concentrated in these areas (see Figure E-30, Figure E-37, and Figure E-48). Figure E-74: Regional Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:30:04 PM | | 1:288,895 | --- | --- | --- | ☐ City/Town Boundaries | ■ 40% - 60% | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi | (R) Overpayment by Home Owners (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract | ■ 60% - 80% | 0 4.5 9 18 km | ■ < 20% | ■ > 80% | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | ■ 20% - 40% | | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. E-118 Figure E-75: Regional Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 40% - 60% | | (R) Overpayment by Renters (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract | 60% - 80% | | < 20% | > 80% | | 20% - 40% | | *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* E-119 Local Trends. A slightly smaller proportion of owners in the City are cost burdened compared to the County (25.1 percent vs. 26.7 percent, respectively) (Table E-44). Conversely, 52.1 percent of renters in the City are cost burdened compared to only 45.9 percent Countywide. Due to the high concentration of renters in the City and the prevalence of cost burden amongst renters, over 40 percent of all households are cost burdened in Berkeley, while only 35.7 are cost burdened in the County. All racial/ethnic groups except the White population are cost burdened at a rate exceeding the average in the City. Pacific Islander owners (66.7 percent), followed by Pacific Islander renters (65.2 percent), American Indian renters (63.3 percent), and Black renters (60.3 percent) are cost burdened at the highest rate. As shown in Figure E-44, these groups also experience poverty at the highest rates. Nearly 37 percent of the Asian/API population, 24.5 percent of the American Indian/Alaska Native population, and 24.5 percent of the Black/African American population in the City is below the ACS-designated poverty line. However, as discussed before, the large presence of student households in the City is likely a reason for the high rate of cost burden, which may not reflect the actual financial status of these households. Table E-44 also includes housing problem and cost burden rates using the 2006-2010 ACS, Like the County, the proportion of owners experiencing a housing problem has decreased significantly. However, in Berkeley, the proportion of renters experiencing a housing problem has also decreased. In 2010, 47.7 percent of households experienced a housing problem and 46 percent were cost burdened. Table E-44: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Berkeley (2018) | | White | Black | Asian | American Indian | Pacific Islander | Hispanic | All | All (2010) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **With Housing Problem** | | | | | | | | | | Owner-Occupied | 23.7% | 40.4% | 31.4% | 40.0% | 66.7% | 42.0% | 26.5% | 34.8% | | Renter-Occupied | 50.7% | 61.0% | 60.0% | 78.7% | 68.7% | 56.8% | 54.8% | 57.5% | | All Households | 36.7% | 54.7% | 51.8% | 76.3% | 68.5% | 52.9% | 42.7% | 47.7% | | **With Cost Burden** | | | | | | | | | | Owner-Occupied | 23.0% | 37.9% | 28.4% | 40.0% | 66.7% | 35.0% | 25.1% | 34.3% | | Renter-Occupied | 48.6% | 60.3% | 55.7% | 63.3% | 65.2% | 53.1% | 52.1% | 55.0% | | All Households | 35.3% | 53.4% | 48.0% | 61.9% | 65.4% | 48.4% | 40.5% | 46.0% | Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021. According to 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data, the City of Berkeley has a larger proportion of elderly households compared to the County (26.4 percent vs. 22.2 percent), but a smaller proportion of related large households (2.3 percent vs. 9.4 percent). As presented in Table E-45, owner-occupied elderly households have housing problems and cost burden at a rate exceeding the citywide average. Cost burden is less prevalent amongst owner-occupied large households, but housing problems are more prevalent, likely due to overcrowding. Similarly, renter-occupied elderly and large households experience housing problems at a rate exceeding the City average. Table E-45: Housing Problems Elderly and Large Households – Berkeley (2018) | | With Any Housing Problem | Cost Burden >30% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Owner-Occupied** | | | | Elderly Households | 28.4% | 27.6% | | Large Households | 30.5% | 16.1% | | All Owner-Occupied | 26.5% | 25.1% | | **Renter-Occupied** | | | | Elderly Households | 64.7% | 63.1% | | Large Households | 62.3% | 47.8% | | All Renter-Occupied | 54.8% | 52.1% | | All Households | 42.7% | 40.5% | Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021. Figure E-76 and Figure E-79 compare percentage of cost burdened owners by tract using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS. Cost burden amongst homeowners in most tracts has generally decreased during this period, specifically in tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus and on the western side of the City. As shown in Figure E-77, home values for owner-occupied units in Berkeley have followed trends in the County and Bay Area. Home values remain higher in Berkeley compared to both Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole. As of 2020, a typical home in Berkeley was valued at $1,405,908, an increase of 193 percent since 2001. Home values have increased at similar but smaller rates during the same period in the County (+157 percent) and Bay Area (+142 percent). In most Berkeley tracts, between 20 and 40 percent of owners currently overpay. Less than 20 percent of owners overpay in the UC Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Le Conte/Elmwood District neighborhoods. There is a concentration of overpaying owners in the Southside neighborhood where more than 80 percent of owners are cost burdened. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 2.2 percent of occupied households in this tract are owners. As shown in Table E-30 previously, nearly 90 percent of the population in this tract (4228) are enrolled in college or graduate school. ### Figure E-77: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) (2001-2020) <
> *Note: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series* *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Zillow, ZHVI), 2021.* Figure E-78: Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2014) <
> 3/29/2022, 4:02:11 PM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (A) Overpayment by Home Owners (ACS, 2010 - 2014 ) - Tract ☐ < 20% ☐ 20% - 40% ☐ 40% - 60% ☐ 60% - 80% ☐ > 80% *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* Figure E-79: Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:18:58 AM ☐ City/Town Boundaries (R) Overpayment by Home Owners (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract ☐ < 20% ☐ 20% - 40% ☐ 40% - 60% ☐ > 80% *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* E-122 Cost burdened renters by tract are compared using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS in Figure E-81 and Figure E-82. Unlike the cost burdened owner trend, the proportion of cost burdened renters has varied from tract to tract during this period. The proportion of cost burdened renters has increased in tracts in the Live Oak/Upper North Berkeley, Westbrae, Southside, Central Berkeley, and South Berkeley neighborhoods, but decreased in tracts in the Berkeley Hills/Terrace View, North Berkeley, Le Conte/Lorin/Elmwood District, and Claremont neighborhoods. More than 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in most Berkeley tracts. Between 20 and 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in the northeastern and southern eastern areas of the City. Since 2009, the median contract rent in the City has increased at rates similar to the County and Bay Area (Figure E-80). During this period, the median rent in Berkeley increase by 55.4 percent, higher than the Bay Area (54.6 percent) but lower than the County (56.2 percent). As of 2019, the median contract rent was the highest in the Bay Area ($1,849), followed by the County ($1,692) and the City ($1,644). **Figure E-80: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)** <
> *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2005-2009 through 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.* E-123 Figure E-81: Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2014) <
> 3/29/2022, 4:27:51 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries | [ ] 20% - 40% (A) Overpayment by Renters (ACS, 2010 - 2014) - Tract ACS | [ ] 40% - 60% [ ] < 20% | [ ] 60% - 80% *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* Figure E-82: Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2019) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:19:25 AM [ ] City/Town Boundaries | [ ] 20% - 40% (R) Overpayment by Renters (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract | [ ] 40% - 60% [ ] < 20% | [ ] 60% - 80% *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.* E-124 Figure E-83 shows housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients by tract in the City. HCV recipients are most concentrated on the western side of the City. Tracts in the northeastern corner of the City and along the eastern City boundary have low levels of HCV recipients.[^p391-28] Concentrations of HCV recipients generally correlate with concentrations of overpaying renters, with the exception of tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus in the Northside, Southside, Downtown/Central Berkeley neighborhoods. While there is a large population of overpaying renters in this area, these tracts also have large student populations. Section 8 assistance is not provided to individuals enrolled as a student at an institution of higher education or under the age of 24. Tracts 4232, 4233, 4240.01, and 4240.02 have the highest concentration of HCV recipients (>15 percent). In these tracts, between 20 and 40 percent of children live in single-parent female-headed households (see Figure E-35). All but tract 4233 are also considered LMI areas where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income (see Figure E-38). **Figure E-83: Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Recipients by Tract (2020)** <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2020), 2022.* ### Overcrowded Households **Regional Trends.** Households with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded and households with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding [^p391-28]: Please note that to restrict access to tenant information HCV locations are identified in public records by the owner, and not the tenant. Public data pertaining to the locations of HCV program participants are only available as U.S. Census Tract aggregations. Moreover, to protect the confidentiality of those receiving Housing Choice Voucher Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this service. may indicate an insufficient supply of affordable housing suitable for larger households. Since 2010, overcrowding has become more prevalent countywide. Approximately 5.2 percent of households were overcrowded in 2010 compared to 7.9 percent in 2019. Overcrowding is significantly more prevalent amongst renter-occupied households. As shown in Table E-46, nearly 13 percent of renter-occupied households in the County are overcrowded compared to only 3.5 percent of owner-occupied households. According to 2013-2017 ACS estimates, slightly older than the estimates provided for Alameda County below, 6.5 percent of households in the Bay Area are overcrowded including three percent of owner-occupied households and 10.9 percent of renter-occupied households. Based on this data, overcrowding is slightly more common in Alameda County compared to the Bay Area. Table E-46: Overcrowding by Tenure – Alameda County (2010 and 2019) | | 2019 | | | 2010 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Overcrowded (>1.0 person per room) | Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons per room) | Total Households | Overcrowded | Total Households | | Owner-Occupied | 3.5% | 0.9% | 308,891 | 3.1% | 293,277 | | Renter-Occupied | 12.9% | 5.1% | 268,286 | 7.9% | 238,749 | | All Households | 7.9% | 2.8% | 577,177 | 5.2% | 532,026 | Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). More than half (52.4 percent) of housing units in Alameda County are single-family detached homes and 8.6 percent are single-family attached units. Of multi-family housing units in the County, 10.4 percent are two to four units and 27.3 percent are five units are more. Table E-47 shows housing units in Alameda County by number of bedrooms. Most housing units in the City have from two to four bedrooms and approximately 21 percent are studio- or one-bedroom units. Table E-47: Housing Units by Bedrooms – Alameda County (2019) | | Housing Units | Percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | No bedroom | 29,383 | 4.8% | | 1 bedroom | 97,445 | 16.0% | | 2 bedrooms | 172,508 | 28.4% | | 3 bedrooms | 185,416 | 30.5% | | 4 bedrooms | 98,030 | 16.1% | | 5 or more bedrooms | 25,314 | 4.2% | | Total housing units | 608,096 | 100.0% | Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Figure E-84 and Figure E-85 show overcrowded and severely overcrowded households by tract in the region. The HCD Data Viewer shows tracts where the proportion of overcrowded households exceeds the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. Tracts with overcrowded households are most concentrated in and around the cities of San Leandro, Oakland, south San Francisco, Daly City, Richmond, and Pittsburg/Antioch. A few overcrowded tracts are also located in Pleasant Hill and San Rafael. There are no tracts in Berkeley where more than 8.2 percent of households are overcrowded, indicating that overcrowding is less prevalent in the City compared to nearby jurisdictions to the north and south. Berkeley does contain some tracts where more than five percent of households are severely overcrowded. In most tracts in the region, less than five percent of households are overcrowded. The severely overcrowded household trend in Berkeley is generally consistent with neighboring jurisdictions. Tracts where more than 20 percent of households are severely overcrowded are located in Richmond, Oakland, and San Rafael. Figure E-84: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:30:45 PM | 1:288,895 --- | --- City/Town Boundaries | 12.01% - 15% | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi (R) Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract | 15.01% - 20% | 0 4.5 9 18 km $\le$ 8.2% (Statewide Average) | > 20% | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 8.3% - 12% | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022. E-127 Figure E-85: Regional Severely Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:31:05 PM | 1:288,895 --- | --- ☐ City/Town Boundaries | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi (R) Severely Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract | 20% - 35% | +---+---+---+ ☐ ≤ 5% | 35% - 65% | 0 4.5 9 18 km ☐ 5% - 20% | ☐ > 65% | Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | ☐ No Data | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022. E-128 Local Trends. Overcrowding by tenure and severity for the City of Berkeley is included in Table E-48. Like the county, overcrowding has increased in Berkeley since 2010; 2.3 percent of households citywide were overcrowded in 2010 compared to 4 percent in 2019. However, overcrowding is less prevalent in the City compared to the County. Only four percent of households have more than one person per bedroom including 1.3 percent of owner-occupied households and six percent of renter-occupied households. Persons living with roommates, such as students, are typically at higher risk of overcrowding to reduce housing costs. Despite the prominent student population in the City, the proportion of severely overcrowded households in Berkeley is also lower than the County as a whole. Consistent with the County and Bay Area, overcrowding is significantly more prevalent amongst renters than owners. Table E-48: Overcrowding by Tenure - Berkeley (2010 and 2019) | | 2019 | | | 2010 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Overcrowded (>1.0 person per room) | Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons per room) | Total Households | Overcrowded | Total Households | | Owner-Occupied | 1.3% | 0.4% | 19,478 | 0.9% | 18,718 | | Renter-Occupied | 6.0% | 3.1% | 25,874 | 3.4% | 24,471 | | All Households | 4.0% | 1.9% | 45,352 | 2.3% | 43,189 | Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Overcrowding may affect various racial/ethnic groups differently due to cultural influences. Some cultures may be more likely to live with extended family members, increasing the need for larger housing units to avoid overcrowding. In Berkeley, Asian/API households have the highest rate of overcrowding (ten percent), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native households (nine percent), and Hispanic/Latinx households (nine percent) (Figure E-86). Conversely, only one percent of Black/African American households and two percent of non-Hispanic White household are overcrowded. Overcrowding amongst certain racial/ethnic groups in the City may, in part, be due to the UC Berkeley student population. Based on 2015-2019 ACS population estimates and UC Berkeley data,[^p395-29] UC Berkeley students represent 35.6 percent of the total City population. As mentioned previously, students are more likely to have lower incomes and live with roommates and are therefore more prone to overcrowding. Table E-49 shows the student populations and overcrowding by race and ethnicity in 2019. Racial/ethnic groups with the highest rate of overcrowding are represented by large student populations. Nearly half of the City’s American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/API populations are UC Berkeley students. Similarly, 35.1 percent of the City’s Hispanic/Latino population is a UC Berkeley student. Black/African American households and non-Hispanic White households have the lowest rates of overcrowding. This correlates with UC Berkeley populations, where Black/African American and White students represent only 11.6 percent of the respective City populations. While this trend does not eliminate the racial disparities related to overcrowded households, it may partially explain the discrepancies amongst racial/ethnic groups. [^p395-29]: UC Berkeley Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance, Our Berkeley Enrollment History, 2019. https://pages.github.berkeley.edu/OPA/our-berkeley/enroll-history.html. Figure E-86: Overcrowding by Race (2019) <
> ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. Table E-49: Overcrowded Households and Student Populations by Race/Ethnicity (2019) | Race/Ethnicity | Total Population | % Overcrowded Households | UC Berkeley Student Population | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Persons | Percent of Total | | American Indian/Alaska Native | 282 | 8.7% | 138 | 48.9% | | Asian/API | 25,313 | 9.7% | 12,442 | 49.2% | | Black/African American | 9,324 | 0.6% | 1,084 | 11.6% | | Hispanic/Latino | 13,853 | 8.8% | 4,861 | 35.1% | | White, non-Hispanic | 64,781 | 2.2% | 7,509 | 11.6% | | Total Population | 121,485 | 4.0% | 48,204 | 35.6% | Note: The total population estimates provided by the ACS, college students are counted where "they live and sleep most of the time" (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/01/student-housing-off-campus-with-parents-college-students-count-2020-census.html#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20Current%20Population,from%205.7M%20in%202011.). This estimate may be affected by certain variables including students studying from home due to COVID-19 protocols and students studying abroad. The data provided in this table are used to show the general composition of the City. Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates); UC Berkeley Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance, Our Berkeley Enrollment History, 2019. Lower income households are more likely to experience overcrowding in order to make housing more affordable. Large families are also more prone to experiencing poverty. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 3.8 percent of families in Berkeley are below the poverty level. Comparatively, 8.9 percent of families with three or four children, and 59.1 percent of families with five or more children are below the poverty level. Nearly seven percent of extremely low income households (0 to 30 percent of AMI), 5.9 percent of very low income households (31 to 50 percent of AMI), and 3.2 percent of low income households (51 to 80 percent AMI) are overcrowded. Only 2.1 percent of households earning 80 to 100 percent of the AMI and E-130 two percent of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI are overcrowded. As discussed in Section E4.2 *Income Level*, young adults have the highest poverty rate in the City compared to other age groups. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, of the population 18 years and older, college-aged students ages 18 to 24 have a significantly higher poverty rate of 72.1 percent compared to adults aged 25 to 34 (19.9 percent), aged 35 to 64 (8.4 percent), and 65 and older (8.5 percent). Young adults, including but not limited to college students, are more likely to have roommates to reduce housing costs and are therefore more likely to live in overcrowded households. **Figure E-87: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity (2017)** <
> *ABAG Housing Element Data Package (2013-2017 HUD CHAS Data), 2021.* Figure E-88 shows that there are no tracts in the City where more than 8.2 percent of households, the Statewide average, are overcrowded. However, there are three tracts where more than five percent of households are severely overcrowded. Approximately 15 percent of households in tract 4224 (North Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhoods), 5.5 percent of households in tract 4229 (Downtown Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhood), and 17.7 percent of households in tract 4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods) are severely overcrowded. Tracts 4224 and 4229 have predominant renter populations of 87.9 percent and 97.7 percent, respectively. Tract 4238 is characterized by a large senior population of 30 percent (see Figure E-27). Nearly 40 percent of senior households are considered lower income.[^p397-30] Elderly households are more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden, likely part due to lower or lack of income. [^p397-30]: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (2013-2017 HUD CHAS Data), 2021 Figure E-88: Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017) <
> 1/18/2022, 8:18:23 AM ☐ City/Town Boundaries [ ] 8.3% - 12% (R) Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract [ ] ≤ 8.2% (Statewide Average) *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.* Figure E-89: Severely Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020) <
> 3/9/2022, 3:14:01 PM ☐ City/Town Boundaries [ ] 5% - 20% (R) Severely Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract [ ] 35% - 65% [ ] ≤ 5% [ ] No Data *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.* E-132 ### Substandard Housing Conditions **Regional Trends.** Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2015-2019 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs. Of housing units in Alameda County, one percent lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.4 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. According to 2006-2010 ACS estimates, 0.5 percent of households lacked complete plumbing facilities, including 0.8 percent of renter-occupied units and 0.3 percent of owner-occupied units. Similarly, 1.5 percent of renter households and 0.3 percent of owner households lacked complete kitchen facilities. The proportion of households lacking complete facilities has decreased for both renters and owners since 2010. Historically and currently, incomplete facilities are more common amongst renter-occupied households. Nearly two percent of renter-occupied households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.7 percent lack complete plumbing facilities compared to only 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent of owner-occupied households (Figure E-90). **Figure E-90: Housing Units Lacking Complete Facilities – Alameda County (2019)** <
> *Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 80.6 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 52.8 percent built prior to 1970 (Table E-50). Figure E-91 shows median housing age for cities and Census-designated places (CDPs) in the region. The housing stock in Ross (Marin County), Berkeley (Alameda County), Oakland (Alameda County), and San Francisco has the highest median age in the region, ranging from the years 1941 to 1952. Jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and parts of Marin County tend to have lower median ages compared to western Alameda County and San Francisco. **Figure E-91: Regional Median Year Housing Units Built (2019)** <
> *Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* **Local Trends.** Housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities are slightly more common in Berkeley than the County. Approximately 1.4 percent of the housing stock lacks complete kitchen facilities and 0.8 percent lacks complete plumbing facilities. Like the county, the proportion of households lacking complete kitchen facilities has decreased since 2010. However, the proportion of households lacking complete plumbing facilities increased during this period. According to 2006-2010 ACS estimates, 0.8 percent of households lacked complete kitchen facilities and 0.4 lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2010. As shown in Figure E-92, like the County, incomplete facilities are more common amongst renter-occupied households in Berkeley. Over two percent of renter-occupied households lack complete kitchen facilities and over one percent lack complete plumbing facilities. As discussed above, Berkeley is characterized by a large renter population representing 57 percent of households Citywide. Figure E-92: Housing Units Lacking Complete Facilities – Berkeley (2019) <
> Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021. Table E-50 and Figure E-93 show the housing stock age in Berkeley by tract. More than 90 percent of housing units in tracts 4212, 4213, 4214, 4218 (Berkeley Hills, Live Oak, Thousand Oaks, and Northbrae neighborhoods), and 4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods) were built before 1970. Between 80 and 90 percent of the housing stock in most tracts falls within this age group. Tracts 4220 (Berkeley Marina neighborhood), 4229 (Central/North Berkeley neighborhoods), and 4226 (UC Berkeley campus) have the largest proportion of new housing units built in 1990 or later. Of the 33 tracts in the City, more than 90 percent of the housing stock in 24 tracts (72.7 percent) was built before 1990. Aging housing units are not generally concentrated in one area of the City. Table E-50: Year Housing Units Built by Tract (2019) | Tract/Jurisdiction | 1969 or Earlier (50+ Years) | 1970-1989 (30-50 Years) | 1990 or Later (<30 Years) | Total Housing Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4211 | 87.8% | 8.3% | 3.9% | 866 | | 4212 | 97.0% | 2.6% | 0.4% | 1,516 | | 4213 | 95.8% | 2.7% | 1.4% | 1,661 | | 4214 | 92.0% | 6.3% | 1.8% | 685 | | 4215 | 84.8% | 9.2% | 6.0% | 1,606 | | 4216 | 89.4% | 7.9% | 2.7% | 1,674 | | 4217 | 80.9% | 12.4% | 6.6% | 1,640 | | 4218 | 92.7% | 5.4% | 1.9% | 886 | | 4219 | 85.3% | 11.2% | 3.5% | 1,796 | | 4220 | 38.5% | 10.3% | 51.2% | 1,012 | | 4221 | 78.0% | 11.9% | 10.1% | 1,278 | | 4222 | 85.4% | 10.5% | 4.1% | 1,632 | | 4223 | 74.2% | 8.7% | 17.1% | 1,896 | | 4224 | 65.8% | 22.3% | 11.8% | 2,239 | | 4225 | 80.9% | 16.6% | 2.5% | 1,593 | | Tract/Jurisdiction | 1969 or Earlier (50+ Years) | 1970-1989 (30-50 Years) | 1990 or Later (<30 Years) | Total Housing Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4226 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 20.5% | 39 | | 4227 | 53.9% | 39.2% | 6.9% | 1,194 | | 4228 | 76.3% | 16.9% | 6.8% | 1,494 | | 4229 | 42.3% | 17.9% | 39.8% | 2,281 | | 4230 | 80.0% | 15.2% | 4.8% | 2,235 | | 4231 | 80.4% | 14.1% | 5.4% | 2,056 | | 4232 | 65.4% | 24.1% | 10.6% | 1,239 | | 4233 | 80.2% | 7.5% | 12.2% | 1,715 | | 4234 | 85.9% | 10.6% | 3.5% | 2,191 | | 4235 | 65.9% | 25.4% | 8.6% | 1,565 | | 4236.01 | 85.0% | 10.8% | 4.1% | 1,254 | | 4236.02 | 63.9% | 29.7% | 6.3% | 2,355 | | 4237 | 87.3% | 12.2% | 0.5% | 1,455 | | 4238 | 93.8% | 4.0% | 2.2% | 1,315 | | 4239.01 | 85.0% | 11.6% | 3.4% | 907 | | 4239.02 | 85.9% | 8.7% | 5.4% | 760 | | 4240.01 | 85.6% | 9.2% | 5.1% | 1,560 | | 4140.02 | 76.4% | 6.1% | 17.5% | 1,079 | | Berkeley | 77.9% | 13.5% | 8.6% | 48,674 | | Alameda County | 52.8% | 27.8% | 19.4% | 608,096 | Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). Figure E-93: Median Year Housing Units Built (2019) <
> Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). ### Displacement Risk Regional Trends. UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence- or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability was defined using the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters is above 40 percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the region are most concentrated in the coastal census tracts of Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County, specifically in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure E-94). Additional sensitive communities were also identified in Marin County and inland Contra Costa County along Interstate 680 and Highway 24. Compared to nearby coastal jurisdictions, Berkeley has a slightly lower concentration of sensitive communities. The following key findings were identified by the Urban Displacement Project for the Bay Area:[^p403-31] As of 2018, over 10% or 161,343 low income households (households making below 80% of AMI) lived in areas at risk of or currently experiencing gentrification. Nearly half of these households live in either Alameda or San Francisco counties. However, consistent with other Strong, Prosperous, And Resilient Communities Challenge (SPARCC) cities, less than 10% of all tracts in the Bay Area are classified as either at risk of or experiencing early or advanced gentrification, suggesting that gentrification is not as prevalent as other forms of neighborhood change. Gentrification risk or occurrence varies by county, however. Ongoing and advanced gentrification is most prevalent in San Francisco (18.5% of all tracts) and Alameda (11.1% of tracts) counties, and least prevalent in Contra Costa, Sonoma, and Yolo counties, mainly due the absence of densely populated, urban tracts. By contrast, just about 30% of all tracts in the region are either at risk or becoming exclusive, or already stable/advanced exclusive, to low income households. This includes 61 tracts that were labeled as in early or advanced stages of gentrification in 2015, reflecting continued shifts in housing market accessibility for low income households. Exclusive tracts are concentrated in suburban counties, including Marin and San Mateo (nearly 70% and 50% are of tracts were classified as such respectively); wealthy enclaves in eastern Oakland and Berkeley; and pockets of San Francisco (making up 30% of all tracts). Compared to 2015 maps, fewer areas of San Francisco are classified as ‘At Risk of Gentrification,’ and are instead classified as ‘Stable Moderate/Middle Income.’ This new type captures working-class neighborhoods that are not experiencing the housing market pressures of the rest of the county, so the displacement of low-income households is relatively rare. In contrast, Oakland and South Berkeley continue to display numerous tracts at risk of or undergoing gentrification/displacement. New maps allow users to overlay other data onto gentrification and displacement maps. Overlaying redlining maps digitized by the Mapping Inequality Project at the University of Richmond, the crossover between areas once redlined and low-income and gentrifying tracts is stark, particularly in the East Bay. This relationship is consistent with other cities included in UDP/SPARCC research. Concentrations of vulnerable communities generally overlap with other special needs groups and populations of interest including racial/ethnic minority populations, children in female-headed [^p403-31]: Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area - Gentrification and Displacement, 2021. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/. households, LMI households, low resource tracts, and cost burdened renters (see Figure E-16, Figure E-30, Figure E-37, Figure E-48, and Figure E-75). Public Figure E-94: Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2020) <
> 3/9/2022, 7:31:43 PM [ ] City/Town Boundaries (A) Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) [ ] Vulnerable [ ] Other 1:288,895 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi 0 4.5 9 18 km Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (UC Berkeley Displacement Project, 2020), 2022. E-139 Public **Local Trends.** The Urban Displacement Project identified 12 sensitive communities at risk of displacement in Berkeley (Figure E-95). Most sensitive communities are located in the central and southern areas of the City in the South Berkeley, Le Conte, Elmwood District, Southwest Berkeley, Central Berkeley, and North Berkeley neighborhoods. There is also one sensitive community located in the Live Oak/Upper North Berkeley neighborhoods. Most tracts classified as sensitive communities are TCAC high resource areas. There is one sensitive community along the southern City boundary that is considered a moderate resource (rapidly changing) tract (see Figure E-49). **Figure E-95: Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2020)** <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (UC Berkeley Displacement Project, 2020), 2022.* The Urban Displacement Project classifies Census tracts by displacement typology. Berkeley tracts fall into the following typologies. Typology criteria is shown below and Berkeley tracts by displacement typology are outlined in Table E-51. * **Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement:** (1) Low or mixed income tract in 2018. * **Early/Ongoing Gentrification:** (1) Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018; (3) Increase or rapid increase in housing costs or above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2012-2018; (4) Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018. * **Advanced Gentrification:** (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high-income households in 2018; (3) Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs; (4) Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018. E-140 Public * **Stable Moderate/Mixed Income:** (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. * **Becoming Exclusive:** (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high-income households in 2018; (3) Rapid increase in housing costs; (4) Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018; (5) Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018; (6) Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000. * **Stable/Advanced Exclusive:** (1) High-income tract in 2000 and 2018; (2) Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018; (3) Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. * **High Student Population:** Nearly a quarter (24.2 percent) of Berkeley tracts are categorized as high student population tracts. High student population tracts are demarcated in gray and are located in and around the UC Berkeley campus (Figure E-96). Stable moderate/mixed income tracts are the second most prevalent tract type in the City (21.2 percent), followed by advanced gentrification tracts (18.2 percent), and low income/susceptible to displacement tracts (12.1 percent). Advanced gentrification tracts are all located in the southern section of the City in the South Berkeley, Lorin, and Elmwood District neighborhoods. Most block groups in this area have populations of people of color exceeding 40 percent (see Figure E-21). About half of block groups in these tracts have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 60 percent, higher than the Citywide average of 46.7 percent. Advanced gentrification tracts have TCAC opportunity area classifications of moderate resource (rapidly changing), high resource, and highest resource (see Figure E-49). In general, the proportion of costs burdened renters has increased in these tracts since the 2010-2014 ACS (see Figure E-81 and Figure E-82). Most Early/ongoing gentrification and advanced gentrification tracts were redlined in the 1930s. Historical trends including redlining are further described in Section E4.6 Historical Trends. Low income/susceptible to displacement, stable moderate/mixed income, and becoming exclusive tracts are not concentrated in a single area of the City. Stable/advanced exclusive tracts are located only in the northeastern area of Berkeley in the Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Thousand Oaks, and Live Oak neighborhoods. These tracts are characterized by large elderly populations ranging from 22 to 33 percent, significantly higher than the 14.3 percent Citywide according to the 2015-2019 ACS (see Figure E-27). Elderly residents aged 65 and older have lower poverty rates (8.5 percent) compared to the total Berkeley population (19.2 percent) (see Table E-27). As discussed in Section E4.2, Integration and Segregation, this area is generally more affluent and has larger White populations compared to the rest of the City. Less 40 percent of the population in most block groups in stable/advanced exclusive tracts belong to a racial or ethnic minority group and more than 40 percent of householder in these tracts live with a spouse. Further, all block groups in these tracts have median incomes exceeding $125,000 (see Figure E-47). Table E-51: Berkeley Census Tracts by Displacement Typology | Displacement Typology | Tracts | Distribution of Tracts | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Number | Percent | | Low Income/Susceptible to Displacement | 4221, 4223, 4232, 4235 | 4 | 12.1% | | Early/Ongoing Gentrification | 4231 | 1 | 3.0% | | Advanced Gentrification | 4233, 4234, 4239.01, 4239.02, 4240.01, 4240.02 | 6 | 18.2% | | Stable Moderate/Mixed Income | 4214, 4216, 4217, 4219, 4220, 4230, 4238 | 7 | 21.2% | | Becoming Exclusive | 4213, 4218, 4222, 4236.01 | 4 | 12.1% | | Stable/Advanced Exclusive | 4211, 4212, 4215 | 3 | 9.1% | | High Student Population | 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4236.02, 4237 | 8 | 24.2% | E-141 | Total | -- | 33 | 100.0% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | *Source: Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement, 2021.* ### Figure E-96: Urban Displacement Project – Displacement Typology <
> *Source: Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement, 2021.* Table E-52 shows the distribution of households by tenure and displacement risk. Renter-occupied households are more likely to be susceptible to or experience displacement or be at risk of experiencing gentrification. Over 60 percent of owner-occupied households are in “stable moderate/mixed income” or “at risk of experiencing exclusion” tracts. Displacement often disproportionately affects renters as rent prices increase and housing units become unaffordable to lower or moderate income households. It is relevant to note than a significantly larger proportion of renter-occupied households are in “other” tracts, which includes high student population tracts. Tracts with large student populations are often renter-dominated. Overall, households are generally evenly distributed between tracts at risk/experiencing displacement (20.6 percent), stable moderate/mixed income tracts (21.6 percent), and tracts at risk of experiencing exclusion (20.1 percent). Only 12.2 percent of all households are susceptible to or experiencing displacement. ### Table E-52: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (2019) | Displacement Typology (Tract) | Owner-Occupied | | Renter-Occupied | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Households | Percent | Households | Percent | | Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement | 1,964 | 10.1% | 3,556 | 13.8% | | At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification | 3,777 | 19.4% | 5,552 | 21.5% | | Stable Moderate/Mixed Income | 5,451 | 28.1% | 4,334 | 16.8% | | At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion | 6,514 | 33.5% | 2,570 | 10.0% | | Other | 1,724 | 8.9% | 9,780 | 37.9% | | Total | 19,430 | 100.0% | 25,792 | 100.0% | *Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (Urban Displacement Project; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.* E-142 Public The City currently offers 21 anti-displacement policies and programs. The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) has identified 14 best practices for local governments, 11 of which are implemented by the City. Policies shown in Table E-53 are organized by the “Three P’s” framework: Protection, Preservation, and Production. The Three P’s are promoted by housing advocates as a balanced approach to preventing displacement by protecting current at-risk community members, preserving existing affordable housing, and producing new affordable housing. Table E-53: Anti-Displacement Strategies (2021) | Policy | Description | UDP Best Practice | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Protection** | | | | Eviction Moratorium | The Berkeley City Council adopted the Berkeley Emergency Response Ordinance to protect residents from evictions if they are unable to pay rent due to COVID-19’s impacts. | | | Fair Chance to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated People | Property owners are prohibited from using criminal background checks to screen tenant applications. | | | First Source Hiring | First Source hiring ordinances ensure that City residents are given priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development programs. | X | | Home Retention/Rental Assistance | The City provides financial assistance up to $5,000 for low income residents at risk of eviction to remain in their current living arrangement. Residents impacted by COVID19 are eligible for up to an additional $10,000. | | | Just Cause for Eviction ordinance | Nearly all 26,000 rental units in Berkeley have eviction protections for no-fault causes. | X | | Landlord/Tenant Mediation | The Rent Board offers landlord/tenant mediation to settle disputes and facilitate positive long-term relationships. | X | | Rent Stabilization/Rent Control | Over 19,000 units (approx. 70%) are subject to rent stabilization ceilings. | X | | Relocation Protections and Assistance | Tenants who are mandated to vacate their unit temporarily or permanently at no-fault are provided protections (including a right to return) and relocation funding (provided by the landlord). | | | Rent Review Board | The Rent Board provides education to tenants and landlords on tenant’s rights related to Just Cause Evictions and Rent Stabilization. | X | | Source of Income Protection | Property owners are prohibited from refusing to rent to an applicant based on their source of income (e.g., Section 8 and other Housing Choice Voucher programs, Social Security, disability, unemployment or veterans’ benefits). | | | **Preservation** | | | | Community Land Trusts | Northern California Community Land Trust (NCLT) and Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT) serve Berkeley and receive direct support from the City for the acquisition and rehabilitation of local properties as well as organizational capacity building. | X | | Condominium Conversion Regulations | The Condo Conversion ordinance limits the conversion of rental units to condominiums to 100 per year and includes an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee for each unit converted. Fees generated from condo conversions provided $3M in revenue for the Housing Trust Fund program since 2009. | X | | Senior and Disabled Rehabilitation Loan Program | The City offers deferred, no-interest loans to assist low-income senior and disabled homeowners in repairing/modifying their homes to eliminate conditions that pose a threat to their health and safety and to help preserve the City’s housing inventory. | | | Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation | The Berkeley Housing Authority provides subsidies for 98 SROs. | X | | Small Sites Program (SSP) Pilot | The SSP Pilot supported the acquisition and renovation of small, multifamily rental properties with up to 25 units. The City received | | Public | Policy | Description | UDP Best Practice | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | one application during the pilot and awarded $1.6M to BACLT for the renovation of Stuart Street Apartments. There are currently no funds available in this program. | | | Foreclosure/Mortgage Assistance | The City participates on the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program through Alameda County. MCC recipients may take up to 15% of their annual mortgage interest payments as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their federal income taxes. Qualified homebuyers can adjust their federal income tax withholdings, which will increase their income available to pay the monthly mortgage | X | | Production | | | | Commercial Linkage Fee | This linkage fee on new commercial development generates revenue dependent on the type of development: Office $5.00/sf, Retail $5.00/sf, Industrial $2.50/sf when greater than 7,500 sf. 20% of fees go towards childcare programs. The Commercial Linkage fee has generated over $4.4M in revenue for the HTF program since 1992. | X | | Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program | The City supports the development and rehabilitation of non-profit affordable housing properties via the HTF program. The HTF is supported by a combination of federal, state, and local sources, including the Affordable Housing Mitigation fee. Voters adopted Measure O in 2018 to provide the City with $135M in bond funding for affordable housing. | X | | Jobs-Housing Linkage fee (Affordable Housing Mitigation fee) | All new market-rate housing developments are subject to an Affordable Housing Mitigation fee (AHMF) of $39,746 per unit for each market rate unit built with an option to provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units onsite in-lieu of the fee. The fee adjusts biennially to reflect the Construction Cost Index (CCI). The AHMF generates the majority of the City's local contribution to the HTF program, with over $12.6M in revenue since 2015. The in-lieu BMR option has provided over 400 permanently affordable units onsite. | X | | Public Land Survey | HHCS conducted a survey to identify opportunities for affordable housing development on City-owned property in 2017 and 2019. West Berkeley Service Center was identified by Council as an opportunity site for future affordable housing development. Vacant City properties were converted into shelters to house homeless individuals at high-risk of COVID-19. | | *Source: City of Berkeley, Current Anti-Displacement Initiatives, 2021.* Berkeley is also in the process of developing an affordable housing preference policy and a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) ordinance. Anti-displacement policies in development are outlined below: * **Affordable Housing Preference Policy:** A preference policy would provide households with ties to Berkeley a priority in applying for new affordable housing units based on specific criteria. Multiple preferences can be layered to create a preference ranking system (e.g., displaced from Berkeley, neighborhood proximity, families with small children). * **Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) Ordinance:** TOPA provides tenants the right to purchase a rental property when the owner puts it on the market or accepts an offer from another potential buyer. The housing would be transitioned into permanently affordable housing or land trusts. Tenants may assign their rights to a qualified affordable housing provider or community land trust. E-144 Public # Homelessness **Regional Trends.** Communities are required by HUD to conduct a Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of individuals, youth, and families experiencing homelessness. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alameda County PIT Count was postponed from 2021 to February 2022. As of April 2022, the results from February 2022 PIT Count have not been released. This analysis relies on the 2019 Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey to assess homelessness in the County. As exhibited in Figure E-97, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in the County has increased over the last decade. Between 2017 and 2019, the population of persons experiencing homelessness increased by 42.5 percent, while the Countywide population increased only 1.7 percent. Similarly, the population in Alameda County increased 12.1 percent between 2010 and 2019, while the homeless population increased 84.8 percent between 2009 and 2019.[^p411-32] The unsheltered homeless population has also increased significantly, representing only 35.5 percent of the homeless population in 2009 but 78.7 percent in 2019. **Figure E-97: Alameda County Homeless Population Trend (2009-2019)** <
> *Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* Populations of persons experiencing homelessness are most concentrated in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, followed by Hayward and Fremont. It is important to note that these cities have the largest populations countywide. When accounting for City population, Emeryville has the largest proportion of persons experiencing homelessness (1.5 percent of total population), followed by Oakland (one percent), Berkeley (0.9 percent), and San Leandro (0.5 percent). The population of persons experiencing homelessness Countywide account for 0.5 percent of the total population. Racial/ethnic minority populations are most concentrated in Emeryville, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward and Fremont, LMI households are most concentrated in Oakland and San Leandro, and TCAC low resource tracts are most concentrated in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward (see Figure E-16, Figure E-37, and Figure E-48). [^p411-32]: 2006-2010, 2013-2017, and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). E-145 Public Table E-54 shows the change in homeless population by jurisdiction from 2017 to 2019. During this period, Emeryville (+514 percent), Pleasanton (+289 percent), San Leandro (+284 percent), and Union City (+165 percent) had the highest increases in homeless populations. The populations of persons experiencing homelessness in Albany and Dublin have decreased since 2017. Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont had homeless population increases below or similar to the Countywide average. **Figure E-98: Total Number of Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Jurisdiction (2019)** <
> *Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* **Table E-54: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2017-2019)** | Jurisdiction | 2017 | 2019 | Percent Change | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Alameda | 204 | 231 | +13.2% | | Albany | 66 | 35 | -47.0% | | Berkeley | 972 | 1,108 | +14.0% | | Dublin | 21 | 8 | -61.9% | | Emeryville | 29 | 178 | +513.8% | | Fremont | 479 | 608 | +26.9% | | Hayward | 397 | 487 | +22.7% | | Livermore | 243 | 264 | +8.6% | | Newark | 70 | 89 | +27.1% | | Oakland | 2,761 | 4,071 | +47.4% | | Piedmont | 0 | 0 | -- | | Pleasanton | 18 | 70 | +288.9% | E-146 Public | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | San Leandro | 109 | 418 | +283.5% | | Union City | 40 | 106 | +165.0% | | Unincorporated | 220 | 349 | +58.6% | | Total | 5,629 | 8,022 | +42.5% | *Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* Certain racial or ethnic groups are often overrepresented in the homeless population. In Alameda County, Black/African American individuals represent 47 percent of the homeless population but only 10 percent of the population countywide (Figure E-99). The other/multi-race, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations are also overrepresented in the homeless population. Conversely, only two percent of the population of persons experiencing homelessness are Asian and 17 percent are Hispanic/Latinx compared to 30 percent and 22 percent countywide, respectively. As outlined in Section E.4.3 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)*, Black/African American population (20 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native population (15 percent), and population of a race not listed (“other”) (14.4 percent) have the highest poverty rates in the County. **Figure E-99: Homeless Population vs. County Population (2019)** <
> *Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* According to the 2019 Alameda County Homeless Survey, 57 percent of respondents reported living in Alameda County for 10 or more years, while only 12 percent lived in the County for less than a year. Prior to becoming homeless, 39 percent of respondents reported living with friends or relatives and 37 percent owned or rented a home. Most persons experiencing homelessness in the County (63 percent) have been homeless for a year or longer. Federally reported homeless subpopulations are presented in Table E-55. E-147 Public The proportion of homeless persons in families with children has significantly decreased since 2015, representing only seven percent of the homeless population in 2019. Chronically homeless individuals and homeless adults with serious mental illness continue to be prevalent groups in Alameda County. Table E-55: Federally Reported Homeless Subpopulations – Alameda County (2015-2019) | | 2015 | | 2017 | | 2019 | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Persons | Percent | Persons | Percent | Persons | Percent | | Persons in Families with Children | 985 | 24% | 711 | 13% | 524 | 7% | | Unaccompanied Youth and Young Adults | 299 | 7% | 991 | 18% | 731 | 9% | | Chronically Homeless | 689 | 17% | 1,652 | 29% | 2,236 | 28% | | Veterans | 388 | 10% | 531 | 9% | 692 | 9% | | Adults with Serious Mental Illness | 714 | 18% | 1,622 | 29% | 2,590 | 32% | | Adults with HIV/AIDs | 68 | 2% | 157 | 3% | 207 | 3% | | Total Homeless Population | 4,040 | | 5,629 | | 8,022 | | *Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* Survey respondents were also asked to identify uses for funding to end homelessness. Over half (52 percent) of respondents identified affordable rental housing and 38 percent identified permanent help with rent. Employment training and job opportunities (31 percent), 24/7 basic sanitation services (25 percent), behavioral health services (22 percent), and emergency shelter (20 percent) were also among the top recommendations. Public housing buildings and subsidized housing in the region is included in Figure E-100. Both public housing buildings and subsidized housing projects are located throughout the region and are especially concentrated in San Francisco and Oakland. Public housing buildings and subsidized housing is generally more prevalent in San Francisco and Alameda County compared to Contra Costa County and Marin County. Alameda County has the highest rate of occupied emergency shelter beds in the region. Approximately 80 percent of emergency shelter beds in the County are occupied compared to only 50 percent in Contra Costa County, 38.9 percent in San Francisco, and 43.3 percent in Marin County (Figure E-101). Emergency shelters are most prevalent in San Francisco and northwestern Alameda County from Berkeley to San Leandro. E-148 Public # Figure E-100: Public Housing Buildings and Subsidized Housing (2021) <
> 4/1/2022, 2:20:59 PM | | | 1:288,895 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ☐ City/Town Boundaries | 🟡 36 - 89 Units | | 0 2.75 5.5 11 mi | | (R) Public Housing Buildings | 🟡 90 - 160 Units | | 0 4.5 9 18 km | | 🟠 ≤ 7 Units | 🔴 (A) Subsidized Housing (CHPC, 2021) | | Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community | | 🟡 8 - 35 Units | | | | CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (California Housing Partnership Corportion (CHPC), 2021), 2022.* E-149 Public **Figure E-101: Emergency Shelter Housing (2019, 2020)** <
> 4/1/2022, 2:22:03 PM | | | | :--- | :--- | | City/Town Boundaries | 40% - 60% | | (A) Point In Time Count - Emergency Shelter Housing (HUD 2020) | 20% - 40% | | (A) Housing Inventory Count - Emergency Housing (CoC Level, HUD 2019) | | | 60% - 80% | | <
> CA HCD Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, EPA, NPS | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census | PlaceWorks 2021, TCAC 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developement 2020 | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2019/2020), 2022.* E-150 Local Trends. Since 2015, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in the City has increased at a consistent rate. Between 2015 and 2017 the homeless population increased by 16.5 percent and another 14 percent between 2017 and 2019. The homeless population in Berkeley represents 14 percent of the total population experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Comparatively, the total Berkeley population represents only 7.3 percent of the total County population according to 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Berkeley has a slightly lower share of unsheltered individuals compared to Alameda County (Table E-56). Nearly a third of the homeless population in the City resided in vehicles (car, van, or RV), followed by tents (23 percent), street/outdoors (21 percent), and emergency shelters (21 percent) (Figure E-102). Table E-56: Homeless Population by Shelter Status (2019) | | Unsheltered | | Sheltered | | Total | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Persons | Percent | Persons | Percent | | | Berkeley | 813 | 73.4% | 295 | 26.6% | 1,108 | | Alameda County | 6,312 | 78.7% | 1,710 | 21.3% | 8,022 | *Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* Figure E-102: Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Location (2019) <
> *Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* Populations of persons experiencing homelessness are most concentrated in tracts 4220 (Berkeley Marina neighborhood), 4228 (Southside neighborhood), and 4229 (Downtown Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhood), while tracts along the eastern City boundary and in the northeastern corner of the City had the lowest number of persons experiencing homelessness (Figure E-103). Tracts 4220 and 4229 are classified as moderate resource tracts, while tract 4228 is the only low resource tract in the City (see Figure E-49). Between 60 and 80 percent of the population in most block groups contained in these tracts belong to a racial or ethnic minority group and more than 75 percent of households in tracts 4228 and 4229 are low or moderate income (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-38). As discussed in Section *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)*, tracts 4228 and 4229 are R/ECAP tracts and are characterized by large student populations. However, persons experiencing homelessness in these tracts are likely not primarily students, as only seven percent of the homeless population in the City is unaccompanied youth or young adults, lower than nine percent Countywide. Figure E-103: Total Number of Unsheltered Persons by Tract (2019) <
> Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019. Like the County, Black/African American individuals are overrepresented in the Berkeley homeless population. As shown in Figure E-104, Black/African American persons represent 57 percent of the homeless population but only eight percent of the total City population. The other/multi-race population, American Indian/Alaska Native population, and Hispanic/Latinx population are also overrepresented in the homeless population but to a much lesser extent than the Black/African American population. The Asian population represents 21 percent of the City population but only one percent of the homeless population. Similarly, the White population represents 53 percent of the City population but only 29 percent of the White population. As outlined in Section E4.3 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)*, the White population has the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent. Although there are very few Asian individuals experiencing homelessness, the Asian/API population has the highest poverty rate of 36.9 percent. The high poverty rate amongst Asian/API residents is likely affected by the large Asian/API student population in the City. Students are more likely to have low incomes. Approximately one percent of the total Berkeley population experiences homelessness, while 10 percent of student respondents reported having experienced homelessness at some point since arriving at UC Berkeley according to a 2017 UC Berkeley survey. However, most students that reported experiencing homelessness were “couch surfing” or living in other people’s homes. This population is not recorded by the County PIT Count. Student homelessness and poverty is further described in Section E4.6 *Student Poverty and Mobility*. Consistent with the composition of the homeless population in the City, Black/African American Berkeley residents had the second highest poverty rate in the City (25.4 percent), after the Asian/API population, E-152 followed by the American Indian/Alaska Native population (24.5 percent), and Hispanic/Latinx population (20.5 percent). **Figure E-104: Homeless Population vs. Berkeley Population (2019)** <
> *Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).* As mentioned above, federally reported homeless subpopulations include unaccompanied youth and young adults, persons in families with children, chronically homeless individuals, and veterans. Berkeley has a smaller share of homeless unaccompanied youth/young adults, persons in families with children, and veterans than the County. The 2019 PIT Count estimates 35 percent of the Berkeley homeless population is chronically homeless, compared to only 28 percent in Alameda County. During the 2019 PIT Count, 257 surveys were conducted in Berkeley. Respondents were questioned on various subjects including but not limited to place of residence, prior/current living arrangements, duration and recurrence of homelessness, primary cause of homelessness, and homeless services. A larger proportion of Berkeley respondents have moved to Alameda County in recent years (Figure E-105). Approximately 57 percent of the homeless population countywide has lived in the County for more than 10 years compared to only 48 percent in the City. Immediately prior to experiencing homelessness, a larger proportion of persons in Berkeley lived in subsidized housing (12 percent) or jail/prison (eight percent) compared to the County. A majority of Berkeley respondents (64 percent) also stated they have been homeless for a year or more. Berkeley respondents cited job loss (18 percent), eviction/foreclosure (17 percent), mental health issues (15 percent), and substance issues (12 percent) as the primary cause for homelessness. Like the County, Berkeley survey respondents identified the following uses for funding to end homelessness: * Affordable rental housing (58 percent) * Employment training and job opportunities (43 percent) E-153 * Permanent help with rent/subsidy (29 percent) * Substance use and/or mental health services (28 percent) * Housing with supportive services (22 percent) * 24/7 basic sanitation (19 percent) **Figure E-105: Length of Time Spent in Alameda County (2019)** <
> *Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.* The City of Berkeley offers the following homeless services: * **Homeless Shelters:** The City funds local service providers to offer 256 shelter beds across the community. * **Pathways STAIR Navigation Center:** STAIR Navigation Center offers a 45-bed, 24/7, service-rich shelter to get people living on the streets sheltered and housed as soon as possible, employs an outreach team to connect with residents in encampments and bring them into shelter, and provides services to transition unhoused people into permanent supportive housing. * **Rapid Rehousing:** The City connects homeless households with housing navigators and provides financial assistance to transition people into housing and help them sustain their rent overtime. There are five emergency shelters located in the City. Three are located in or adjacent to tracts 4228 and 4229 and two are located in tract 4220 (Figure E-106). The location of emergency shelters in the City likely affected the distribution of homeless individuals shown in Figure E-104. E-154 Figure E-106: Emergency Shelter Housing (2020) <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2020), 2022. # E4.6 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS ### Home Loans Home loan applications in Berkeley by race and income are shown in Table E-57. Of all mortgage applications filed in 2018 and 2019, 63.2 percent were originated, 16.3 percent were denied, and 2.7 percent were approved not accepted. Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American applicants were denied at the highest rates of 24 percent and 23.9 percent, respectively. Conversely, applications submitted by White and Asian/API residents were originated or approved at the highest rates of 67.9 percent and 65.3 percent, respectively. This pattern may indicate unfair lending practices are occurring in the City. As presented in Figure E-107, non-Hispanic White households have significantly higher home ownership rates (51.9 percent) than all other racial/ethnic groups in the City. Non-Hispanic White residents also have the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent and highest median income of $107,660 (see Chapter E4.3, *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas*). All other racial/ethnic groups in the City have median incomes below $100,000. Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American populations have significantly higher rates of poverty of 20.5 percent and 25.4 percent, respectively. E-155 Table E-57: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race/Ethnicity (2018-2019) | | Amer. Ind./ Ala. Nat. | Asian/API | Black/ Afr. American | White | Hispanic/ Latinx | Unknown | All | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Approved Not Accepted | 13.3% | 2.0% | 4.3% | 2.3% | 1.9% | 3.5% | 2.7% | | Denied | 13.3% | 19.7% | 23.9% | 15.3% | 24.0% | 14.3% | 16.3% | | Withdrawn | 20.0% | 11.0% | 17.4% | 12.8% | 14.3% | 13.8% | 13.1% | | Incomplete | 13.3% | 4.0% | 7.2% | 4.0% | 6.5% | 5.3% | 4.7% | | Originated | 40.0% | 63.3% | 47.1% | 65.6% | 53.2% | 63.1% | 63.2% | | Total | 15 | 401 | 138 | 1,692 | 154 | 867 | 3,267 | Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Federal Financial instrItutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) loan/application register (LAR) files, 2018-2019), 2021. Figure E-107: Tenure by Race (2019) <
> Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). ### Open Space and Recreation According to the Plan Bay Area 2040, a strong regional movement emerged during the latter half of the 20th century to protect farmland and open space. Local governments adopted urban growth boundaries and helped lead a "focused growth" strategy with support from environmental groups and regional agencies to limit sprawl, expand recreational opportunities, and preserve scenic and natural resources. However, this protection has strained the region's ability to build the housing needed for a growing population. In addition, maintaining the existing open space does not ensure equal access to it. Since 1977, the City has significantly increased the amount and type of available open space. According to the City's Open Space and Recreation Element, there is over 12 acres of parkland available per 1,000 residents including the Bay Trail, Eastshore State Park, Tilden Regional Park, and Claremont Canyon Regional Reserve. Since 1977, over 120 acres of parkland has been added to the City. Measure L and Measure Q, passed in 1986, required all existing open space be preserved for open space use and, established the waterfront as an area primarily for recreation and provided public access to the waterfront. A map of existing parks, green areas, senior centers, swim centers, community centers, trails, and paths is provided in Figure E-109. The City established the “Trees Make Life Better” program and anticipates that between 1,000 and 1,800 new trees will be planted in south and west Berkeley using grant funding. Through this program, the City aims to improve quality of life through greenhouse gas reduction, temperature stabilization, and heating/cooling cost reduction. City staff has identified eight areas for tree planting throughout the South Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley, Central Berkeley, 4th Street, Northwest Berkeley, and Gilman neighborhoods. As exhibited in Figure E-71 previously, this section of the City has the lowest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores indicating these communities bear the highest pollution burden and may contain sensitive populations.[^p423-33] The Healthy Places Index provides tract-level data for percent of population living within a ½ mile of a park, beach, or open space greater than one acre. Figure E-108 shows that nearly all Berkeley tracts score in the highest percentile for park access. Tract 4225 (Northside neighborhood), tract4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods), and 4239.02 (Elmwood District/Lorin neighborhoods) scored in the second percentile (0.25-0.50) for park access. The southeast tracts (4238 and 4239.02) are generally affluent areas with better environmental conditions, while tract 4225 has higher concentrations of lower-income populations and households. However, tract 4225 received a CalEnviroScreen percentile score of 23.1, indicating that environmental conditions in this area are good despite the lack of accessible open space. [^p423-33]: Pollution indicators include but are not limited to: Ozone, PM 2.5, diesel particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, traffic impacts, cleanup sites, hazardous waste generators. Sensitive population indicators include asthma, cardiovascular disease, and low birth weight infants. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores also take the following socioeconomic indicators into consideration: educational attainment, housing-burdened low-income households, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Figure E-108: Healthy Places Index – Park Access by Tract <
> *Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.* Public Figure E-109: Recreation Centers, Parks, Open Space <
> *Source: City of Berkeley Community GIS Portal, accessed March 2022.* E-159 # Healthy Places This analysis utilizes the Healthy Places Index (HPI) to measure transportation opportunities and park accessibility in the City (see Section E4.4 *Transportation*, and Section E4.6 *Open Space and Recreation*). The HPI is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. Figure E-110 shows the HPI percentile scores for Berkeley tracts. Most tracts in the City tend to have HPI scores above 60 percent. Tracts with the highest HPI scores exceeding 80 percent are concentrated in the northeastern, central northern, and southeastern areas of the City. Tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus, specifically Tract 4227 scoring under 20 percent, have lower HPI index values. Figure E-110: Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021) <
> *Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC), 2021), 2022.* # SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program. Known as California Climate Investments (CCI), these funds are aimed at improving public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities at the same time they’re reducing pollution that causes climate change. As identified using the HCD AFFH tool, there is one tract in Berkeley that is classified as a “disadvantaged community” located in the Southwest Berkeley neighborhood (Figure E-111). E-160 In this tract, between 61 and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group, 12.9 percent of the population experiences a disability, and 59.4 percent of households are LMI (see Figure E-21, Figure E-26, and Figure E-38). Most households in this tract are renter-occupied and 52.7 of renters are cost burdened (see Figure E-72 and Figure E-82). This tract has one of the worst CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the City of 42.4, followed only by the Berkeley Marina neighborhood (see Figure E-71). **Figure E-111: SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities by Tract** <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2021), 2022. ### Student Poverty and Mobility As discussed previously, Berkeley is characterized by a large student population mostly due to the University of California – Berkeley. Approximately 29 percent of the population is enrolled in college or graduate school in the City, significantly larger than 8.5 percent in Alameda County. Students tend to have lower or no income and therefore have higher poverty rates (see Section E.4.3 *Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)*). UC Berkeley conducted a survey in 2017 that received upwards of 9,000 partial or complete responses from undergraduate, graduate, and postdoc students.[^p427-34] Of these students, 10 percent reported having experienced homelessness at some point since arriving at UC Berkeley. Homelessness was defined as “not having stable or reliable housing (e.g., living on the street, in vehicles, motels, short-term rentals, camp grounds, single-occupancy facilities, or couch surfing in other people’s homes for temporary sleeping [^p427-34]: UC Berkeley Office of Planning and Analysis, Housing Survey Findings, Fall 2017. https://housing.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/HousingSurvey_03022018.pdf. E-161 arrangements).” Many of these living situations, such as motels, short-term rentals, and couch surfing, are not counted towards the overall PIT count in the City (see Section E4.5 *Homelessness*). Over 70 percent of undergraduate and graduate respondents reported they were couch surfing at the time of homelessness, and over 50 percent of postdoc students reported living in short-term rentals. Half of respondents indicated that it took more than one month to find their current housing. A 2017 study on the role of colleges in intergenerational mobility found that the median family income of a UC Berkeley student is $119,900 and 54 percent of students come from families in the top 20 percent.[^p428-35] Compared to the State, UC Berkeley students are among the highest for median family income, average income percentile, and share of students in the top 0.1 percent. Of post-grad UC Berkeley students, 22 percent moved up two or more income quintiles and 4.9 percent moved from the bottom to top income quintile, some of the largest shares compared to the PAC-12 and State. While students may contribute to the poverty rate citywide, UC Berkeley students also tend to come from wealthier families. Regardless, students may require housing that caters to their needs. According to the 2017 UC Berkeley housing survey, a majority of students cited affordability as the most or second most important factor in potential housing, followed by proximity and safety. ### Historical Trends The following is provided by HCD and describes historical redlining trends. “The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red: 1. **A (Best):** Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed. 2. **B (Still Desirable):** Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders. 3. **C (Declining):** Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock. 4. **D (Hazardous):** Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing. Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups), [^p428-35]: Chetty, R. (Stanford University and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Friedman, J. N. (Brown University and NBER); Saez, E. (UC Berkeley and NBER); Turner, N. (US Treasury); Yagan, D. (UC Berkeley and NBER). (2017). Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-berkeley. the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune). In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that work, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab.” Redlining grades in Berkeley are presented in Figure E-112. Most of Berkeley was categorized as C- or D-grade, indicating these communities had large immigrant and non-White populations and substandard housing units. Redlined neighborhoods include Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and parts of North Berkeley, Central Berkeley, South Berkeley, and Berkeley Hills. Neighborhoods with A- or B-grades include Berkeley Hills, Terrace View, Live Oak, Thousand Oaks, Northbrae, Elmwood District, and Claremont. A- and B-grade neighborhoods directly correlate with more affluent and White areas of the City today. As shown in previous sections of this AFFH analysis, these areas have larger White populations, lower poverty rates, fewer LMI households, and higher median incomes (see Figure E-21, Figure E-38, Figure E-40, and Figure E-47). These areas are also exclusively TCAC high and highest resource areas with fewer cost burdened renter households, and smaller homeless populations (see Figure E-49, Figure E-82, and Figure E-103). Redlined areas are shown to have the opposite trends (larger non-White populations, cost burdened renters, lower median incomes, etc.). **Figure E-112: Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) Redlining Grade (1937)** <
> Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (University of Richmond, 2021), 2022. E-163 The Urban Displacement Project presented “Redlining in Berkeley: The Past is Present” to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board in February 2020.[^p430-36] The Urban Displacement Project identified the following ongoing impacts of redlining in Berkeley: * **Racial and economic segregation:** Most (74%) of redlined neighborhoods are low-to-moderate income today; most (64%) of these neighborhoods are POC neighborhoods today (NCRC, 2018) * **Inequality:** Cities where more of the redlined areas are currently POC neighborhoods have significantly greater economic inequality; gentrification associated with less segregation but greater economic inequality (NCRC, 2018) * **Environment and health:** Higher levels of diesel particulate and higher asthma-related health needs today (Nardone et al, 2019) * **Climate:** Redlined neighborhoods were hotter -- 5 degrees on average, but up to 13 degrees - in 94% of 108 cities (Hoffman et al, 2020) [^p430-36]: Partnership for the Bay Area’s Future, Challenge Grant Fellow, City of Berkeley Former Program Director, Urban Displacement Project - Redlining in Berkeley: the Past is Present, February 20, 2020. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent Stabilization Board/Level 3 - General/SPECIAL_Item%206._Redlining%20in%20Berkeley%20presentation_02.20.20_FINAL(2).pdf. # APPENDIX F # Outreach and Engagement <
> F1 Community Workshops | 02 --- | --- F1.1 Community Workshop #1 - 10.27.2021 | 02 F1.2 Community Workshop #2 - 1.27.2022 | 20 F1.3 Community Workshop #3 - 6.29.2022 | 39 **F2 City Council Worksessions** | **51** **F3 Planning Commission Meetings** | **122** **F4 Boards & Commission Meetings** | **145** **F5 Surveys** | **146** F5.1 Citywide Survey - Oct to Nov 2021 | 146 F5.2 Residential Walking Tours - Nov 2021 to Jan 2022 | 163 F5.3 Renter Survey - Apr 2021 | 207 **F6 Stakeholder Meetings** | **217** F6.1 Overview of Stakeholders Interviewed | 217 **F7 Community Outreach Events** | **224** F7.1 Downtown Berkeley Farmers’ Market - 2.26.2022 | 225 F7.2 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach - 4.25.2022 | 228 F7.3 Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach - 5.14.2022 | 230 F7.4 Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party - 5.19.2022 | 232 F7.5 Harvest Festival - 10.15.2022 | 236 F7.6 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach - 10.18.2022 | 238 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS In the Fall of 2021, the City of Berkeley hosted the first of three public workshops to provide an update on the planning process and gather input at key stages of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Staff shared information including but not limited to an overview of the project, a sites inventory, and the Pubic Draft Document. This section will include a summary of each workshop, the slides from the presentations given at each workshop, and a summary of the input that was received. ## F1.1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 - OCTOBER 27, 2021 ### OVERVIEW On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 from 6:00-8:00 pm, the City of Berkeley hosted a community workshop for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The primary objectives of the meeting were to: Provide an overview of the Housing Element Update and its planning process; Share information about recent developments that will help inform the housing plan; Get initial community input on housing assets, issues, and opportunities. The workshop was held virtually on Zoom, and approximately 70 people participated. Mayor Jesse Arreguín opened the meeting, followed by a 20-minute presentation from the project team. The presentation provided an overview of the purpose of the housing element and described the overall process. The slides and video recordings were made available on the project website. A brief question and answer period followed the project team's presentation; participants also used this time to complete a demographic poll to provide detail on the profile of workshop participants. In the second part of the workshop, participants were randomly placed into one of five Zoom breakout groups to discuss three questions. Each group had a facilitator and a note-taker. The discussion questions were: What is working well with housing in Berkeley? What are Berkeley's housing strengths (e.g., programs, types of housing, location of housing, etc.)? What are the issues or challenges with housing in Berkeley? What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located? An invitation and log-in information for the public workshop were sent to more than 200 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and flyers for the event were posted at 15 sites throughout Berkeley during the month of October, including public libraries, senior and community centers, grocery stores, local retailers, and on utility poles near public parks. # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-1 Community Workshop #1 Presentation** # HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ## 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Community Workshop #1: Assets, Issues, & Opportunities October 27, 2021 # Welcome! ## ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> **Join Audio** * Two options: * Use your device's audio * Call in using a cell phone ## ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> **Closed Caption is available** **Raise your "Hand" to Speak** * Please use the "Raise Hand" feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. * Please remain muted until called on. * You can also use the CHAT function to ask questions and share input during the meeting and small group exercise. # Logistics **Help with Technical Issues** Zoom Host Email: sami@raimiassociates.com # Overview **Agenda** * Overview of the Housing Element * Demographic Poll and Short Q&A * Small Group Discussion * Next Steps <
> **Housing Element Team** <
> # Housing Element **Meeting Objectives** * Provide an overview of the Housing Element Update process * Share information about Berkeley that informs the housing plan * Get initial community input on housing assets, issues, and opportunities <
> The Berkeley General Plan is a comprehensive and long-range statement of priorities and values developed to guide public decision-making in future years. All land use approvals and decisions must be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The Berkeley General Plan contains the following "Elements": 1. Land Use 2. Transportation 3. Housing ← We are here 4. Disaster Preparedness and Safety 5. Open Space and Recreation 6. Environmental Management 7. Economic Development and Employment 8. Urban Design and Preservation 9. Citizen Participation **Required Element** **of the General Plan** Plan for Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Must be updated every 8 years and certified by HCD Currently planning for the 6th cycle (2023-2031) Statutory deadline is January 31, 2023 <
> The City's 8-year plan for meeting the housing needs of everyone in the community. A Strategic Plan Priority Project Create affordable housing and housing support services for its most vulnerable community members. # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) For each region, the State analyzes: + Jobs to homes ratio + Proximity to jobs and education centers + Expected job and population growth + Demographic trends that affect housing demand = # of units to plan for in each region, by income level = **Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA** <
> * The methodology for distributing the RHNA was approved in January 2021 * The Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle (vs. 187,990 in 5th cycle) * Berkeley's draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 units * The final RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021 # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> **Projected Future Housing Needs** + Unmet Existing Needs (Overcrowding, Cost Burden) = Higher Allocations (AB 1086 & SB 828) **Berkeley currently has** **"62,000 housing units"** # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> Streamlined Ministerial Approval for eligible 50% affordable projects (SB 35) --- # ADEQUATE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE RHNA such as: Pipeline Projects Accessory Dwelling Units Available vacant and underutilized sites Rezoning # STRATEGIES FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION & EQUITY such as: Incentives & Subsidies Homebuyer & Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Inclusionary Housing & Housing Trust Funds Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections --- # Sites Inventory <
> * City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it * Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments * Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action * Reliant on the development industry (market rate & affordable) to construct housing units --- # Berkeley's Housing Types and Locations <
> --- # Housing Considerations <
> Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686) --- # Why is the Housing Element important? * Cities that miss the Housing Element deadline: * Pay fines * Risk litigation * Lose eligibility for (or priority for) State grants, like * Local Planning and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (SB 2) grants * HCD-administered Housing Trust Funds * Sustainable Communities and Affordable Housing (AHSC) grants * Cities that don't meet RHNA lose local control for certain types of affordable housing projects --- # COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES * Web site * Email list * Stakeholder Interviews * Small Group Meetings and Focus Groups * Survey * Public Workshops * City Board and Commission Meetings * City Council Work Sessions # OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES <
> --- # Priorities and Ideas Already Shared by the Community * Preserve existing affordable housing * Add new affordable housing, including permanently affordable, deed-restricted housing * Add new market-rate housing * Prevent displacement of current residents * Provide long-term housing for the homeless --- # The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> --- # Learn More and Stay Involved! * [www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement](http://www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement) * HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info --- # Demographic Poll --- # POLL INSTRUCTIONS **Open a web browser** (on second device or in another window) **Go to:** https://www.menti.com/12n7ksa1mq (link is in the Zoom chat) **or** enter code **6152 9554** at **menti.com** --- # Questions? --- # Breakout Room # Discussion --- # Breakout Process * **Zoom Host** will randomly distribute participants * **Facilitator** will manage time & participation * **Participants** can share comments verbally and/or in the Zoom Chat * **Notetaker** will take notes on screen * **Recorded** for backup * **70 minutes** <
> --- # Breakout Questions 1. What is **working well** with housing in Berkeley? What are Berkeley's housing **strengths** (eg, programs, types of housing, location of housing, etc.)? 2. What are the **issues or challenges** with housing in Berkeley? 3. What **types** of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and **where** should different types be located? --- # Ground Rules * Video on (not mandatory) * Conversational courtesy * One speaker at a time * Be mindful of the time and your use of it * Listen * Differences of opinion -> Ok * No personal attacks * Please mute yourself unless speaking * Facilitator will invite people to unmute themselves --- # ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> *Once Audio is Connected – Please Mute* Please remain muted until it is your turn to speak. To un-mute, press the same button. On a phone, press *6. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> **Raise your "Hand" to Speak** * Please use the "Raise Hand" feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. * Please remain muted until called on. * You can also use the CHAT function to ask questions and share input during the meeting and small group exercise. ### Help with Technical Issues Zoom Host Email: sami@raimiassociates.com # Next Steps ### Coming up... [Icon] **Thursday, October 28 through Sunday, November 14** [www.surveymonkey.com/r/berkeleyhousing](http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/berkeleyhousing) • **Council Working Session #2: December 9, 6 PM** • **Workshop #2: Early Winter 2022** ### Stay Involved! [Icon] [www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement](http://www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement) [Icon] HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info ## SUMMARY OF INPUT ### Housing Strengths Participants were asked to identify Berkeley’s housing strengths. The responses are summarized below: * **High quality of life:** As a city, Berkeley has many assets that make it an attractive place to live, including unique neighborhoods, easy access to Downtown, good walkability, availability of high frequency public transportation, and access to nature and parks. * **Access to BART and high-quality transit:** The three Berkeley BART stations provide public transportation options for residents; the station area zoning standards are a strength for future housing opportunities. Other transit options, such as bus, bike share, and car share, were noted as strengths when used as a last-mile solution with BART and independently. * **Diverse of housing stock:** The City has a diverse housing stock in various neighborhoods with different architectural styles and unit sizes (i.e., single-family, duplex, triplex, mixed-use, apartments, etc.). * **Large and increasing number of ADUs:** The prevalence of ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) offers more housing options for residents; ADUs have become easier to build in recent years which is increasing the housing stock. * **New affordable housing units:** The recently built affordable housing such as the Berkeley Way Apartments (on Berkeley Way between Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street) and the Jordan Court project (on the corner of Oxford and Cedar Streets) provide housing for low-income families and seniors. * **New market-rate housing:** Newly constructed market-rate housing offers additional housing options and contributes to overall supply; market-rate housing Downtown near transit presents an opportunity for longtime residents to stay in Berkeley as their housing needs change. * **Improved permitting process:** The reduction of regulatory barriers contributes to a more efficient and less expensive process of building new housing; Berkeley’s process has become more efficient and is comparable to what is found in other municipalities in the region. * **Elimination of parking requirements:** No minimum parking requirement in new residential * construction allows for the construction of more housing units due to lower costs. * **Diversity of policies and programs that support housing production:** Many existing policies and programs are assets to the Berkeley community, including inclusionary housing, rent stabilization measures, participatory planning processes, housing trust fund, tenant protections, and housing maintenance programs. 5 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 *Housing Weaknesses* Participants were asked to identify Berkeley’s housing weaknesses. The responses are summarized below: * **High cost of housing:** Housing in Berkeley is expensive for both renters and owners. Rents are high compared to the region and housing prices make homeownership out of reach for many people. * **Gentrification:** Gentrification has occurred throughout Berkeley over the years and continues to occur due to high housing costs and demand and increasing student population. This leads to displaced residents, increased lack of economic diversity, and negative impacts on the fabric of the community. * **Lack of affordable housing:** There is currently not enough low- and moderate-income housing in the City to serve the range of income levels represented in Berkeley. * **Lack of infrastructure to support densification in the Hills:** There is a lack of infrastructure to support the densification of underutilized parcels in the Hills. This leads to an unequal distribution of new housing in other parts of the City. * **Organized opposition to housing:** Individuals and groups protest housing projects, thereby slowing down and hindering the process. “NIMBYSM” has impacted the number of new housing units that are built. * **Lack of transit-oriented housing:** There is not enough housing near existing BART stations or along high-quality bus transit corridors. These areas are opportunities for increased densities. * **Environmental barriers to new housing:** There are concerns that new housing will impact the natural environment including the heat island effect, stormwater runoff, increased greenhouses gas emissions, and lack of biodiversity. Environmental concerns should be considered with the location and design of new housing. * **Slow permitting process:** Long and inefficient permitting processes due in part to organized opposition, are a significant barrier to new development. This reduces the potential for new housing and increases housing costs. * **Policy concerns:** Concerns related to housing policies, including Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) not being adopted; a concern that the inclusionary housing requirement will increase the cost of housing; and a concern that the impact fees for affordable housing are too low. * **Lack of support for homebuyers:** Individual homebuyers lack support and face a difficult process. * **Lack of support for small property owners.** Small landlords who own few properties do not receive support from the City. There are multiple barriers and regulations that increase the burden on property owners with only a few units. * **Student housing not counted towards RHNA:** A large student population exists; however, the State HCD does not count student housing towards meeting RHNA. * **Unattractive design of new housing:** Multi-family and higher density structures lack aesthetically pleasing design; there is a need for objective design standards. * **Negative perception of density:** There is a perception that density comes in limited forms (i.e., towers) and cannot be consistent with the character of lower density neighborhoods. * **Need to increase housing stock:** Overall housing supply needs to grow without sacrificing quality. * **Current and past inequalities:** The community is still addressing the legacy of segregation and other issues that stem from historical injustices such as redlining. * **Homelessness:** There are insufficient solutions for the homelessness crisis. *New Housing Types and Locations* Participants were asked to identify the types of new housing that should be created in Berkeley and where it should be located. The following is a summary of general comments and location-specific comments. The map summarizes locations grouped by site type. 6 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT General Comments * New housing developments should be made available for those at all income levels. * There is an opportunity to build workforce housing for educators and City staff. * Build mixed-use housing above existing uses along corridors, including College Ave., Shattuck Ave., University Ave., Telegraph Ave., MLK Way, Ashby Ave, and San Pablo Ave. * Add more density along bike corridors, such as California St. and Virginia St. * All residential areas have some potential to accept more housing. * Allow more sites for small houses and RV sites throughout the City. * Create new housing in appropriate locations based on the current neighborhood context. * There is limited public transportation in the Hills. * Build innovative pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation options. * Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/ bus, etc. * Based on current density, need to question assumptions in RHNA allocation and address impacts to traffic and pedestrian safety. * Implement tenant protection policies; pass TOPA. * Allow “cottage cluster” housing type. * Build more housing in historically green-lined areas, areas with restrictive covenants. * Preserve community in connection with the expansion of housing (i.e., black community). * Think about the impact of development on traditionally marginalized communities/ neighborhoods which experienced disinvestment. Location-Specific Comments * North Berkeley BART – Add greater density; add more multi-family housing. * Ashby BART * Ashby Ave. and College Ave. – Develop the City-owned parking lot * Sixth St. and Gilman St. – Convert the two vacant cottages near Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) parking lot to a tent camp for the homeless using the existing bathrooms; The bus parking lot should be moved to an alternate location. * Harrison St. and San Pablo Ave. – Convert to parking for RVs owned by low-income households. Has been vacant for about four years; * San Pablo Ave. and Francisco St. - Create low-income and homeless housing on abandoned car repair/service station, which is underutilized. * 1822 San Pablo Ave. (Albatross Pub) – Build housing at this location, which closed during the pandemic. * Shattuck Ave. and Haste St. * Southside – Build more housing for students. * Downtown – Create higher density housing especially for students; build on the lot at 2226 Fulton St. * Area around Ohlone Park – Build more multi-family housing; 5-7 stories with accessibility from Ohlone. * S. Shattuck Ave. – Build multi-family housing; 5-7 stories with accessibility to Ashby BART. * N. Shattuck Ave. – Create new multi-family housing; 5-7 stories. * Solano Ave. – Develop new housing. * Grizzly Peak Blvd. – Build multi-family and mixed-income housing. * University Ave. – Convert one-story commercial uses to mixed-use; develop/redevelop for affordable housing with added density. * San Pablo Ave. – Add more development. * Grizzly Peak Blvd. – Repurpose existing structures in this area of the City. * Euclid Ave. between Regal Rd. and Hearst Ave. – Add new multi-family. * 1798 Scenic Ave (Pacific School of Religion) – Build senior housing. * UC Berkeley campus – Build more housing on campus park. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 **Figure F-2 Map showing summary of input on housing types and locations** <
> **Publicly owned or leased sites** 1. North Berkeley BART 2. Ashby BART 3. Ashby Ave. and College Ave. (City-owned lot) **Vacant sites that could be developed with residential** 4. Sixth St. and Gilman St. 5. Harrison St. and San Pablo Ave. 6. San Pablo Ave. and Francisco St. 7. 1822 San Pablo Ave. (Albatross Pub) 8. Shattuck Ave. and Haste St. **Nonvacant sites that could be developed with housing units** 9. Southside 10. Downtown **Nonvacant sites that could be rezoned for residential or more housing units** 11. Area around Ohlone Park 12. S. Shattuck Ave. 13. N. Shattuck Ave. 14. Solano Ave. 15. Grizzly Peak Blvd. 16. University Ave. 17. San Pablo Ave. 18. Area around Grizzly Peak Park 19. Euclid Ave. between Regal Rd. and Hearst Ave. 20. 1798 Scenic Ave. (Pacific School of Religion) 21. UC Berkeley campus 8 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # BREAKOUT ROOM COMMENTS Below are the unedited comments as recorded during the small group discussions. They have not been modified or reformatted. Question 1: *What is working well with housing in Berkeley? What are Berkeley’s housing strengths (e.g., programs, types of housing, location of housing, etc.)?* Group 1: * City has a great housing stock from small square footage to rather large square footage homes * City has done well creating new housing - market rate in particular * Some low-income affordable housing has been built in last few years, more needs to be built * New market rate housing in downtown near transit is providing opportunities for people who have lived here for generations to stay as housing needs change * City Council is considering TOPA, if passed will be good for housing in Berkeley * Permitting process is pretty good comparatively in region * Could be useful to think of housing in terms of bedrooms rather than units (larger homes with multiple bedrooms) Group 2: * Berkeley’s bones are diff from suburban communities, former streetcar suburb, ecologically friendly and walkable places. * Participatory planning as a tool * Public transportation, easy to get around different parts of Berkeley, allows for not owning a car * Commercial and residential areas not as far apart * High density housing * Variety of housing, (single family residential, ADU’s, apartment bldgs, high/low rise * Access to outdoors * 3 Bart stations and others that are close/ walkable * Rent board (RSB) resource for tenants and landlords, still rents are high * Inclusionary housing * Staff and leadership, want more housing built, more balanced housing, and concerned with justice * Alene, housing programs to facilitate, housing trust fund, inclusionary housing ordinance, programs that help w/ maintenance, (such as senior weatherize, preservation, special needs, homeless prevention * UC, ABAG, MTC * Funding, programs: Adeline corridor, San Pablo Ave, electrification * Reduction of barriers, edu re permitting process * Streamlining, efficiency & costs * New construction not req’d to have parking, instead to provide bike/transit passes * Alene -> parking reform program, since parking increases cost of housing, TDM Transportation Demand Mgmt, bike parking * Berkeleyside, a way to know whats going on * Q: pandemic shifts Group 3: * Additional densification * Different housing types are great w/ different levels of density * Diversity of aesthetics, historical architecture * Low cost aesthetics * Parks * Walkable * Great transportation (AC transit!) * Overhead times/ intervals could be improved * Expanded routes to various areas City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Group 4: * Inclusionary * Housing trust fund * Berkeley Way * Mixed use projects in downtown and southside * SB35 * Voters support funding affordable housing * Renter protections * BART and housing * ADUs- lots, all over * Getting rid of parking minimums, reduces costs of development and thus rents * Central Berkeley- duplex, triplex, small apartments work well in existing residential districts * Housing of various kinds (duplex, Single-Family, gardens, triplex) * Can bike to downtown Group 5: * Recent SB 35 implementation. * Oxford Street affordable housing * BART station zoning standards * Tenant protections * Emphasis on dense, infill housing * Existing housing stock is dynamic. Different sizes and densities * Berkeley is in a context of larger Bay Area housing economy; Berkeley does not control all aspects of the housing situation * [Can Berkeley support additional inhabitants?] * Market rate housing was produced; low and moderate income range * ADUs have become easier to produce. Can we do even more? JADUs could also help. * Diverse neighborhoods that are appealing. Older neighborhoods; college/student areas; commerce * I'm a big fan of housing on transit corridors and how it's feasible to live without a car in Berkeley Question 2 - What are the issues or challenges with housing in Berkeley? Group 1: * More housing within easy walking distance of BART stations, less than a mile or half mile. A little over a mile is just far enough that I’m more likely to take my car. * Better utilize underutilized grand square footage in the hills * Distribute housing more equitably in the city * New housing creates environmental issues - traffic, water, etc. * Permit departments are impossible - too long to get through permit process * Not enough low-income housing * Gentrification * No infrastructure to support densification in the hills - water, earthquakes, fire * Restoration of key system would help - funiculars, etc densify hills * Only rich people live here because of market rate development being built, lose economic diversity * TOPA - not passed/implemented * Housing near transit is too expensive -signal that demand > supply for that type of housing * Existing housing will be renovated and price will increase if more market rate housing is not built, part of affordability issue * Lacking low/moderate housing stock * Large single-family residences in the hills could be split into duplexes (reasons why: smaller families today than previously, more older people who are staying in homes/empty nesters) * In the hills, narrow streets without sidewalks, poor road maintenance would be constraints to densifying * Objections by neighbors of projects that comply with guidelines slow projects down Group 2: * Home buying process (article berkeley is most difficult in US to buy) * Cost, required help from family APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Cost of housing * Berkeley doesn't support buyers, support for sellers and existing owners/resident * Taxes (Prop 13) structure is unfair, disincentives ppl from moving in or older folks from moving. * Education needed of programs to allow people to downsize and take (at least a portion ) of their tax benefit w/ them * Within defined areas or throughout state? * Housing affordable to working families / individuals * Theme of homeownership, affordable housing discussion tends to focus on rental * Wealth gap, and able to pass down that wealth (help w/ downpayment) * Decreasing diversity, people getting priced out, will they be ever be able to come back * Recommended book: Whiteness of wealth, By Dorthy A. Brown, (passing down wealth and housing) * Climate goals, greenhouses gases from transportation, importance of urban areas in supporting bio diversity has not been considered. Need to live with nature * Hardscape and lack of permeable surfaces, run off * Less nature, heat island effect * Time it takes to development to be approved, process (shadow considerations, * People that affordable housing is for don't get to be part of the process/vote * People are not able to participate in our process * Pace needs to increase rapidly, projects take too long to be approved, and then cost increases * North Berkeley BART, currently has single family housing surrounding it. We haven't taken full advantage of infrastructure * Should be permitted to be build housing near * Segregation, history redlining, zoning has been used as tool of segregation historically * Pace of project review, (may not be biggest hurdle), barrier to affordable housing in berkeley is due to lack of financing * Concern that inclusionary req will increase cost of housing * Transportation: congestion, safety for cyclists, additional housing req's city to be more bike/walk/transit friendly including protected bike lanes. Need to provide open space for residents of add'l units. * Difficult for those not originally in area to find housing, more resources needed to help folks find housing and link people to housing. * Re: Biodiversity, regenerative cities, * People are living in their cars * Difficulties of purchasing a home, cost of renting, for 2 bedroom, value * Ministerial approval, concern about process that doesn't allow input * Long term homeowners concern about shadows, something being taken away * Sale of homes, concern about larger developments * Cost of rental housing * Lots of vacancies, why not a vacancy tax, housing is available but not affordable * Who will own Berkeley, what will homeownership vs corporate ownership look like * Fractional ownership, condo conversion law, to convert TIC/duplex to condo was difficult, how to streamline that process/fees * Alene -> condo conversion ordinance, community land trusts, purchasing of ADU's * Community land trusts, what would make it more possible to support non-profit development, to make lower income housing sustainable for homeowners. Has been successful in other parts of the country. Is it a financial issue? To allow ppl to benefit from equity they have/get in housing and use it * Bldg regulations, connection between those and Zoning. "Zoning can't rent old home that doesn't meet code" but bldg will say we don't have leeway, to look at property and criteria (if not letter of the law) and should be rentable (amnesty programs for non-compliant Zoning if CBC ) City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * Re: redlining. Economic diversity, programs to support ppl to rent * Renting Group 3: * Parking (downtown)- nowhere to park for those who work in the CIty * Affordability issues for renters and owners x2 * Need to increase housing production * Inclusionary zoning * Housing bond * Down for all the strategies! * NIMBYISM → folks against density; sometimes property owners * Change the perception of what density looks like * More attractive/aesthetically pleasing multifamily structures/buildings * What do we want to preserve/ continue? * Eclectic styles * Characteristics of different neighborhoods → maintain while growing * Intentional investment in the built environment → enhance quality of the public experience * There’s not a tradeoff between quality of built environment and denser environments x 3 * Aim for high quality and quantity! * We need to consider the life cycle of development (city/ society/ infrastructure) → the contex Group 4: * Lots of new apartments on San Pablo, other places, are market rate (will be counted in RHNA numbers? Not counted if student housing- developed and owned by UC) * segregation (income, race) * City doesn’t have enough low-income and moderate-income units (developers are developing higher priced units, not subject to rent control). Developers can offer free rent for a few months (they need 80% occupancy to secure their loans). [The City doesn’t build the required units] * Not enough support for small property owners (people who own a few units) * Mitigation fee is too low, so City can’t build/fund the needed units. Market rate units develop a need for affordable units. Fee should be closer to $84,000, not $37,000. Consultant report in April- Streetlevel Advisors * Hard to meet BMR goals. Plan for more BMR housing, maybe it will be more likely to be built? * Equity- don’t put too much in one category in one area. Don’t just put new housing in “the flats.” Urban Footprint * Lots of seniors -- if you remove students from the data. Seniors want parking, the ability to have pets, affordable units. * Parking is an issue. Downtown in particular (more so for seniors) * Seniors as landlords. (fixed income, hard to buy out tenant) * Don’t discriminate against people of different ages eg, 80 yos vs 60 yos * Make same rules apply to homeowners as to landlords. * Didn’t meet previous goals for low and moderate income goals. Not enough places for people to live. Unhoused people. * Restrictions can drive up costs (shadows, parking) * Ideas- shared living model. Poets Corner. Like a GLA. Co-op. Affordability requirements don’t apply * Idea- Oakland, foster children, shared bathroom and kitchen (Youth Spirit Artworks) * Youth Spirit Artworks is the org that did that Oakland example of housing for young adults leaving the foster system Group 5: * Homelessness * UC-constructed student housing that the City is not getting credit for; City needs to get credit for it, especially if we lose local control based on our not meeting our RHNA target * Tenant protections weakened by state law (Costa Hawkins); voters have not supported efforts to reverse APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * More affordable housing should be welcome; RHNA numbers are not a ceiling. * Very expensive to build, generally; not just in Berkeley. * Organized opposition to housing development * Entitlement process in Berkeley is long, cumbersome, expensive and easy to obstruct * People being priced-out/displacement; negative impact on community fabric * Parking requirements can reduce the number of units built * People living in vehicles * Mismatch between housing that is constructed and the ability of students and other Berkeley residents to afford them * A popular perception that density is bad * Perception that density comes in only one, or a few, forms (towers, for example). Density can be added consistent with predominant physical neighborhood context. * A growing population; rules needs to change to address that * How to make these changes without seeming heavy handed and negatively affecting the character of the city * Large student population but no method to get credit for housing provided for them. * Parking and traffic; where are vehicles going to park at North Berkeley BART station? * Lack of objective design and zoning standards (setbacks, solar access) * Many recent projects have been poorly designed; making it hard for people to feel good about density * Berkeley doesnt control transit service. Except for BART, anything else can be changed since routes aren’t fixed. Makes TOD difficult. Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located? Group 1: General Notes * Multi-fam and mixed-income housing in hills on Grizzly Peak along route 65 * Use to have streetcars - Grizzly Peak and The Alameda - and walk down the stairs to the flats and ferry to SF * Current density: 11K+ ppl per sq.mi. second to SF. Most dense city in east bay - need to question assumptions in RHNA allocation and address impacts to traffic, pedestrian safety * More sites for small houses and RV sites carefully and thoughtfully designed throughout the city Comments * Repurpose existing structures in this area of the city * Add a tram on Marin Ave for access to housing * Corner of Sixth and Gilman and above them - 2 cottages vacant near BUSD lot - could be homeless tent encampment (existing bathrooms) * Abandoned car repair/service stations underutilized - these places have infrastructure for low-income and homeless housing * Harrison and San Pablo - vacant for maybe 4 yrs (parking for about 10 recreational vehicles for low-income) * S. Shattuck with accessibility to Ashby BART multi-fam 5-7 stories * Sacramento from Hopkins to University * More multi-fam 5-7 stories housing with accessibility from Ohlone * New housing here * N. Shattuck - new housing multi-famy 5-7 stories * Euclid between Regal and Hearst wide enough - new multi-fam could go here * Multi-fam on bus route on Grizzly Peak, road wide enough in emergency, bus route downtown Group 2: Stickies * more affordable senior housing: service-rich. * University- convert 1 story commercial to mixed-use * Unhoused: tiny homes- add to ADU ord. (under City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 200 sq. ft.) * Main streets- stores with apartments above (College, Shattuck, University, Telegraph, MLK, Ashby, SPA), (x3) * Hills- limited public transportation * Both BART stations (x4) Comments * Shattuck and Haste (vacant lot?) * 1822 San Pablo- Albatross Pub * Pacific School of Religion- senior housing * More housing around southside * City-owned lot, might be Ashby and College * More housing in historically green-lined areas, areas with restrictive covenants. Redevelop a gas station, add Missing Middle. Density that makes sense in the area. * North Berkeley BART Group 3: General Notes * near the bart stations * close to campus * north side Group 4: General Notes * More housing around major transit corridors * Real opportunity to make parallel corridors like 6th street more bike friendly * Let’s think of pedestrian/ transit friendly examples locally and abroad * Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/ bus, etc. * New housing development should be made at different levels of affordability * More density around Ohlone Greenway * Difficult to meet moderate income housing or “middle housing” * Build housing for all income level housing even those at 120 AMI * Opportunity: Funding for housing for educators and qualified staff at the Berkeley adult school. Workforce housing! * Challenge: built out nature of the City limits the ability to place additional affordable housing * Descriptions of different neighborhoods and their characteristics --> should we preserve? how doe we feel about this in the context of new dev * Preserve community in connection with expansion of housing (i.e. black community) * Think about the impact of development on traditionally marginalized communities/ neighborhoods which experienced disinvestment * Need more funding -- Fed gov can help with constructing for affordable housing * Protection of tenants/ low income homeowners; production of housing --> we need to be creative / pass TOPA * Invest in community land trust to protect tenants/ as a protection against gentrification * Land value recapture --- for historically marginalized communities HOw are they doing public housing right in berkeley ? * Having more density along not just the Ohlone greenway, but also other bike corridors like California and Virgina. And of course much greater density around the North Berkeley Bart station. More multifamily housing Comments * Greater density at the North Berkeley BART - more multifam housing * More development along SP corridor x 3 * Lots of new apartments along San Pablo, but not sure if they are being filled -- are they affordable? * Areas around university can be developed/ redeveloped for affordable housing/ added density Group 5: General Notes * UC should permit housing in the Campus Park * Dense housing should be concentrated on major arteries (Sac, Univ, Shattuck, ie). * Density should step down from corridors to more closely match existing neighborhood pattern Inventory all city land; what can the City APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT do? * Mix of uses -- not just 100% residential--commerce, recreation included * All residential areas have some potential to accept more housing * Single family homes are not affordable for all Berkeley residents * “Cottage cluster” as a housing type (see Sonoma County ord). 2700 sf total to build--how that’s built (1-2-3 homes) is up to the owner * increasing density in southside * We should upzone Durant, college, and telegraph ave * Opportunity sites for new housing: 1. 2226 Fulton Street, west of UC Berkeley campus, cleared by demolition. 2. Site cleared by the demolition of Tolman Hall, north edge of UC Berkeley campus. 3. Site occupied by temporary 1-story buildings, south of Barrows Hall, south edge of UC Berkeley campus. On-campus housing! Comments * UC should permit housing in the Campus Park * Bus parking lot on 6th and Gilman. Move buses to a more appropriate spot * Housing here. Housing should be on the campus park * Higher density in downtown for students * Higher density for students in Southside <
> Figure F-3 Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 Housing Location & Types Map <
> <
> 15 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Figure F-4 Community Workshop #1 Participation Polling Results # What is your affiliation to Berkeley (select as many as apply)? <
> # What neighborhood of Berkeley do you live in? <
> **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # Do you rent or own your home? <
> # What is your age? <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # How do you identify? <
> # What was your total income during the past 12 months? <
> 18 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Do you have a disability (e.g., hearing, sight, physical, mental)? <
> Do you work in a housing related field? If so, in which area? <
> 19 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - JANUARY 27, 2022 ## OVERVIEW On Thursday, January 27, 2022 from 6:00-8:00 pm, the City of Berkeley hosted its second community workshop for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The primary objectives of the meeting were to: * Update participants on: * Insights from Housing Element community engagement * City of Berkeley housing programs * Sites inventory methodology and status * Residential objective standards project * Get input from participants to inform: * Where the City should change zoning or zoning standards to facilitate housing production * How the City refines residential development standards. The workshop was held virtually on Zoom. An invitation and registration link for the public workshop was sent to over 340 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and attended by approximately 60 participants, comparable to the first public workshop in September 2021. Staff presented an overview of the housing element process and described Berkeley housing programs, the housing site inventory approach, the residential objective standards project, and previous community input. Spanish interpretation was provided. The slides and video recordings were made available on the project website. Following the presentation, participants completed an optional demographic poll to develop a profile of workshop attendees and to inform engagement efforts. In the second part of the workshop, participants were randomly placed into one of five Zoom breakout groups. Each group had a facilitator and a note-taker tasked with leading and recording a two-part discussion. The discussion questions were: Part A: Zoning & Criteria * Where should the City facilitate housing production through changes in zoning, particularly height and density? * What are the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone? Part B: Residential Types and Locations * What building features are most appropriate in each neighborhood? * Where would it be appropriate to see more multi-family and mixed-use buildings in Berkeley? APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-5** Community Workshop #2 Presentation # Welcome! **HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE** **6th Cycle 2023-2031** Community Workshop #2: Housing Types, Locations, & Programs January 27, 2022 <
> ## LOGISTICS --- ## ZOOM – LA INTERPRETACIÓN La interpretación en simultáneo para esta reunión se dará en los siguientes idiomas: Español (Charles Idyk y Pablo Rivas Rodas) – bajo la opción Español Por favor haz clic en el icono INTERPRETATION en tu barra de herramientas para acceder al idioma deseado <
> ## ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> Chat function available for questions please direct to "Questions: Alene Pearson" Closed Caption is available ## Help with Technical Issues Zoom Host Email: sami@raimiassociates.com --- ## OVERVIEW <
> ## Housing Element Team <
> ## Meeting Objectives * Provide a Housing Element overview * Provide an update on: * City housing programs * Housing site inventory * Residential standards * Public input * Get input on: * Potential zoning changes * Residential standards <
> --- ## Agenda * Presentation * Housing Elements * Berkley housing programs * Housing sites * Residential standards * What we've heard from the community * Small Group Discussion <
> ## LIVE POLL! Open a web browser (on a phone or in another window) https://www.menti.com/xvirv2s17a enter code 6553 2209 at menti.com <
> ## Housing Element --- ## Residential Objective Standards Website <
> www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info ## Housing Element Overview <
> * Required Element of the General Plan * Must be updated on an 8-year cycle, certified by HCD * Currently planning for the 6th cycle (2023-2031) * Statutory deadline is January 31, 2023 ## The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> --- ## Population & Housing Trends <
> ## Sampling of Housing Programs <
> ## HOUSING PROGRAMS 1. Housing & Community Services 2. Resources for New Construction 3. HCS Programs 4. Berkeley Policies 21 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # Housing and Community Services (HCS) <
> # HCS – Resources for New Construction <
> # HCS Programs <
> # City of Berkeley Policies <
> # HOUSING SITE INVENTORY # 6th Cycle RHNA <
> Notes: * The RHNA process is a “capacity” analysis; changes in programs and zoning are needed to produce housing! * HCD uses density (over 30 units per acre) as a proxy for lower-income (very low and low) units. # Sites Inventory <
> * City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it * Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments * Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action * Reliant on the development industry (market rate & affordable) to construct housing units # SITE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY STEP 1. Identify Likely Sites STEP 2. Calculate “Deficit” (Remaining RHNA) STEP 3. Identify Potential New Sites STEP 4. Evaluate and Analyze STEP 5. Calculate Buildout # 1 - Identify Likely Sites <
> * Pipeline projects (entitled between 2018 and present) * Accessory Dwelling Unit Trends (annual average of 2018-2020 x 8) * BART properties # 2 - Calculate Remaining RHNA and Buffer | | | | :--- | :--- | | **RHNA** | **8,934** | | **Likely Sites** | | | ADU Trend | 796 | | BART Properties | 1,200 | | Entitled projects (after 2018) | 2,941 | | **Subtotal** | **4,937** | | | | | Remaining RHNA (RHNA – Likely Sites) | 3,997 | | Buffer (15% of remaining RHNA for VL, L and M) | 567 | | **Remaining RHNA** | **4,564** | **CONCLUSION. The City must identify potential new sites to accommodate a significant amount of new housing through existing and/or new zoning.** # 3- Identify Potential New Sites **INCLUDE** * Project applications submitted or pending * Vacant * Large enough for development (ideally greater than .5 acres) * Underutilized (significantly below maximum density) * Old structures **EXCLUDE** * Condos * Large apartment buildings * Historic buildings * Rent controlled units * Most supermarkets # 3 - Identify Potential New Sites – Capacity Analysis <
> "Heat Map" showing capacity analysis of potential additional housing sites (2+ units) # The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> # Housing Element x Residential Objective Standards <
> # 4 - Evaluate and Analyze - Environment <
> # 4 - Evaluate and Analyze - Transit Access <
> # 4 - Evaluate and Analyze - Resource-Rich Areas <
> 22 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### 4 - Evaluate and Analyze * Aerial photos and field visits * Remove inappropriate sites <
> ### Next Step - Complete Site Inventory 1. Identify **potential sites** to meet RHNA capacity requirements using the technical analysis accepted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2. Evaluate to determine the **best sites for housing** 3. Calculate **buildout** using existing zoning and potential new zoning 4. **Complete inventory process** ### MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS 1. Project Purpose and Overview 2. 2-4 Unit Projects 3. 5+ and Mixed-Use Projects **MORE INFORMATION AT** www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards <
> ### Residential Objective Standards - Project Purpose **Prepare objective standards for multi-unit residential development.** <
> ### What is an Objective Standard? * **No personal or subjective judgement** * **Uniformly verifiable** * **Knowable in advance** <
> ### Why are we doing this? **CALIFORNIA & BERKELEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.** ALSO | RECENT STATE LAW | CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS | HOUSING ELEMENT | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • SB 35 | • HAA | • Plan for 8,934 new units | | • HAA | • Missing Middle | • AB 1397 | | • HCA – SB 330 | • Eliminate Exclusionary Zoning | • Adopt by January 2023 | | • 2021 Housing Bills | | | ### New Objective Standards * **Two categories (“buckets”)** * 2-4 units multifamily * 5+ units multifamily and mixed use * **Focus first on objective development standards** * **Prepare objective design standards in second phase** <
> ### Standards for 2-4 Units **Impetus:** * City Council referrals * SB 9 **Expected Standards:** * Where Allowed * Permits Required * Site Layout and Massing * Building Design <
> ### Example 2-4 Unit Projects <
> ### Standards for 5+ **Impetus:** * City Council referrals * State law (HAA, SB 35) **Expected Standards:** * Site Layout * Building Massing <
> ### Example 5+ Projects <
> ### Requested Input Tonight **Example Multi-Unit Residential Projects:** * 2-4 Units Multi-family * 5+ Multi-family and Mixed Use **Discussion Questions:** * Why or why not appropriate with surroundings? * Where do you want to see more? <
> ### WHAT WE'VE HEARD 1. Public Workshop #1 2. Stakeholder Interviews 3. Survey Presented to 10 Berkeley Boards & Commissions[^p453-1] Interviewed Stakeholder Interest Groups[^p453-2] Received 745 responses from the citywide online survey Held an online public workshop with approx. 70 participants Focus Group Meetings City Council Work Sessions Web site Email list ### Public Workshop & Online Survey <
> ### Housing Locations <
> ### Preliminary Stakeholder Interviews * Need more funding for affordable housing, disabled, and homeless * Gentrification from high housing costs and student population * Racial inequity in housing and displacement * High land costs & unpredictable entitlement process * Flexibility on ground floor retail requirements * Avoid replacing existing residential & displacement * Consider construction efficiency (85' heights) * Consider pre-1970s height/densities <
> ### Demographic Poll Results ### Breakout Room Discussion [^p453-1]: Planning Commission (8/5/2021); Homelessness Services Panel of Experts (8/2/2021); Commission on Disability (8/4/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (8/5/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (8/9/2021); Commission on Aging (8/19/2021); Energy Commission (8/25/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (8/27/2021); Housing Advisory Commission (9/16/2021); Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021); Arts Commission (1/26/22) [^p453-2]: Black/African-American Faith Institution, Market Rate Developers, Affordable/Market Rate Developers, Senior Center, Realtors + Property Managers, Homeless Services, Housing Advocates, Disabilities Services City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ### Breakout Process * **Zoom Host** will randomly distribute participants * **Facilitator** will manage time & participation * **Participants** can share comments verbally and/or in the Zoom Chat * **Notetaker** will take notes on screen * **Video recorded** for backup * 60 minutes <
> ### Breakout Discussion Topics **Zoning & Criteria** * **Where** should the City facilitate housing production through changes in zoning, particularly height and density? * What are the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone? **Residential Types and Locations** * What building features are most appropriate in each neighborhood? * **Where** would it be appropriate to see more multi-family and mixed-use buildings in Berkeley? ### Ground Rules * Video on (not mandatory) * Conversational courtesy * One speaker at a time * Be mindful of the time and your use of it * Listen * Differences of opinion are OK * No personal attacks * Please mute yourself unless speaking * Facilitator will invite people to unmute themselves ### ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> Raise your "Hand" to Speak * Please use the "Raise Hand" feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. * You can also use the CHAT function to share input during the small group exercise. ### ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS <
> * You may unmute yourself when called on. * To un-mute, press the Mute button. On a phone, press *6. ### Help with Technical Issues Zoom Host Email: sami@raimiassociates.com # Breakout Room Reports ### THANK YOU <
> **FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST** www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement **CONTACT US** HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # SUMMARY OF INPUT ## Location Participants were asked to identify where the City should facilitate housing production with changes in zoning, particularly height and density. The following areas were identified as appropriate: **Neighborhoods:** * Southside * Downtown * West Berkeley * North Berkeley * South Berkeley * Thousand Oaks **Specific Streets:** * Solano Ave. * Telegraph Ave. * 6th Street * Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. * Addison St. **Zoning Districts:** * R-1 * R-2 * R-3 * C-T (specifically to the north and south of Dwight Way) **Other comments related to where housing production should be facilitated included:** * Build housing in areas that have been historically exclusive, such as Claremont or Elmwood. * Increase density throughout all of Berkeley. * Allow for diverse housing types, including student housing, throughout the city. * Build more student housing on campus. * Restrict new student housing to campus. * Avoid clustering high density and low-income residents on high traffic corridors. * Corridors may merit more stringent building requirements, but the requirements could be more flexible further from busy streets. * Add more residential density in industrial areas. * Incentivize development on lots with abandoned homes. **The following general comments were also shared:** * In addition to location, consider policies to keep homes healthy. * Protect rent-controlled units. * Consider re-housing rent-controlled residents while existing rent-controlled properties are being redeveloped. * Any area zoned for medium or higher density should allow for commercial uses, specifically on the ground floor. * Increase flexibility in development standards to allow for commercial uses in residential zones. * There should be some caution while deciding what businesses are added adjacent to residential uses. Business should complement residential uses and should be reviewed with some discretion ## Criteria Participants were asked to identify the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone. A list of potential criteria to rezone was provided, and many participants expressed support for the following: * Corridors and Priority Development Areas * Proximity to BART and public transit * Proximity to schools * Proximity to parks and open spaces, and other recreation facilities * Proximity to grocery stores * Proximity to other retail * Limiting proximity to hazards * Reducing displacement * Reducing poverty concentration * Increasing racial and ethnic diversity ## Residential Types and Features Participants were asked what features of various sample building types are appropriate (or not) with City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 the surrounding neighborhood. The responses are summarized below: **Multi-unit 2-4 units per lot** Design * A variety in housing design should continue to be preserved and developed in Berkeley. * Multi-family housing should be built with design features that aid in creating a community. * It is important to consider not being too subjective in developing objective design standards. * Thoughtful objective standards are needed to ensure that buildings don't intrude in the surrounding area. * "Detriment" needs to be defined clearly in the zoning code, especially if buildings shown in examples will be placed in R-1 or hillside districts. * The City should be prepared for pushback that the development examples shown will affect privacy/views. Height & Density * Height limitations greater than two stories is positive. * Buildings should maintain a reasonable height. * Missing middle housing sizes are ideal for families. Public Space / Green Space * Small setbacks allow for the potential of better-managed landscaping. * When high-density housing results in reduced yard space, more intention needs to be paid to creating public spaces outdoors. * Neighborhoods need to have green spaces, which can be achieved with reduced lot coverage. * The pandemic has made people more appreciative of air and open space. * Ensure thattherearetreeswithnewdevelopment and thatexisting trees are protected Neighborhood Character and Context * Zoning should aid in developing and maintaining a sense of place. * Context is critical, but it is challenging to codify subjective qualities and ambiance. * Compatibility (height and building scale) is not as important for preserving neighborhood character. * New housing should respect existing neighborhoods and the impacts on the existing community need to be considered. * What's currently there is not necessarily the best model. Solar * Sunlight impacts must be considered when building new units not to preclude solar potential. * When developing standards and review processes the City should consider how to protect solar panels that might be affected by neighboring taller developments. * If the effectiveness of solar panels is reduced, there should be monetary compensation. Additionally, participants were asked to identify places in Berkeley where they would like to see more of this type of development. Participants identified R-1 zoning areas and 5,000 square foot lots in R-1 areas. *908 Cedar St. (Two detached single-family homes on a lot)* * Different rooflines on the four buildings provide visual variety. * Houses show attractive design and effective use of space. * The limited two-story height does not tower over neighbors. * Additional setback on the second floor would minimize the wall massing. * Houses have nice use of setbacks and gardens. *1911 Ninth St. (Three detached single-family homes on a lot)* * Building size feels disproportionate, bulky, and massive compared to lot size. * Having three units on one lot is a good use of land. 26 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Additional landscaping is needed and could soften the industrial feel. * The variety of styles and sizes present provide the possibility for different size units. *2411 Fifth St. (Duplex behind existing duplex, four units on a lot)* * Back duplexes look light and airy. * The clean design stands out. * The existing Victorian-style building is more attractive than the new. * Different types of housing and unit sizes can provide for people in various stages of life. * The development is a good example of a style that can meet family needs. * The project needs to include more shared spaces, landscaping, and open space. * There is good foliage and landscaping between two units. * Buildings are spaced out enough for different styles to work, and diversity is appealing. * The entrances should not take up as much space. *2817 Eighth St. (Four attached units on one lot)* * The three-story height of the development is positive; City should consider allowing extra height if the building has angled roofs. * The density of the building makes good use of the entire lot. * Limited driveway space and off-street parking provides space for more housing. * Housing looks seamlessly built-in and matches the surrounding industrial neighborhood. * Building looks unfriendly but might be appropriate with the surrounding manufacturing neighborhood. **Multi-unit 5+ & mixed use** *1080 Jones St.* * Second- and third-floor setbacks would allow more light in; possibility for balconies and tenants wouldn't get immediate sound impacts with setbacks. * The building feels very dark. * Parking on the first floor is negative. * There is an opportunity to put solar panels on the roof. * Larger setbacks and more landscaping are needed. * Deep shadows on San Pablo Ave. create a problem for some pedestrians; for others, shade provides benefits on hot days. * Setbacks and design of townhomes on 10th St. side is creative and appealing and fits in well with the community, while massing on San Pablo Ave. is jarring and does not fit. * Green space provided is positive. *1885 University Ave.* * The building offers a beautiful design that fits in the neighborhood. * Development could be more creative in design. * The color and overall aesthetic feel lighter and more attractive than 1080 Jones St. * The retail provided is an asset for residents; great example of residential above retail. * The building needs more consistent design elements between new and existing units to appear less stark and jarring. * One can walk easily as a pedestrian; there is good lighting provided in the neighborhood. * The building is livable, works for people. *2119 University Ave.* * Building is a good example of a mixed-use project. *2711 Shattuck Ave.* * Vacant ground floor should be repurposed for housing. * Developments don't always need ground floor commercial; can be residential.. * Project should work with existing tenants to keep ground-level commercial functional. **Overall comments on multi-unit 5+ & mixed use** **Design** * Developers and architects need to find ways to create a community in multi-family housing through design. * What is an appropriate vs. less appropriate style is subjective, not objective. * Many of the buildings currently and recently built look the same. There should be some latitude in design. ### Green Space * There should be the opportunity for a density bonus for offering green space. * High-density residential should provide more shared green space. * Attached housing is more efficient but detached provides desirable green space. ### Height and Density * Put higher heights in areas where it is less noticeable and utilize setbacks. * The student areas in town can be denser as the housing units are smaller. * Many of the examples shown still seem low-density. * Appropriate heights should blend in with the neighborhood. * Be careful when designing buildings to replicate existing structures that may unintentionally perpetuate inappropriate heights; new developments should not always replicate what's already there. ### Parking * Don’t waste space on parking. * Long driveways are a waste of space and better suited for green space. ### Solar * Be cognizant to make sure commercial abutting residential does not block solar on residential units. Additionally, participants were asked to identify places in Berkeley they would like to see more of this type of development. The responses included: * Residential (R1) zoning areas * South Berkeley * West Berkeley * Abandoned homes on Cedar St. * 1425 Oregon St. ### BREAKOUT ROOM COMMENTS Below are the unedited comments as recorded during the small group discussions. They have not been modified or reformatted. *Part A: Where should the City facilitate housing production through changes in zoning, particularly height and density?* *What are the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone?* Group 1: *Where should the City facilitate housing production through changes in zoning, particularly height and density?* * Higher density desired everywhere. * Expand housing in the R-2. * Keep new student housing on campus. *What are the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone?* * Prioritize housing in locations close to public transit and vital services - grocery stores, places of employment, etc. * Areas with greenspace and parks facilities. * Don’t necessarily put highest density on highest traffic corridors. (x2) * Berkeley is a unique city - geologic/seismic, fire hazards, sea level rise -- those areas should not be considered for more housing * Cost is high everywhere, so need housing lots of places (including student housing). * In addition to "where" consider what can be done in housing design to keep homes healthy -- sometimes site specific. * Near BART, other resources. * Spread density. * Consider economic limits to building different building types and densities. * Make sure areas outside hazard areas can APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT accommodate housing units needed. Additional Notes: * Let's develop/upzone everywhere, Berkeley can be more dense in general. * Prioritize areas near transit or services. * The low-density area on Sacramento, where it's low. * Maybe re-house rent-controlled residents while existing rent-controlled properties are being re-developed -- so, don't ignore completely. * Look at places where price per square foot is highest. * Develop near green spaces/parks/recreation facilities -- not sure if the high/low resource index captures green spaces. * We develop right on busy traffic corridors today, where there's also most noise and air pollution, but then it drops off dramatically a block or so away -- should limit to just on busy corridors. * We should count student housing as units in Berkeley, only build more student housing on the campus, and prohibit additional enrollment at Berkeley unless the university provides adequate housing. * Most areas in the Bay Area share Berkeley's "unique" traits as per previous comment, we should build more housing regardless of student housing. * Maybe being on traffic corridors means more stringent requirements on how the building is built, but the requirements could be more relaxed further from busy streets. * Add more volume on development near BART, and also on spreading density throughout Berkeley. * More density in the flats helps to build our way away from fire corridors. Group 2 * More student housing to support increase in student population. * Rethink where we place higher density, lower-income residences -- don't always concentrate along the main, highly traveled arterial roads. * Support for more student housing, particularly on the Southside, particularly affordable housing. Permit 12 story buildings. * Continue to upzone Southside; would like to see 2000 new units. * Larger units along University Ave. Need for mixed use, as well as housing. Incentives for ground floor retail. * Very low income and low-income housing: Sites evaluated based on competitiveness with regard to ability to obtain funding. Would like more formal reports regarding affordable housing made available to residents. Would like a scoring of site inventory. Group 3: * How is the City calculating the feasibility of developments being built? * Alene - Requirement of the housing Element for City to assess. Permit review is used as part of process to assess. * Would like to see that districts that have been historically exclusive (ex: Claremont Elm) contribute to provide low-income housing * Shocking to look at R-1, R-2 maps (given exclusivity). Would like to see higher density in these districts in a way that is considerate to existing residents and keeping the neighborhood character in mind. * Should consider/focus large-scale developments in single family zoning districts. * Reducing poverty concentration is important. MLK (North of university) feels like should be zoned higher. It is currently zoned R-2A. * Addison and MLK area should be zoned higher. C-T area north and south of Dwight should be zoned with greater density. No noticeable difference between north and south areas and doesn't feel like there should be different types of zoning between areas. * Any area zoned for medium or higher density should allow for commercial uses (specifically on the ground floor). This kind of allowance is seen in other cities. * Would like to see additional flexibility in development standards to allow for commercial uses. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * Other cities are developing with lots of retail uses within residential buildings. This reduces the necessity for cars. * There should be some caution while deciding what businesses are added next to (incidental/ within) residential uses. Business should be in support of the community and should be reviewed with some discretion. * If necessity for cars is reduced (through easy access to places we all need/want to go), BART should be part of the solution to facilitate the community's use of transportation and proximity to uses people often frequent). Group 4: * R1-R1A (upzone); north berkeley * allow for more housing in west berkeley/ near industrial area * R1-R1A (upzone); north berkeley - lots of room for more density and more dwelling units * Concerned for the displacement/ demolition of existing rent controlled units; protect rent controlled units * R2-R3H, along telegraph upzone for student/ dense/ mixed use housing * Southside/ downtown (upzone); * interested in local shuttle system Additional Notes from Surlene Locations * The Industrial Are and Downtown can be denser. * Would like to see more mixed use, like on Telegraph, in the taller building where it is not parking but a place to walk in and shop. * Cedar and 4th Street has some abandoned homes. Would like to see similar in other locations. * 6th Street has room for more homes that wouldn't offend the surrounding home owners. * North Berkeley -- R1 determination ... has a single family feel but could accommodate more housing. More density like the photos on the left side (the multi-story units) (from a N.B resident) * North Berkeley - Lots of room for more people and more density. * South Berkeley - increase the density of R2 zoning off of Telegraph -- offered in context of student housing. (from a student) Concerns * Lots of comments about housing and displacement and how will we preserve it. Concerned about it. * Likewise, the express need for a shuttle and transportation services, and need for toxic remediation. Question - that may need to be defined in future * When we say “surrounding neighborhoods” how far way is that? For some of the locations on the boards if you go a couple of blocks in a certain direction you are in a different kind of neighborhood or on a transit corridor etc. Pulled from the chat * I had said Virginia at Fourth Street but, the abandoned homes I was thinking about are actually on Cedar Street at Fourth Street. Group 5: * more development around campus * rezoning in southside, affordable and easy walk to campus * great place for housing that supports anti gentrification without going into neighborhoods historically used by others * +1 better utilize space there * access to transit important * lack of grocery stores and other amenities (lots of barbershops) Southside. housing on MLK style is appreciated and could be seen here * more in hills near campus * develop around solano ave and thousand oaks. have all types of income here including low income and very low income * access to bikeways in west berkeley and upzoning here (Sacramento and West) Part B: What are the features of each building that make in appropriate (or not) with the surrounding APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT neighborhood? Are there places in Berkeley where you would like to see more of this type of development? Group 1: 2 -4 Units Per Lot * Shared driveways between lots Fifth St.: Usable green space vs. concrete Lots and mulit-units for intergenerational family dwellings * Don't foreclose solar development on residential * 5th street good example of style that met family needs * Build community into MF housing design (x3) * Like integration of architectural features of hood * Transition from backside of corridors to R * Be careful of being too subjective * What's currently there is not necessarily the best model * eight st. example is most dense and looks very seamlessly built-in * Are there places in Berkeley you would like to see more of this type of development? * 5000 sf R-1 are great candidates * Look hard at R-1 zone -- don't see any examples 5+ and Mixed Use * Like Jones because of green space * Ground floor retail often vacant -- what would be better use? * Density bonus for green space * Love the windows -- can that be part of standards? * Repurpose vacant ground floor for housing * Provide allowance for aesthetic -- function of resources available * Don't always need ground floor commercial -- can be R in some contexts * All elegant -- like articulation on the facade * Jones a bit jarring but ok * Happy with all -- build more MF in general; favorite are U and Shattuck * Keep ground level commercial functional -- work with existing tenants (x2) * Additional Notes: * likes all types of these examples, still seem pretty low-density, want more shared driveway space * want more shared green space with more high-density residential * typical for residential to abut commercial -- commercial should not block solar on residential * building community in multi-family housing * architectural styles that use height, but the height is set back so it's not imposing on the street * attached is more efficient, but detached provides desirable green space * appropriate vs. less appropriate styles -- subjective, not very objective * perpetuates existing structure even in situations where it's not working. someone might be the first on their block to be higher-density, don't always replicate what's already there * r1 neighborhoods have the biggest lots/lowest density, those are possibly the best places to develop for multi-generational households * some r1 houses have the most overconsumption Group 2: 2 -4 Units Per Lot * Small setbacks (potential for better managed landscaping). Suggestion to allow four story buildings in the rear. Height limitations being greater than 2 stories is good. Missing middle housing sizes are ideal for families. * Pandemic brought us to the point where we're appreciating air, green space, open space, etc. Context of where to put units is critical. Thinking about sunlight impacts. Jones on Cedar -- good job of tall in the back to protect sunlight of neighbors. Consider: what are we impacting in the community? * There does not appear to be any zoning continuity that provides a sense of place. Main corridors are very underutilized. Consideration of where students should be, families should be, etc. Would like to see single-family housing remain that way. Missing quality (amenities - such as sunlight); not a density issue. Maintain a reasonable height. Context is key, but it is challenging to codify context. * Echoing prevalence of underutilized lots, support for new housing respecting existing neighborhoods. Concern with upzoning is that it increases the cost of land, limiting affordability of future development. * Would like to see something built at 2119 University. In general, would like to see faster construction. * Context varies. Dependent on how well the development is done. Challenging to determine. Sunlight is key. Character is subjective. Group 3: 2 -4 Units Per Lot * Compatibility (height/building character-wise) is not as important for preserving neighborhood character. It is more important for neighborhood to green spaces. Willing to see less lot coverage to allow for these kinds of spaces. * Likely there will be pushback that the development shown examples will affect privacy/views. City should be prepared for this pushback. * Examples seem to work within their districts. Important to take the context of the surrounding area. If projects were administered ministerially, there should be care in developing objective standards so that buildings don't intrude in surrounding area. Detriment is not clearly defined in BMC. Definition should be clarified, especially if buildings shown in examples are going to be placed in R-1/hillside like districts. * Not much concern about preserving lot coverage to help combat housing crisis. * Southern part of City feels lacking of parks. City needs more even distribution of park/ community use resources/spaces. * From brief glance looks unfriendly, but might be in character with surrounding manufacturing neighborhood. * For building height, consider allowing extra height if building has pointed roofs. * Would like to see focus on ensuring that there are trees with development and protection of trees with development. Important to preserve setbacks to keep trees (MLK). * Does City have any efforts/information on how City will develop standards/review that will protect solar panels that might be affected by neighboring higher (height) development? -City acknowledges this may be an issue/ resident concern and will be considering while developing standards. * Additional concern for City: if solar panel effectivity reduced, if there will be some kind of monetary compensation/shared costs. 5+ and Mixed Use * High density in Berkeley. Currently we tend to like lower height buildings (to protect existing views), but would be nice to see higher buildings to allow residents to have views as well. * Important to consider transition for larger developments. There are always residential areas adjacent to commercial corridors. Important to not block solar panels (on residential development). Important to have objective standard to protect llower density) residential uses. Finds protecting detriment important, but not necessarily with neighborhood preservation (form). Group 4: 2 -4 Units Per Lot * General comment: all projects blend in well with the surrounding area --> projects could potentially be even greater in height/ additional floor * consider that not all residents have cars - consider parking permits/ RPP - consider first/ last mile issues 2817 Eighth St * height of development positive: high density - makes use of entire lot * no driveway space/ off-street parking = more housing * reduce off street parking as part of project 5+ and Mixed Use * flexibility in design; don't impose prescriptive design standards - allow for greater height * existing buildings fit in well with the existing geo context (southside/downtown) APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 2119 University Ave * good example of a mixed use project * Are there places in Berkeley where you would like to see more of this type of development? * Cedar: demo/ redevelopment of abandoned homes could allow for more density * South Berkeley - build up/ increase density * 1425 Oregon * West Berkeley * vacancy tax Additional Notes Design Consideration * Many of the buildings currently / recently being bult look the same. There should be some latitude in design. There should be an “appreciation” for height, blend in with the neighborhood. * Don’t waste space on parking. * The long driveways are a waste of space. Could be used for green space. * Need to have some green space. Density * The student areas in town can be dense. Student areas the housing units are smaller thus they can be more dense. * Keep with character of the neighborhood but there are places that can go higher and not be so noticeable with one more story. * More buildings like 1885 University and 1080 Jones * There is an upside to up zoning Group 5: 2 -4 Units Per Lot 908 Cedar St * different rooflines provide visual variety * like limited height- how does it impact neighbors shade and light? * thumbs up - attractive * doesn't tower over * would like more setback on 2nd floor to not feel like wall on setback * nice setbacks and garden * effective use of space * how fireproof is exterior? * should continue to preserve variety in design in Berkeley 1911 Ninth St * disproportionate: feels bulky and massive compared to lot * not as attractive as 908 Cedar * loosing yards with high density housing like this - more intention to public spaces outdoors * great 3 units on one lot: maximizing land * limited garden space looks, industrial - could be softened with landscaping * appreciate variety of styles. could have possibility for different size units 2411 Fifth St * back duplexes look light and airy * appreciate mixed use for walkability and efficiency * clean design stands out * different types of housing allow for different types of people in various stages of life * need to do better job at common spaces and landscaping * good foliage and landscaping between 2 units * historic building more attractive than new * aesthetic diversity: buildings spaced out enough and diversity is appealing * entrances should not take up as much space 5+ and Mixed Use 1080 Jones St * no solar panels on roof * 2nd and 3rd floor setbacks would allow more light in, possibility for balconies and tenants wouldnt get immediate sound impacts with setbacks * very dark City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * dislike parking on first floor * larger setbacks and more landscaping needed! * big shade creator and large wall * deep shadows on SP, problem for pedestrians * shade has benefits like hot days, reasonable for busier street to have height * building levels: townhomes fit in nicely with community on 10thstreet- concern with massing on SP * set back and designs on 10th is creative and appealing - whole building should be more like that 1185 University Ave * appreciate consistency of design aesthetic * color and overall aestetic feels lighter than jones * like the retail (TJs) * shopping is asset for residents * appearance and detailing around roof more appealing than jones * needs more consistent design elements between new and existing units to appear less stark and jarring * more integrated design would be more appealing * great example of residential above retail * beautiful design - fits in neighborhood * can walk around easily - good lighting in neighborhood * could be more creative in design * building is livable, works for people APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Figure F-6 Community Workshop #2 Participation Polling Results # What is your affiliation to Berkeley (select as many as apply)? <
> # What neighborhood of Berkeley do you live in? <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # Do you rent or own your home? <
> # What is your age? <
> 36 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # How do you identify? <
> # What was your total household income during the past 12 months? <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Do you have a disability (e.g., hearing, sight, physical, mental)? <
> Do you work in a housing related field? If so, in which area? <
> 38 # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F1.3 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - JUNE 29, 2022 ## OVERVIEW On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 from 6:00-8:00pm, the City of Berkeley hosted its third community workshop for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The primary objective of the meeting was to allow for community members to provide feedback on the public draft of the Housing Element, which was made available to the public on June 14, 2022. The workshop was held virtually on Zoom. An invitation and registration link for the public workshop was sent to approximately 400 subscribers of the Housing Element email list, and attended by approximately 50 participants. The workshop began with participants filling out an optional demographic poll, followed by a staff presentation on the public draft of the Housing Element, focusing specifically on the sites inventory and middle housing. The slides and video recordings were made available on the project website. After the presentation, staff opened seven Zoom breakout rooms, each assigned a different topic: * Room 1 - General Comments * Room 2 - Sites Inventory: North of University * Room 3 - Sites Inventory: South of University * Room 4 - Housing Programs: Health, Housing, & Community Services * Room 5 - Housing Programs: Rent Stabilization Board and Berkeley Housing Authority * Room 6 - Housing Programs: Planning, Office of Energy & Sustainable Development, and Building & Safety * Room 7 - Middle Housing Standards Participants were then able to move between the rooms of their own accord. Each room had a facilitator and a notetaker, answering and recording questions and comments. Figure F-7 Workshop #3 Break-out Room Boards <
> <
> <
> <
> Figure F-8 Community Workshop #3 Presentation <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # HOUSING SITES INVENTORY 1. Sites Inventory 2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing <
> # Meeting the RHNA * > Adequate Sites * > Zoned Appropriately * > Available for residential use * > Capacity to provide units, by income level, required by RHNA * > Meet HCD's criteria (physical characteristics, density) * > Meet new affirmatively furthering fair housing objectives <
> # Opportunity Sites: HCD Affordability Methodology Density Assumption: Average density achieved for 116 recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district. | | < 80% AMI | 80 - 120% AMI | > 120% AMI | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Lower Income** | **Moderate Income** | **Above Moderate Income** | | | **Size of Site** | Between 0.15 to 10 acres | Between 0.1 and 0.35 acres | | | **Density Assumption** | At least 30 du/ac* | | Less than 30 du/ac | | **Site Capacity** | At least 50 units | Between 30 to 50 units | Less than 30 units | *30 du/ac is the "default density" - considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing (GOV 65583.2) # Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing * • Fair Housing Outreach and Education * • Housing Mobility * A variety of housing choices * Ability to age in community * Access to services and amenities * • New Opportunities in High Resource Areas * Distribution of lower income units * • Place-Based Strategies for Neighborhood Improvements * • Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement * Replacement of demolished units <
> <
> <
> # Meeting the RHNA <
> # NOT ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS * > City is not required to build or finance the housing * > Does not automatically authorize the construction of housing units * > No obligation by property owner to take action * > Reliant on the development industry (market rate/affordable) to construct # OBJECTIVE STANDARDS – MIDDLE HOUSING 1. Housing Element Program 2. Public Input 3. Preliminary Development Standards # What is “Middle Housing”? Smaller-scale multi-unit housing in lower-density residential neighborhoods <
> # Program HP – 22: Middle Housing * • “Amend Zoning Ordinance to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill housing in high resource neighborhoods.” * • “Allow for by-right multi-unit development on one lot to encourage housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden.” <
> # Program HP – 22: Middle Housing * • The Housing Element assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the lower density residential districts for the 2023-2031 period. * • To facilitate middle housing while balancing the need for affordable units, the City will also introduce a reduced inclusionary housing fee for middle housing projects with less than 12,000 gross square feet (GSF), with a sliding scale increase for projects with floor areas between 0 and 12,000 GSF. <
> # Public Input <
> Desire for a mix of housing types and higher density living # City Council, Planning Commission, and ZORP Input | ZORP Subcommittees (12/15 & 2/16) | City Council (3/15) | Planning Commission (6/1) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Encourage smaller units that are "affordable by design" | Permit higher density equitably throughout the city | Allow more density in R-1 | | Permitting more density while discouraging financial speculation | Incentivize adaptive reuse and smaller, more affordable units | Reconsider need for floor area ratio standard | | Balance protecting solar access and allowing higher densities | Allow more than four units on an individual lot | Discourage financial speculation | | | Embrace climate adaption while accommodating additional units | Do more to incentivize smaller units | | | | Relax open space dimension requirements | # PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Where Allowed 2. Allowed Uses & Permits Required 3. Building Size and Placement 4. Min and Max Density (Units per Acre) # NOT A BLANK SLATE * • Existing Standards * • Development Patterns * • City Council Referrals * • State Laws * • Environmental/Social/Economic/Demographic Factors # Where Standards Will Apply <
> # Allowed Uses & Permits Required | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Multi-Unit Residential** | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC = Zoning Certificate Include consideration of the Hillside Overlay Discretionary permit still required for - * Structures of Historic Merit -> Structural Alteration Permit * Sites requiring environmental remediation # Building Size and Placement on Lot <
> **Standards** Floor Area Ratio Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Open Space # SUMMARY OF INPUT ## Breakout Room Comments Below are the unedited comments as recorded during the small group discussions. They have not been modified or reformatted. ### Room 2- Sites Inventory, North of University Should include parking lots and potentially faith-based institutions Need high enough zoning to accommodate affordable housing Edge of the city – unclear why this is on the list – Fire Hazard Zone. If we area serious about affirmatively furthering fair housing, housing needs to be developed in North Berkeley – seeing less of it in higher resource N. Berkeley Make sure that the development of the sites are feasible. Berryman and Henry opportunity for housing on parking lots 1601 Oxford should not be on the site inventory list Look into Cedar and Shattuck site that was once a drugstore – now going to be a climbing gym Monterey Market should not be on the list. Andronicos as well. They are community resources and it is very unlikely they will be developed. ### Room 3 - Sites Inventory, South of University Methodology for TCAC zones can be better explained within the context of the HE and selected site inventory Sites to include/ consider: Include center street # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT parking lots included as an inventory site (2445 allston way and directly across from berkeley city college) Fulton -between grant and bancroft: underutilized parking lot space Friends of adeline: housing for south berkeley should be 100% affordable housing --> so that the historically marginalized can have opportunities in that area South Berkeley: lots of displacement POC bc of gentrification; populations traumatized ### Room 4 - Housing Programs, HHCS Need more 50% or less BMR units and ELI units Allow people to access funds for renovation of vacant units City should consider allowing community members be able to access HTF similar to land trusts Better accessibility for low-income people with disabilities AMI is too high for working class people, there is not enough and what we are building is rnot reflective of people's incomes; BMR rents especially are rapidly increasing and out of reach The City should dedicate General Fund to HTF like SF Need ownership downpayment support especially for POC, what federal rants are we applying for? Should reference potential new funding sources such as a potential housing bond Outreach should mirror public health immunization outreach City should put housing bond measure or commitments to further expand funding; should have fund dedicated to preservation and expanding small sites Need better outreach for people to know about services, especially for AA/POC There should be a massive PR campaign who are not active in government; reach out to churches and other AA institutions When are they going to open up golden bear in? City should explore additional motels New homekey rounds are flexible; City should consider using City-owned sites for homeless housing Homeless services are difficult to access for lots of people; would someone from COB join AC County Healthcare for Homeless When are they going to open up golden bear in? City should explore additional motels for homeless housing as well How long will People's Park residents be at the Roadway Inn and will they be supported with the transition to permanent homes TOPA should support single-family homes If the tenant has insufficient funding, then the tenant should have the right to go to a land trust or nonprofit with the understanding that the rents will remain stable The City needs to provide funding for people to purchase their buildings when they are sold Need to set a date for TOPA adoption by Council Need to show more specificity around an adoption and implementation timeline There are services for people but people, especially black people and people of color, are not aware of them AMI is now too high to effectively serve most low-income people in the community What data do we have on equitable outreach to Black/ POC people? We need to have thresholds for seniors, disabilities, and income. We need to increase targeted outreach to improve outcomes Homeless Services are targeted towards addiction, seniors, disabilities, etc. and services/service City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 providers can not meet needs when people don't fit into these boxes Need support for people who are made homeless when their buildings are sold and rents are raised substantially Need more support for homeowners and property owners of rental property with low-income/resources **Room 5 - Housing Programs, Rent Stabilization Board and Berkeley Housing Authority** 1500 vouchers in Berkeley Project based vouchers to developers. **Room 6 - Housing Programs, Planning, Building, OESD** Oakland Berkeley Hills are likely to catch fire again and does have a history of fire and emergency evacuations. The City could take a stronger role in building a park/ school/houses. How much of new building units are vacant and are people actually living in those units? What about vacant ground floor retail commercial? The City of Berkeley has a very low vacancy rate of housing units and especially for rental units, between 2-4% depending on the year. Potentially need to look at what active uses are and what is considered as active retail commercial and the standards that require those. In the current housing element zoning, we have a history of having small shops that have been converted and some exist. In the updated housing element is there allowances for new ones to come back in a residential area? In the past two years, the City has relaxed regulations on home occupations. The home occupation permit is nod, to many people working from home, and recognizes to allow more variety of uses in those neighborhoods. Are we speaking about homeless housing and other special needs populations? It is part of the Housing Element to include policies and standards for special needs housing. There are also regulations for various types of housing and living arrangements but there may additional programs where this could be incorporated. HE has requirements for furthering fair housing - 100% of housing would be concentrated on San Pablo, Shattuck, and concentrating density near transit as opposed to narrow streets. Believe there is a misunderstanding about the inventory map. The map is showing where housing can be accommodated however more analysis on specific sites would be conducted in the future to facilitate housing throughout the city not just on the corridor but in High Resource Areas. How would this be possible without rezoning the single-family neighborhoods. Residential Objective standards would be changing some of the regulations that would allow additional densities in those areas, based on the existing zoning standards. Triplexes/ Duplexes... Open space was not specifically noted and is an important topic including climate resilience. 5-6 stories may be more environmentally positive? More trees and more open space is also important. The community has expressed a desire for more open space and desire for more flexible open space. Flexibility and Open space is being looked at and Residential Objective Standards are still being developed and is still open for additional comments and feedback. Nature occurring affordable housing? What are we talking about? Housing units that are low cased based on their size or when they were built. Naturally occurring affordable housing may be apartments built in the 70's ~ sometimes may hear more affordable APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT housing. New Housing today may be affordable in the future, how much emphasis is on the quantity of housing as opposed to lower income housing, how feasible is this? 60% of the City's RHNA is below market rate housing, consistent with all cities in the state. These are targets are the City of Berkeley has policies that promote affordable housing like the Inclusionary Housing Policy. The State also provides incentives for affordable housing including Density Bonus and waivers and concessions to promote affordable housing to meeting RHNA targets. Berkeley has exceeded RHNA targets for market rate, but not affordable, and it seems likely that this would occur again...If in the future this occurs again what are the implications of that? Many jurisdictions in the State are in a similar situation and for years there were no repercussions, but since 2017 the State has passed new legislation where jurisdictions are penalized ~ or may be required to streamline projects if they do not meet RHNA requirements. The State may take away discretionary review for housing projects and may take away local control to further housing. State may levy fines or withhold housing. It may depend on the State and progress. Majority of residents are making over 75K a year and may be a vary wealthy community in the future. The whole system should be thought about in the future to be more inclusive of all types of incomes and people. There should be some transition and buffer between really tall apartment buildings and existing housing. Specifically concerned about Parker St. neighborhood (R-4 on south side of Blake, near Milvia). Not sure of the history of the site but we'll be discussing when we're planning to update the land use element update in the future. A couple of things the state may look at closely, the opportunity sites that are non-vacant, and HE must discuss why the existing use would go away. The Hills may all be R-1 and seem to be excluded from more density - understand that there is concern about traffic during an emergency. Has anyone studied this? The City is required to look at hazard mitigation plans, and the Safety Element needs to be updated. We will be looking at those types of metrics. PW and the fire department has conducted most of the analysis with regards to access and accessibility issues. These are some of the issues we've grabbled with increased densities through the state ADU laws and SB9. Most of the development project are not well thought out. If the City took charge and would become the developer there may be some unexplored potential. Because the City does not own the land, we cannot proposed development on the lands. Oakland spoke about anchoring the neighborhood but it would be great if one entity could have control over development. Does the Berkeley Planning Commission take into account the the entire neighborhood. The City of Berkeley is a Zoning Adjust Board (ZAB) and when subjective review is allowed then modifications of projects may happen to allow step backs/ step downs/ architectural details like windows and entrances. Take note that how can incorporate neighborhood context and how can we objective look into those standards. **Room 7 - Middle Housing** - Standards need to consider water quality, groundwater recharge, heat island effect, and ecosystem services , particularly WRT climate. - In addition to zoning, are there any other efforts to encourage/incentivize Middle Housing? - Increased height standards could effect solar access. Fall and winter are the most important seasons to assess any effects, so analysis of these times should be considered. - An average maximum height of 35 feet could result City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 in a building as tall as 50 feet. If a density bonus were used on a 5 unit project, you could also have a taller building, as well. - Objective standards should be developed to determine when shadowing of a solar panel should require mediation, arbitration or other consideration. - Could there be an effort to survey Berkeley property owners to see whether there is any interest in building housing consistent with these recommended changes? - Almost all of Berkeley residential power is 100% clean. Solar power on a roof may not necessarily provide more renewable energy. Opposed to any shadow measures because energy is already clean trough the grid. - What about larger housing, and social housing (including design elements that encourage sociability (courtyard, for example), even with smaller individual units (Redwood Gardens, as an example) - Can standards be developed on an area-wide basis,, as opposed to just building by building? Concerns about sufficient open/green space. - Concerns: parking and shadows." Need to make sure there are housing opportunities that include back yards not surrounded by dense buildings. Also, there need to be places that people enjoy and can build families. Some approaches to housing seem driven by developers. More paving can lead to water quality impacts and discourages groundwater recharge. Would setbacks pertain to garages, as well, like detached garages that are up against the front property line? Could garages be used for averaging smaller front setbacks? What is the public purpose of having setbacks in the first place? For many lots, the placement of a house is pretty arbitrary. Setback regulations are aesthetic and restrict development unnecessarily. 4 foot setbacks make sense for fire-related safety issues. 20 feet is too much Whats the difference between street side and front? How about if the entrance is on the long side. (Gregory Lemieux, attendee -- follow up with answer) APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Figure F-9 Participation Polling Results # What is your affiliation to Berkeley (select as many as apply)? <
> # What neighborhood of Berkeley do you live in? <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # Do you rent or own your home? <
> # What is your age? <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # How do you identify? <
> # What was your total household income during the past 12 months? <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Do you have a disability (e.g., hearing, sight, physical, mental)? <
> No Do you work in a housing related field? If so, in which area? <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS Between September 2021 and September 2022, the City of Berkeley hosted four City Council Work Session, during which updates on the project were presented, public comment was taken, and decision-maker feedback was obtained, providing policy direction for identifying suitable sites, housing programs, and zoning efforts. Each subsection will include the staff memo and work session presentation. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Office of the City Manager WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update Work Session SUMMARY Berkeley is engaged in an 18-month process to update the Housing Element of the General Plan. This update occurs every eight years and is mandated by State law. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update must be adopted by the City Council, and the statutory deadline for submitting to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is January 31, 2023. Berkeley hired a consultant team led by Raimi & Associates to provide the necessary technical expertise and wide-reaching public outreach efforts to ensure that the City delivers a State-compliant Housing Element that reflects Berkeley’s diverse character and needs. This report follows the April 28, 2021 memo on the Housing Element (see Link 1), providing more detailed information on the State’s Housing Element requirements as well as specifics on the City’s approach. CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS The Housing Element Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for its most vulnerable community members. The Housing Element Update will serve as the City of Berkeley’s housing framework for the eight-year period between 2023-2031 (herein referred to as the “6th cycle”). Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of homes across income levels to plan for called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). State law does not require that jurisdictions build or finance new housing required by the State’s RHNA, but the Housing Element must plan to accommodate the allocated units with appropriate land use policies and development regulations. The Housing Element Update addresses a range of housing issues such as affordability, diversity of housing types, allowable density and project locations, housing for those with special needs, and fair housing for disadvantaged communities of concern. In addition, it establishes goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City’s decision-making around the development of housing to address existing and projected needs with a mix of housing opportunities that will serve a range of income levels. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 Recent legislation resulted in changes and new requirements for Housing Element Updates that occur in the 6th cycle: 1. Higher Allocations. State law requires that HCD update its regional housing methodology to account for unmet existing and future housing needs. This includes an analysis of overcrowding and cost burden, in addition to projected housing needs, which raised the total regional allocation for new units. Overall, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle, compared with 187,990 for the 5th cycle (2015-2023). Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle allocation is 8,934 units, a 202% increase over its 5th cycle allocation. 2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Using HCD’s guidance and approach, Housing Elements must now affirmatively further fair housing by examining the identified policies, programs, rules, and practices to ensure that they will promote inclusive communities and prevent poverty concentration and segregation. Berkeley will access technical assistance provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to ensure its Housing Element Update complies with this new requirement. 3. Site Limitations for Lower Income RHNA. New legislation (AB 1397) sets forth additional criteria for selecting sites that can accommodate the lower income RHNA category, defined as less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI)[^p483-1]. Identification of opportunity sites, which is a component of the Housing Element Update, will require consideration of: a. Reusing sites from prior Housing Element cycles. Projects with 20 percent of on-site units set aside for lower income households are subject to by-right approval without discretionary review unless rezoned for a higher density prior to the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. b. Rezoning. Sites to be rezoned or upzoned after January 31, 2023 to accommodate the lower income RHNA are subject to by-right approval without discretionary review if projects include 20 percent lower income units. The rezone must also include a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of at least 30 du/ac and be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units on site. c. Mixed Use. If more than 50% of the lower income RHNA is to be satisfied on mixed use or nonresidential zoning, then the sites must permit standalone residential and do not require more than 50% of the floor area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential uses. d. Small or Large Sites. Additional analysis is required for sites smaller than 0.5 acre and larger than 10 acres for the lower income RHNA category. In [^p483-1]: 2021 income levels by family size are available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/2021IncomeandRentLimits.pdf the 5th cycle RHNA, over 55% of the opportunity sites identified were less than 0.5 acres. To utilize small sites for lower income RHNA, the City must be able to demonstrate past trends, potential for lot consolidation, and programmatic response to facilitate lot consolidation. e. *More than 50 Percent Nonvacant Sites.* If more than 50% of the lower income RHNA is being accommodated on nonvacant sites, the sites are subject to a higher standard of feasibility analysis. In the 5th cycle RHNA, nearly 40% of the lower income RHNA was projected to be accommodated on nonvacant sites. 4. Site Limitation for Moderate and Above Moderate Income RHNA Categories. New legislation (AB 725, effective January 1, 2022) requires that 25% of the moderate income RHNA (80-120% AMI) and 25% of the above moderate income RHNA (>120% AMI) be provided on sites that can accommodate at least four units, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). In Berkeley, this would be applicable on conforming lots in every district except R-1 and ES-R. The State is working on bills to clarify AB 725. 5. No Net Loss. (AB 166) As development occurs, the City must continually monitor its residential sites capacity in accommodating its remaining RHNA throughout the entire eight-year planning period. If development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element, the City must demonstrate remaining capacity is available for the remaining RHNA. For this reason, HCD recommends utilizing a buffer for the lower and moderate sites inventory that exceeds the RHNA. The project team will analyze past trends of opportunity sites to determine an appropriate buffer. ### Housing Element Update Scope of Work The City Council directed staff to take into consideration seven key principles for the Housing Element Update: * Robust Community Engagement * Equity – geographic equity, equity in housing types and access * Affordability and Community Benefits * Public Safety * Transit Proximity and Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled * Design, Neighborhood Context, and Historic Preservation * Tenant Protections, Anti-Displacement, and Anti-Speculation Provisions APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 City staff and the consultant team will be incorporating these principles, amongst others which may be proposed during the public engagement process, in the analysis and development of the Housing Element. Raimi and Associates’ project scope comprises four major tasks and the key principles will be integrated into Tasks 2 through 4. * Task 1: Project Management * Task 2: Community Outreach and Engagement * Task 3: Update the Housing Element of the General Plan * Housing Needs Assessment * Housing Production Constraints * Sites Assessment and Inventory * Goals, Policies, and Programs * Task 4: Environmental Review Council also directed staff to consider specific rezoning strategies, which will be integrated with the Housing Element’s site assessments strategy. Rezoning considerations include: * Location. Focus on Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and locations near transit and commercial corridors. * Zoning District. Focus in R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts to allow for greater flexibility and variety of housing types beyond single-family residential. * Residential Use Type. Focus on incentivizing the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs on lots containing single-family residential. This scope of work will integrate with concurrent land use planning efforts, such as planning at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, Southside Zoning Ordinance amendments, Phase 2 of Zoning Ordinance Revision Project (ZORP) and development of objective development standards. ### Housing Element Update Schedule Due to strict deadlines imposed by the State and severe penalties for missed deadlines, it is extremely important that this project stay on schedule. The Housing Element Update timeline is well-defined and finite: the City must adopt the 6th cycle Housing Element and the statutory deadline is January 31, 2023. The majority of the housing needs analysis and assessment and sites inventory must be completed by early 2022 in order to allow for sufficient time to conduct a thorough and legally defensible environmental review (see Figure 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline). City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 In addition, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan amendments will be identified in early 2022 and reviewed by Planning Commission in Summer 2022 in order to be adopted by City Council in Fall 2022 prior to the adoption of the Housing Element Update in January 2023. Missing the adoption deadline for the Housing Element would require the City to conduct four-year updates to the Housing Element. Rezoning of sites after the January 31, 2023 deadline would subject the sites that are identified for rezoning to by-right approval. However, reused sites from previous cycles are subject to by-right approval regardless of the adoption date of the Housing Element. **Figure 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline** <
> ### Housing Element Update The key deliverables for the Housing Element Update project include administrative, public, and final HCD-certified drafts of the Housing Element Update, associated environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a summary of the outreach and engagement. The content of the Housing Element and the methodologies used for analyzing constraints and sites inventory are dictated by State law. The Housing Element of the General Plan must include the following: 1. **Housing Needs Assessment.** Examine demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identify existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., workforce housing, persons with disabilities). The data package provided by ABAG will form the basis of this section, supplemented by other available data on market conditions, etc. 2. **Evaluation of Past Performance.** Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs. The City’s Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to HCD will form the basis of this evaluation. 3. **Housing Sites Inventory.** Identify available sites for housing development to ensure there is enough land zoned to meet the future need at all income levels, with consideration of affirmatively furthering fair housing. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 4. **Community Engagement.** Conduct and summarize a robust community engagement program, reaching out to all economic segments of the community, and especially underrepresented groups. 5. **Constraints Analysis.** Analyze and recommend remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development. 6. **Policies and Programs.** Establish policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023-2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing needs. **Environmental Review** A thorough and legally defensible CEQA environmental review is critical for adopting and certifying the Housing Element Update and will serve to avoid or minimize future environmental review of specific housing developments. The environmental review process requires an analysis of the Housing Element Update’s potential effects on the environment to ensure that required rezones and associated General Plan updates to accommodate the increased housing allocation will generate the lowest possible environmental impacts. The environmental review includes identifying significant impacts associated with the Housing Element Update, identifying and considering alternatives to the proposed Zoning Ordinance or General Plan amendments, and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. The CEQA process also provides the general public and any interested parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). **Outreach and Engagement** Outreach and engagement are an integral part of this project from initiation to adoption. As prioritized by City Council’s March 25, 2021 recommendations, the project will be informed through a robust public participatory process. The consultant team (Raimi and Associates in conjunction with Surlene Grant of Envirocom Communications) will work with staff to provide expansive and inclusive methods of outreach that are tailored to both inform Berkeley’s community members and stakeholders on the Housing Element Update as well as encourage productive feedback that will guide the development of the City’s housing framework. Based on the Council’s recommendations, the plan for outreach and engagement is framed by 10 community engagement goals listed in Table 2 below. Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 **Table 1: Community Engagement Goals and associated Participation Strategies** | Community Engagement Goals | Interviews | Survey | Stakehold er Meetings | Public Workshop s | City Council Work Sessions | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Tailor engagement strategies and approaches to the local context (equity, needs, history) | X | X | X | X | | | Open and transparent process | X | X | X | X | X | | Promote and advertise public participation opportunities | | X | | X | X | | Leverage input at various points in the process | X | X | X | X | X | | Provide a variety of opportunities for convenience (low tech/high touch and high tech/low touch) | X | X | X | X | | | Flexibility, in-person and remote engagement | X | X | X | X | | | Communicate clearly and visually, simplify complex concepts | X | X | X | X | | | Space for participants to be their authentic selves, speak native language | X | X | X | X | | | Specific attention to equity and typically underrepresented | X | X | X | | | | Maintain positive discourse and dialogue | X | X | X | X | X | The consultant team is conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis. For each vulnerable population and key stakeholder group, the team is identifying interests, contributions, and best practices for outreach and engagement. That analysis is used to confirm how specific engagement strategies are applied to each phase of the Housing Element planning process. The strategies include 20 interviews, a communitywide survey, 20 small format meetings, three work sessions with the City Council, and three public workshops. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 The workflow of the engagement strategy is as follows: * Interviews. The Consultant team will begin by conducting 20 interviews with housing stakeholders in the Berkeley community. The information will be used to inform engagement strategies, identify housing needs and production constraints, identify opportunity sites, and solicit ideas for housing strategies to include in the Housing Element. * Survey. A survey will also be distributed at the start of the outreach process to solicit general community input housing needs, constraints, and opportunities. * Boards & Commissions. In September 2021, City staff will meet with 10 boards and commissions to provide an overview of the Housing Element, identify stakeholders, and invite members to participate in the planning process. * Small Format Meetings. Throughout the planning process, the Housing Element team will conduct focus groups, meetings, “pop-ups”, and listening sessions with disadvantaged communities, neighborhood groups, advocacy organizations, industry organizations, and others to ensure inclusive and representative participation. * Public Workshops. Three public workshops will be conducted at key points during the project: The first workshop will inform the housing needs assessment and production constraints. The second workshop is to inform the site assessment and inventory. The third and final workshop is to invite public review and feedback on the draft Housing Element. The interviews, meetings, and workshops will adhere to State and local public health guidance in effect at the time of the event. The team anticipates that for Fall 2021 and Winter 2022, the activities will include a mix of online synchronous and asynchronous opportunities (using zoom and other technology platforms for interactive participation) and in-person outdoor events. The team will rely on use of the city’s website, email lists (City’s GovDelivery account), and flyers and mailings for communication. Other distribution channels include: Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Homeowner Associations (HOAs), schools, community/senior centers, and community hubs such as grocery stores and farmers markets. BACKGROUND Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units[^p489-2]. The final target RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth [^p489-2]: May 20, 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023-2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, certain affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35). **Table 2: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5ᵗʰ & 6ᵗʰ Cycles** | Income Level | 5ᵗʰ Cycle RHNA Units | Units Permitted 2015-2020³ | 6ᵗʰ Cycle DRAFT RHNA Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Very Low (< 50% AMI) | 532 | 232 | 2,446 | | Low (50 – 80% AMI) | 442 | 41 | 1,408 | | Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) | 584 | 91 | 1,416 | | Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) | 1,401 | 2,579 | 3,664 | | **Total** | **2,959** | **2,943** | **8,934** | Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the City does not adopt its 6ᵗʰ Cycle Housing Element prior to January 31, 2023, it faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to facing significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. The City would lose the right to deny certain affordable projects and a court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. Many state and regional grant and loan programs require a compliant Housing Element, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), the Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funding. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals. POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION In addition to this first work session, the team will make presentations to City Council at two additional work sessions in 2022. The purpose of the work sessions is to inform the Council of the Housing Element Update’s progress, share findings from community and stakeholder input, and receive project direction and recommendations from the Council on the immediate tasks ahead. ³ Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 Page 9 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION September 21, 2021 FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION The total budget allocated for the Housing Element Update is $540,000. Berkeley has secured $325,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant funds, $83,506 in non-competitive Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant funds, $75,000 in competitive REAP grant funds, and $56,494 in Community Planning Fees. CONTACT PERSON Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489 LINKS: 1. April 28, 2021. *Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report*, Off-Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf 2. March 25, 2021, *Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update*. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%20-%20Mayor%202023-25-21.pdf 3. March 25, 2021, *Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)*. Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021-03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx Figure F-10 Work Session #1 Presentation <
> # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) <
> * The methodology for distributing the RHNA was approved in January 2021 * The Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle (vs. 187,990 in 5th cycle) * Berkeley's draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 units * The final RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021 # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> # Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> Streamlined Ministerial Approval for eligible 50% affordable projects (SB 35) # Permitted Units by Category 2015-2020 <
> # Housing Element Team <
> # City Council Key Principles <
> # Housing Element Update Scope Task 1 – Project Management Task 2 – Community Outreach and Engagement Task 3 – Updating the Housing Element * Housing Needs Assessment * Constraints Analysis * Sites Assessment & Inventory * Goals, Policies & Programs Task 4 – Environmental Review # City Council Rezoning Strategies <
> New Rules for Moderate & Above Moderate Income Sites (AB 725) By-Right for Duplexes, Lot Split in Single-Family Zones (SB 9) # Integrate with Concurrent Planning Efforts <
> # Rezoning Timing for Lower Income RHNA <
> New Rules for Lower Income Sites (AB 1397) # RHNA & Sites Inventory <
> No Net Loss, by income level (AB 166) # Sites Inventory Additional HCD scrutiny on.... <
> * City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and zone for it * Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments * Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action * Reliant on the development industry (nonprofit & for profit) to construct housing units # Housing Considerations <
> Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686) # Community Engagement Goals * Tailor engagement strategies and approaches to the local context * Open and transparent process * Promote and advertise public participation and opportunities * Leverage input at various points in the process * Provide a variety of opportunities for convenience * Flexibility, in-person and remote engagement * Communicate clearly and visually, simplify complex concepts * Space for participants to be their authentic selves, speak native language * Specific attention to equity and typically underrepresented * Maintain positive discourse and dialogue # Outreach & Engagement Strategies <
> # The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> # The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> # The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> # Thank You * www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement * HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Office of the City Manager WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Steven Buckley, Land Use Planning Manager, on behalf of Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update Work Session SUMMARY The City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update for the Statewide “6th Cycle” is underway. This report follows up on the September 21, 2021 Council worksession on the Housing Element and provides an update on progress to date. The purpose of this report and worksession is to: 1. Provide updates to the project timeline based on State law. 2. Present the preliminary findings of the housing needs assessment. 3. Describe the sites inventory methodology. 4. Introduce the multi-unit residential objective standards scope of work. 5. Share the results of the initial public outreach and engagement efforts. 6. Receive direction from the City Council on priority housing programs, site selection criteria, and suitable locations for increased residential density. CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS Project Timeline Assembly Bill 215, signed by Governor Newsom on September 28, 2021, effectively shortens the Housing Element Update timeline by 74 days. The new law requires that cities make the draft Housing Element publicly available for a minimum of 30 days, and take a minimum of 10 business days to consider and incorporate public comments, prior to sending a revised draft to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) for review. Previously, the public review period could run currently with Planning Commission, City Council, and CEQA meetings on the Housing Element, but AB 215 requires a separate public comment period prior to HCD’s first review of the draft. The law also increased HCD’s review period for the draft Housing Element from 60 to 90 days. However, the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023 remains unchanged. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 This results in significant impacts to the proposed draft Housing Element timeline and likely necessitates that the City of Berkeley utilize the allotted grace period in order to be able to thoroughly complete the housing plan and provide adequate review and responses. Table 1 details the proposed project timeline in light of AB 215. Table 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline | Analysis & Assessment | June 2021 – December 2021 | | :--- | :--- | | Sites & Opportunities | August 2021 – February 2022 | | Goals & Policies | November 2021 – May 2022 | | Draft Housing Element & Review | June 2021 – November 2022 | | Environmental Review | December 2021 – December 2022 | | Minimum 30-day review & 14-day response | May 2022 – July 2022 | | 90-day review by HCD | July 2022 – October 2022 | | Response to HCD and Finalize Draft | October 2022 – December 2022 | | Local Adoption of Final Draft | January 2023 – March 2023 | | Final Review and Certification by HCD | March 2023 – May 31, 2023 | All cities have the option of a 120-day grace period, which includes a 60-day final review and certification by HCD. Therefore, the City effectively has a 60-day grace period and must adopt a Housing Element no later than March 31, 2023. ### Preliminary Housing Needs Assessment The Housing Element illustrates the trends and characteristics of Berkeley’s population, housing stock, and demographics to provide context for the City’s housing needs. The housing needs assessment includes the unmet needs of existing residents and the future housing demand resulting from anticipated changes in population and demographics. Key preliminary findings provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)[^p494-1] are: 1. Steady Population Growth. The California Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population in 2020 was 122,580. According to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 projections, Berkeley’s population is anticipated to reach approximately 136,000 by 2030 (11%) and approximately 141,000 by 2040. Since 2000, the City’s population has increased approximately 9% each decade, comparable to the State overall (average 8.4%) and slightly less than neighboring jurisdictions such as Oakland (11%) and San Francisco (11.5%). 2. Younger and Older Population. According to the Census American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019), residents ages 15 to 24 comprise the largest age [^p494-1]: ABAG Housing Needs Packet, April 2021 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 group in Berkeley (27%), followed by people ages 25 to 34 (18%). The median age in Berkeley is 31 years old and the high proportion of younger residents is due to the presence of UC Berkeley within the City. Between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of population aged 25 to 34 increased by 25%, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete. Berkeley also experienced a significant 40% increase in population aged 65 to 84 between 2010 and 2019, which suggests an increasing need for housing appropriate for seniors in the community. The largest decrease was in the 45 to 54 age group (-9%). 3. Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition. The City is slightly less diverse when compared to Alameda County as a whole, which has greater proportions of Black or African-American, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latinx populations. Conversely, the proportion of White residents is greater in Berkeley (53%) compared to the County (31%). According to the ACS, the most significant change to Berkeley’s ethnic diversity is a 2% decrease in the overall proportion of the Black/African-American population, which is a continuation of a trend in the City and in the region as a whole since 2000. Over this time period, the proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander residents has increased steadily from 19% to approximately 21% of the Berkeley population and the Latinx residents also increased slightly by 0.6% to approximately 11% of the overall population. 4. Rising Household Income. According to the ACS, the median household income in Berkeley increased by 68% between 2010 and 2019, which is comparable with Alameda County as a whole. For 2021, HCD determined the Area Median Income (AMI) for Alameda County is $125,600 for a family of four. According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which used 2013-2017 ACS data, half of Berkeley’s households earn below the median income which is comparable to Alameda County as a whole. However, a greater proportion of Berkeley households fall within the Very Low-Income category, earning less than 50% AMI (32% compared to 27% in Alameda County as a whole). 5. Rent Burdened. According to the ACS, a majority of Berkeley residents are renters (57%) and more than half of those are rent-burdened, i.e. they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. In 2019, only 3.5% of Berkeley’s rental housing stock was vacant, where a typical rental vacancy rate in California was 5.5%. ### Sites Inventory Methodology The City is required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet the anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (AB 166). AB 166 requires cities to demonstrate capacity is available for affordable units in the case that development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element. Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 units. The following is a summary of the overall methodology for Berkeley’s sites inventory analysis[^p496-2]. 1. Identify Likely Housing Sites and Production. The initial efforts will identify known projects, sites, and ADU trends that can be credited towards the 6th Cycle. a. *Pipeline Projects and Sites of Interest*. These parcels are those where applications have already been submitted or there is demonstrated interest in building housing. Pipeline projects for the 6th Cycle can include any residential project that is not expected to receive a Certificate of Occupancy until after July 1, 2022. b. Reused *5th Cycle Housing Element sites*. Generally, available sites can be reused from the 5th cycle Housing Element. These sites should be included in the preliminary sites inventory and evaluated for continued feasibility. New legislation (AB 1397) requires that projects with 20% of on-site units designated for lower income households (80% AMI or less) on these sites are subject to by-right approval unless the sites are rezoned for a higher density prior to the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. c. *Calculate ADU Trend*. ADUs can count toward the RHNA if the projected number of ADU units aligns with an established local trend. The project team will identify a trend using the annual average of ADU permit approvals between 2018 and 2021 (the time period when the most recent ADU bills were adopted). HCD recommends this methodology. 2. Screening for Vacant and Underutilized Parcels. Using existing land use and County Assessor data, the project team will conduct an analysis to identify vacant and underutilized parcels that could be included in the sites inventory. This process involves screening the most achievable parcels based on their existing characteristics. The following characteristics will form the starting point for the analysis, based on state and regional guidance: a. Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. b. Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. c. Parcels are not State- or county-owned. d. Parcels have an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. [^p496-2]: More detailed guidance for Housing Element site inventories and analysis is available here: ABAG Site Inventory Memo. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-08/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 e. Buildings on the parcel are “older”. As a starting point, the team will use a threshold of 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings. f. Parcels are underutilized (built at less than maximum capacity). As a starting point, the team will use parcels that are identified as built at 35% or less of their assumed maximum density or intensity (physical indicators such as height and coverage). g. Parcel sizes are between 0.5 and 10 acres (for lower income categories) or less than 0.5 acre for moderate and above-moderate income categories. Note that parcels may be consolidated to achieve the 0.5 acre minimum threshold. Parcels identified in this screening will be reviewed to ensure an adequate assemblage for consideration, and will be combined and cross referenced with the parcels identified in Step 1 to create a comprehensive list of potential Housing Element sites. 3. Screening of Parcels. Using the UrbanFootprint scenario analysis tool[^p497-3], the project team will evaluate the suitability of each parcel for new housing and inclusion in the Housing Element sites inventory. The screening will identify locations where housing should be located (such as near transit, schools, and parks) and locations to avoid if possible (such as areas subject to wildfires). The screening tool will also help with the evaluation of sites in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirement[^p497-4]. Criteria used in this analysis includes racial diversity, concentrations of poverty, and vulnerability to displacement. These criteria are divided into four categories and each parcel will be given a “score” to evaluate its appropriateness as a Housing Element parcel based on HCD-provided methodology. The categories and specific criteria are: a. Socioeconomic criteria, including racial diversity of census tracts, concentrations of low-income households, areas with high social vulnerabilities[^p497-5], and a combination of low incomes and high pollution vulnerability as measured by the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool[^p497-6]. b. Access criteria, including the proximity to transit, parks, and retail/amenities. [^p497-3]: More information on the UrbanFootprint scenario analysis tool: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/scenario-planning/ [^p497-4]: More detailed information on the AFFH process and requirements: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml [^p497-5]: Social vulnerabilities are measured by the Social Vulnerability Index, an index prepared by CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [^p497-6]: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report and Mapping tool: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 c. *Presence of environmental conditions*, including parcels near freeways, located in a floodplain or areas subject to sea level rise and fire hazards. d. *Housing characteristics of the area*, including cost burdened households, the potential for displacement, and a concentration of overcrowded households. 4. Evaluate and Analyze Sites. The project team will study each potential parcel in the sites inventory using aerial photos or field visits, using professional judgment to identify the accuracy of the screening and assess the viability of the parcel for development. Sites that are not appropriate for housing will be removed, while others that are suitable for housing but were not included in the initial quantitative analysis will be added, such as parcels less than 0.5 acres that are able to be consolidated. 5. Calculate Buildout Potential. Using existing zoning, calculate the potential buildout of each parcel to a maximum of 70% of maximum capacity. This number can be modified for individual zoning districts by demonstrating a pattern of achieving higher densities through built or approved projects. Each parcel will also be categorized by its “income category” with parcels that allow 30 dwelling units per acre or more categorized in the “lower income” category (Very Low or Low Income households) and parcels less than 30 units per acre in the Moderate and Above Moderate Income categories. The project team will review and revise the above steps until all of the appropriate Housing Element sites are identified under the current zoning. If the City cannot meet its RHNA and buffer under current zoning, City Council will be asked to consider locations where additional new housing can be built. This can occur by: 1. Up-zoning areas that already allow residential uses to increase the number of housing units that can be built on those parcels. 2. Allowing residential uses in commercial or industrial areas where residential uses are currently prohibited. AB 1397 requires that sites rezoned after January 31, 2023 to accommodate lower income RHNA are subject to by-right approval without discretionary review if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households. The rezone must also include a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of at least 30 du/ac, and be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units. The final sites inventory will include a detailed data table (template provided by HCD) of all sites with the characteristics of each (including existing use, zoning, address), calculating the buildout by income category, documenting the viability of each parcel to build housing (with photos and descriptions) and conducing the AFFH analysis. **Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards** APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 On September 28, 2021, City Council approved a contract amendment that supports development of objective standards for residential and mixed-use projects. This project originated in response to numerous City Council referrals, as well as recent state housing legislation that requires by-right and ministerial processes for certain eligible residential projects. The objective standards effort is linked directly with the Housing Element scope and timeline to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate approximately 9,000 units and a buffer. The objective standards project will be undertaken in a two-part process. The focus of this effort (Part 1) will be on establishing objective densities (dwelling units per acre) and building massing standards for housing projects with two or more units. Development regulations relating to the project placement on a lot and allowable building envelope correlate directly with construction efficiency and the total square footage of housing that can be built. Objective standards for building form and densities will be crafted to ensure consistency with State housing laws and assumptions for the sites inventory and assessment of unit capacities. Part 1 is underway and tracks directly with the Housing Element and environmental review timeline. The focus of Part 2 will be on objective standards for design, which includes architectural details such as roofline articulation, the orientation of entries, window patterns, and façade treatment. Objective design details will not have a meaningful effect on the number of units that can be built but provides further assurances and predictability for a building’s aesthetic character and harmony within a neighborhood context. Part 2 would begin after the Housing Element is complete; its full scope has not been finalized. **Initial Public Outreach Feedback** At of the time of the writing of this report, the Housing Element team had made presentations to nine Berkeley boards and commissions[^p499-7], conducted nine stakeholder interviews, held a public workshop with over 70 participants, and released a citywide online survey. 1. Public Workshop. The first public workshop occurred over Zoom on October 27, 2021. The goal for the workshop was to introduce Berkeley community members to the Housing Element goals and processes, to get input on successes and challenges in Berkeley’s housing development and programs, and to begin [^p499-7]: Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/15/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021), and Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021). City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 identifying potential residential types and sites that are appropriate for development. An invitation and log-in information for the public workshop were sent to more than 200 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and flyers for the event were posted at 15 sites throughout Berkeley during the month of October, including public libraries, senior and community centers, grocery stores, local retailers, and on utility poles near public parks. During the public workshop, several key themes were identified: a. *High quality of life.* As a city, Berkeley has many assets that make it an attractive place to live, including unique neighborhoods, easy access to Downtown, walkability, public transportation, and access to nature and parks. b. *Diverse housing stock.* The city has a diverse housing stock with different architectural styles, neighborhood types and unit sizes (i.e., ADUs, single-family, duplex, triplex, mixed-use, apartments). c. *Public Safety.* Access is a concern in neighborhoods with narrow roadways and high wildfire risks. Additional development in the hills should be located near major thoroughfares for vehicular, emergency vehicles and transit access. d. *Affordable Housing.* Displacement and gentrification trends and the high cost of housing for ownership and rental units indicates a need for more low and moderate-income units. e. *Inclusionary Housing.* The current inclusionary requirements and mitigation fees should be revised to support the building of more affordable housing. However, there is also concern that a higher inclusionary requirement will increase housing costs. f. *Geographic Equity.* The increased housing needed to meet RHNA should not be focused solely in a few neighborhoods, but be distributed equitably throughout the city. g. *Onerous Entitlement Process.* Residential permit approvals are frequently slowed by neighborhood opposition which can make the process long, cumbersome, expensive and easy to obstruct. h. *Opportunity Sites.* Housing, particularly affordable and senior housing, should be in transit-rich locations. There should be more diversity in lower density zones to achieve “missing middle” housing. Permit residential and mixed-use projects to build above existing single-story retail buildings. 2. *Stakeholder Interviews.* Stakeholder interviews are used to identify housing needs and constraints, identify opportunity sites, and inform engagement APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 strategies. To date, the outreach team has interviewed nine stakeholders, including representatives from Berkeley’s faith-based institutions and community organizations, affordable and market-rate housing developers, real estate and property management professionals, housing advocates, business owners, and advocacy organizations representing what HCD terms “special needs,” meaning a target population. The interview effort is ongoing and has raised the following issues thus far: a. *Affordable Housing.* The current requirements for inclusionary housing and funding resources are insufficient to meeting the demands for affordable housing in Berkeley. There is also a need to provide subsidies for those who live in market-rate housing, particularly those with special needs including the disabled and transitional homeless. b. *Neighborhood Character.* The architectural character for lower density neighborhoods should be preserved and not interrupted, though consideration should be given to blocks where there are existing taller or denser buildings constructed prior to the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in the 1970s. c. *Gentrification.* High housing costs and a large student population are driving increased rents throughout the city. d. *Height Limits.* The current height constraints in many zoning districts do not take into consideration construction efficiency and the increased costs due to changes in construction type. e. *Streamlined Approvals.* The housing entitlement process is frequently prolonged and unpredictable due to discretionary procedures, contentious neighborhood opposition, and resistance to higher density, regardless of zoning compliance. f. *Opportunity Sites.* Higher densities should be developed around BART stations and near transit stops, as well as near or above existing community resources, such as child care facilities, senior centers and retail corridors. Residential should be allowed in more ground floor locations, given a decline in retail activity and increase in ground floor vacancies. The interviews were conducted virtually, in groups of one to three, with one hour allotted for each session. 3. *Online Survey.* The Housing Element Online Survey was made available from October 28 through November 14, 2021 and includes the same three questions discussed at the October 27th public workshop: Housing successes, housing issues, and locations for new housing. Respondents need not have attended the workshop in order to respond to the survey. As of early November, the survey has received 460 responses. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 BACKGROUND Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units[^p502-8]. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35). Table 2: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles | Income Level | 5th Cycle RHNA Units | Units Permitted 2015-2020[^p502-9] | 6th Cycle DRAFT RHNA Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Very Low (< 50% AMI) | 532 | 232 | 2,446 | | Low (50 – 80% AMI) | 442 | 41 | 1,408 | | Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) | 584 | 91 | 1,416 | | Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) | 1,401 | 2,579 | 3,664 | | **Total** | **2,959** | **2,943** | **8,934** | Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the City does not meet the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline for adopting new zoning, eligible affordable projects on rezoned sites from the 5th Cycle would be approved ministerially. If the City does not adopt its 6th Cycle Housing Element prior to March 31, 2023, it faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing [^p502-8]: May 20, 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023-2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf [^p502-9]: Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION December 9, 2021 greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals. POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION The Housing Element team will make another presentation to the City Council at a worksession in 2022, to inform the Council of the Housing Element Update’s progress, share findings from community and stakeholder input, and receive project direction and recommendations from the Council on the immediate tasks ahead. FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION The total budget allocated for the Housing Element Update is $540,000. Berkeley has secured $325,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant funds, $83,506 in non-competitive Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant funds, $75,000 in competitive REAP grant funds, and $56,494 in Community Planning Fees. CONTACT PERSON Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489 LINKS: 1. September 21, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 1. Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/09_Sep/City_Council_09-21-2021_-_Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 2. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off-Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/Housing%20Element%20Update%2020042821.pdf 3. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%20-%20Mayor%20203-25-21.pdf 4. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021-03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 **Figure F-11 Work Session #2 Presentation** <
> ## Agenda 1. Timeline Update 2. Preliminary Housing Needs Assessment & Program Evaluation 3. Sites Inventory Methodology 4. Residential Objective Standards 5. Public Outreach Feedback 6. Discussion & Direction <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> | | Very Low >80% AMI | Low 50-80% AMI | Moderate 80-120% AMI | Above Mod >120% AMI | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **RHNA** | **2,448 (27.4%)** | **1,400 (15.5%)** | **1,418 (15.9%)** | **3,684 (41%)** | | **Subtract: ADU Trend** | -240 | -240 | -240 | -80 | | **Subtract: Pipeline Projects (COO after 6/30/2022)** | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | | **Subtract: Sites of Interest** | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | | **Subtract: Reused 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites** | -300 | -401 | -493 | 0 | | **SUBTOTAL** | | | | | | **Add: 15-30% buffer + Additional Sites Needed** | | | | | <
> <
> <
> # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ## 3 - Screen for Suitability <
> * Access to transit, parks, retail, food and other amenities ## 3 - Screen for Suitability * Socioeconomic * Housing characteristics of the area * Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements <
> ## 4 - Evaluate and Analyze * Aerial photos and field visits * Remove inappropriate sites <
> ## 5 - Calculate Buildout | | Very Low <50% AMI | Low 50-80% AMI | Moderate 80-120% AMI | Above Mod >120% AMI | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | RHNA | 2,448 (27.4%) | 1,409 (15.8%) | 1,418 (15.8%) | 3,664 (41%) | | Subtract: ADU Trend | -240 | -240 | -240 | -80 | | Subtract: Pipeline Projects (CDO after 6/30/2022) | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | | Subtract: Sites of Interest | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | | Subtract: Reused 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites | -300 | -401 | -493 | 0 | | SUBTOTAL | | | | | | Add: 15-30% buffer + Additional Sites Needed | | | | | | Subtract: Vacant and Underutilized Sites | | | | | | Screen for Suitability | | | | | | Evaluate and Analyze | | | | | | TOTAL | | | | | | Potential Buildout (70%) | | | | | | Shortfall → Rezone | | | | | ## Housing Element Sites Inventory | General Plan Designation (Current) | Zoning Designation (Current) | Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre) | Max Density Allowed (units/acre) | Parcel Size (Acres) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | ## MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS 1. Why objective standards? 2. Project Goal 3. Part 1 & Part 2 Overview 4. Part 1 Framework ## MORE INFORMATION AT www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards <
> ## Why are we creating Residential Objective Standards? **CALIFORNIA & BERKELEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.** **ALSO** | RECENT STATE LAW | CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS | HOUSING ELEMENT | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • SB 35 Streamlining for Affordable Development | • Housing Accountability Act | • Plan for 8,934 new units + Buffer | | • Housing Accountability Act | • Missing Middle Housing | • AB 1397 By-Right Affordable Development at default density for re-used Housing Element sites | | • SB 330 Housing Crisis Act | • Eliminate Exclusionary Zoning | | | • 2021 Housing Bills, including SB 9, SB 478 | • Affordable Housing Overlay | • Spring 2023 deadline | ## Project Goal <
> **PREDICTABILITY** **CLEAR MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA** **STREAMLINED** **SHORTENED ENTITLEMENT PROCESS** ## A Two-Part Process **PART 1 - OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS** | **PART 2 - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS** --- | --- **WE ARE HERE (2021 to 2023)** | **2023 and later** <
> | <
> ## Part 1 Framework – Three Buckets <
> ## PUBLIC OUTREACH 1. Public Workshop #1 & Survey 2. Stakeholder Interviews * Presented to 10 Berkeley Boards & Commissions[^p505-1] * Interviewed Stakeholder Interest Groups[^p505-2] * Received 745 responses from the citywide online survey * Held an online public workshop with approx. 70 participants [^p505-1]: Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homelessness Services Panel of Experts (9/2/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/13/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021); Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021); and Rent Stabilization Board (10/28/2021). [^p505-2]: Black/African-American Faith Institution; Market Rate Developers; Affordable Developers; Senior Center; Real Estate Professional; Property Managers; Homeless Services; Housing Advocacy; Disabilities Services. ## Public Workshop & Online Survey <
> ## Housing Locations <
> ## Preliminary Stakeholder Interviews * Need more funding for affordable housing, disabled, and homeless * Gentrification from high housing costs and student population * Racial inequity in housing and displacement * High land costs & unpredictable entitlement process * Flexibility on ground floor retail requirements * Avoid replacing existing residential & displacement * Consider construction efficiency (85' heights) * Consider pre-1970s height/densities <
> ## The 6th Housing Element Update Process – Council <
> ## Discussion & Direction **GENERAL FEEDBACK** **ALSO** 1. Are there **additional site selection criteria** that should be considered? 2. If **rezoning is needed** to accommodate the RHNA, what areas of the city should be considered for housing housing or increasing density? What areas should **not** be considered? 3. Is **"Missing Middle" with 2-4 units** appropriate in certain Commercial districts and in the MU-R? * Commercial districts: Currently, two-family and multi-family 3+ uses require a use permit. * MU-R: Currently, two-family requires an AUP and multi-family 3+ requires a use permit 4. What City **housing programs** do you consider most successful? What are policies or programs that should be **prioritized or created** for the 6th cycle? City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Office of the City Manager WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards SUMMARY The City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update for the Statewide “6th Cycle” is underway alongside its counterpart project, Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards (“Objective Standards”). This report follows up on the December 9, 2021 Council worksession on the Housing Element and provides an update on progress to date. The purpose of this report and worksession is to: 1. Share the feedback from recent public engagement efforts. 2. Present the preliminary sites inventory and describe the environmental review process. 3. Present on the analysis and draft development standards for two- to four-unit projects in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R Districts outside of the Hillside Overlay. 4. Describe the preliminary methodology for analyzing and drafting development standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects. 5. Receive direction from the City Council on Housing Element policy, zoning standards for missing middle housing, and development criteria for residential projects with five or more units. CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS Public Outreach Feedback At of the time of the writing of this report, the Housing Element team had made presentations to 13 Berkeley boards, commissions, and committees[^p506-1], conducted 18 [^p506-1]: Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/15/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021); 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: manager@CityofBerkeley.info Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 stakeholder interviews, met with Housing Commission representatives from the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), held two public workshops with more than 60 participants each, and released two citywide online surveys. Since the December Council Housing Element work session, the project team held a public workshop, completed a citywide online survey and held two concurrent meetings of the Planning Commission and Zoning Adjustments Board subcommittees. The following are key takeaways from these outreach efforts: 1. Public Workshop. The second public workshop occurred over Zoom on January 27, 2022. The goal for the workshop was to share insights from community engagement efforts, update the Berkeley community on Housing Element sites inventory methodology, introduce the Residential Objective Standards project, and receive input on zoning standards to facilitate housing production. An invitation and registration link for the public workshop was sent to over 340 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and attended by approximately 60 participants, comparable to the first public workshop in September 2021. During the second public workshop, several key themes were reiterated: a. Locations to facilitate housing production. Participants identified both higher density neighborhoods (Downtown, Southside) and lower density neighborhoods (West, North, and South Berkeley) as locations to consider for increasing housing capacity through added height and/or density. Several comments highlighted the desire to avoid clustering affordable housing primarily along high traffic corridors. b. Housing criteria. Proximity to community resources, including grocery stores and retail, are important criteria. Several participants commented on the need for active ground floor uses and more mixed-uses to further foster a walkable environment. c. Multi-Unit 2-4. Participants generally supported the concept of increasing allowable density in low-density residential districts, particularly if constructed with objective standards to maintain appropriate neighborhood scale and adequate planting, landscaping, and open space. d. Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed Use. Participants shared support for encouraging innovative and creative design, as well as incentivizing community and shared open spaces, particularly for multi-family projects. Several commenters expressed that developments should minimize solar impacts on adjacent residential units. Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021); Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021); Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Subcommittees (12/15/2021 and 2/16/2022); Civic Arts Commission (1/19/2022); City/UC/Student Relations Committee (1/28/2022). Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 2. Downtown and West Berkeley Tour and Online Survey. Two residential walking tours and online surveys were made available from November 24, 2021 through January 31, 2022. The goal of the tours was to inform and get feedback from community members on the diversity of housing types and building sizes in the City and to understand what makes residential development compatible with neighborhood scale. The walking tours and surveys were advertised at the December 9, 2021 Council work session, on the flyer for the January Housing Element workshop, and emailed to more than 330 subscribers of the Housing Element email list in November, early January, and late January. They were also announced at the December and January Planning Commission meetings, at December subcommittee meetings of the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Planning Commission and the January 4x6 meeting. a. *The Downtown Walking Tour* received a total of 23 survey responses and included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only developments. The most common features that participants found to be compatible were building height, massing, and design features such as building articulation, color and materials, and windows. Features that would establish more compatibility included additional landscaping, planting, architectural details, and vehicular access and loading. b. *The West Berkeley walking tour* received a total of 26 survey responses and included 12 tour stops, with a range of “missing middle” housing types including multiple detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and mixed-use projects. The most common features that survey participants found compatible were placement of structures (setbacks and location on lot), heights, and overall building shape, size, and form. The features that would create more compatibility included building and parking orientation, and additional landscaping and planting. 3. Subcommittee meetings of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board. These concurrent meetings occurred over Zoom on December 15, 2021 and February 16, 2022. The goal for the meetings was to introduce the Objective Standards project, discuss an analysis of Berkeley’s development standards for two- to four-unit residential projects and receive targeted feedback on a number of key issues. Analysis involved development of two to four-unit housing prototypes and an assessment of project feasibility based on current development standards. Over 25 members of the public attended the February meeting – many of whom were design professionals or interested residents – providing feedback on the technical nature of the material. There was general support for ministerial approval of projects that met objective standards and tiered standards that incentivized density and preservation of APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 existing housing stock. Commissioners and the public requested refinements or further research to: * Create more flexible open space requirements. * Understand shadow impacts to solar. * Incentivize smaller units / denser projects which naturally encourage housing that is more affordable. * Model adjacent and abutting lots for improved neighborhood context. **Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity and Environmental Review** The City is required by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet the anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (AB 166)[^p509-2]. Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 units. The sites must be zoned to allow for residential uses and the zoning standards must allow for the unit capacities assumed in the sites inventory. The sites inventory process assessed capacity in three categories: 1. *Likely Sites* include projects that received their land use entitlement after 2018 but have not received their certificate of occupancy. For these projects, the affordability breakdown reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the “likely sites” category based on recent development trends and assumed levels of affordability based on ABAG’s Affordability of ADUs report[^p509-3]. The North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations are included under “likely sites” based on current planning efforts. The site inventory estimates 1,200 units to be developed at those sites during the 6th cycle, with 35% affordability split evenly between Very Low- and Low-Income affordability levels. *The preliminary assessment of “likely sites” to develop account for over 5,100 units towards our 8,934 RHNA goal, and 33 percent of the lower income allocation.* 2. *Pipeline Sites* include projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. *The preliminary* [^p509-2]: AB 166 requires cities to demonstrate capacity is available for affordable units in the case that development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element. [^p509-3]: September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 assessment of “pipeline sites” account for over 2,400 units, and 10 percent of the lower income allocation. 3. Opportunity Sites are not associated with actual development proposals. These parcels are identified as “opportunity sites” or potential sites for future housing development using HCD’s criteria and methodology (outlined below). Berkeley’s zoning districts, with the exception of the C-AC district, do not have maximum density standards expressed in “dwelling units per acre”. As a result, unit assumptions for opportunity sites were calculated using the average mean of the base density from recent entitlement projects within the district (or districts with similar zoning standards if there were no recent projects within the district to analyze). The preliminary assessment of “opportunity sites” account for over 9,000 units distributed across 364 parcels, and accommodates 86 percent of the lower income RHNA goal. AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low-Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households on-site. Preliminary analysis shows that this will affect approximately 18 opportunity sites (1,419 units), located along commercial corridors. HCD’s criteria for selecting opportunity sites includes: a. Vacant. Land is identified as vacant in the Alameda County Assessor’s land use data. b. Underutilized. Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. c. Older. Buildings on the parcel are greater than 30 years old for non-residential buildings and greater than 40 years old for residential buildings. d. Jurisdiction. Parcel is not Federal-, State- or county-owned. e. Historic or Landmarked. Parcel does not contain historic buildings or landmarked resources. f. Existing Residential. Parcel does not contain condos, large apartment buildings, or rent-controlled units. g. Supermarkets. Unless a developer has expressed interest in a particular site, HCD typically does not accept supermarkets as potential opportunity sites due to their long-term leases and community need. HCD’s affordability assumptions are based on the premise that affordable units are more likely to be developed on larger sites that allow for higher densities and a greater total number of units. For the purposes of affordability assumptions on opportunity sites, HCD’s methodology combines the “lower income” categories, APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 Very Low- and Low-Income. The affordability assumptions, based on the State’s guidance, are: a. *Parcel Size.* On sites that are less than 0.35 acres, the potential unit capacity is included solely in the moderate and above-moderate categories. On sites that are greater than 0.5 acre, the affordability distribution is then dependent on the resulting density and unit capacity calculations. Note, adjacent parcels under the same ownership are included and consolidated to achieve a minimum 0.5 acre threshold. b. *Density.* The potential unit capacity from opportunity sites where the assumed density is less than 75 units per acre are placed in the Above Moderate-Income category. On sites where the assumed density is greater than or equal to 75 units per acre, the potential units are split among the three affordability categories (Lower-, Moderate-, and Above Moderate-Income) based on the number of units that can be accommodated on the site. c. *Unit Capacity.* If a site can accommodate up to 30 units, then the potential capacity is categorized in the Above Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate between 31 and 50 units, the potential capacity is categorized in the Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate more than 50 units, the potential units are categorized in the Lower-Income category. Preliminary analysis of Berkeley’s “Likely Sites”, “Pipeline Sites”, and “Opportunity Sites” using HCD’s methodology yields over 16,500 units and meets RHNA requirements within each income category. This suggests that the City’s existing zoning is adequate to meet HCD requirements for a compliant Housing Element. Recent development activity, however, suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the City aims to achieve. Density Bonus and inclusionary units have fallen short of providing the overall 20% Very-Low and Low-Income units expressed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance in part because projects typically pay a fee in lieu of providing all or part of the inclusionary requirement. City Council has provided direction on where and how to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types (see Attachment 1, Council Housing Referrals). Based on Council’s referrals and resolutions, the City is preparing a programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 (DEIR) that will study potential environmental impacts that could result from up-zoning and new policies in the following areas, by traffic analysis zone (TAZ)⁴: 1. North Berkeley and Ashby BART TOD projects assumed a maximum of 2,400 units in its EIR⁵ and the Housing Element EIR will match that assumption. The Sites Inventory estimate currently assumes 1,200 units will be permitted during the Housing Element 2023-2031 cycle. 2. R-1 and R-1A districts are anticipated to increase in density based on SB 9 and zoning amendments in response to Council's referral for missing middle housing⁶ and resolution to end exclusionary zoning⁷. The Terner Center's SB 9 modeling indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 new market-feasible units through SB 9⁸. Using HCD's 70ᵗʰ percentile methodology, the EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 and R-1A districts for the 2023-2031 period. 3. Southside Zoning Modification Project proposed an expansion of approximately 800 units over existing Southside Plan Area zoning in its July 2020 Initial Study⁹. Given past development trends and the limited number of opportunity sites in the Southside, the Housing Element EIR assumes approximately 1,200 units total to accommodate up-zoning in the C-T, R-S and R-SMU districts. As part of the environmental review process, the Housing Element team will be evaluating foreseeable physical impacts as well as a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation strategies to reduce or avoid potential environmental effects. The alternatives may consider increases in allowed heights and densities or find that higher unit capacities result in greater potential impacts. Ultimately, the EIR must study a realistic development potential for the eight-year period of the Housing Element Update [^p512-4]: July 2014. Final Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Map. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ModelFinalTAZ_North-1.pdf [^p512-5]: October 2021. Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station TOD EIR. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Land_Use_Division/Ashby%20and%20North%20Berkeley%20BART%20Stations%20Zoning%20Project%20DEIR%20October%202021.pdf [^p512-6]: April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04-23_Supp_2_Reports_Item_32_Rev_Droste_pdf.aspx [^p512-7]: February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02-23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx [^p512-8]: July 21, 2021, Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes? Terner Center. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Terner-Center-SB9-model-jurisdiction-output.xlsx [^p512-9]: July 2020. Southside Zoning Ordinance Amendments Projects Initial Study. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Land_Use_Division/Final%20Southside%20Zoning%20Ordinance%20Amendments_Initial%20Study.pdf APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 to avoid overestimating impacts and unduly burdening future development projects with increased mitigation measures. ### Rezoning: Two to Four Unit Residential Objective Standards In alignment with the Housing Element Update and EIR, the Objective Standards team is studying modifications to zoning standards for residential development with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts outside of the Hillside Overlay. These standards are intended to implement the Council's direction to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow for multifamily “missing middle” housing in Berkeley’s lower-density residential districts. To inform the development of these standards, the City a) illustrated and analyzed existing development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts; and b) prepared four prototype models of example two- to four-unit development projects. These models show a range of configurations for “missing middle” projects in Berkeley and highlight potential conflicts with existing standards (Attachment 2, Illustrated Missing Middle Models). Key observations from the analysis of existing development standards and prototype feasibility include: 1. Lot Coverage. In R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum lot coverage varies between 35 percent and 50 percent depending on the location of a lot (internal or corner) and the height of the proposed development (one and two stories or three stories). Maximum lot coverage is a limiting standard, particularly for internal lots, and lot coverage standards that vary by number of stories are more complicated to apply. 2. Open Space. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is currently required in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2. A minimum of 300 square feet and 150 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is required in the R-2A and MU-R, respectively. A minimum width and length of 10 foot by 10 foot is required for ground floor open space; a minimum length of six feet is required for above-ground usable open space. Two of the four prototypes studied do not meet minimum usable open space requirements due to side yard driveways and paved on-site parking area. 3. Height and Stories. In R-1, R-2A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum average height is 28 feet and three stories. A maximum average height of 35 feet is achievable with an administrative use permit (AUP) and is commonly granted by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) with few—if any—modifications. For some buildings, it is possible to incorporate four stories into a 35-foot average building height, which would increase total habitable floor area. 4. Setbacks. In the R-1 and R-1A, a four-foot side setback is required for all floors, while setbacks in the R-2 and R-2A vary between the first two floors (four-foot side setback) and the third floor (six-foot side setback) and cannot be reduced Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 with an AUP. MU-R has no minimum side setback requirement. The upper floor setbacks add complexity to three-story construction. Three of the four prototypes studied do not meet the increased third-story interior side setback required in the R-2 and R-2A districts. 5. Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Achievable floor areas based on modeling of existing zoning standards demonstrate a range between 4,881 square feet on an internal lot in the R-2A to 7,800 square feet on a corner lot in the MU-R. There is no maximum FAR standard in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts; achievable floor area is limited by other standards such as lot coverage, height, stories, and setbacks. In MU-R, the maximum FAR is 1.5, which is a limiting standard where existing standards otherwise allow for 100% lot coverage, up to 10-foot setbacks, 35-feet height and three stories. Based on the existing standards and prototype analysis, the Objective Standards team drafted proposed standards and alternative options for residential projects with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts outside of the Hillside Overlay (Attachment 3, Draft Proposed Multi-Unit 2-4 Development Standards). Proposed standards would apply only to two- to four-unit projects; single-family dwellings will continue to be subject to existing standards. The standards will be further revised and refined to address ZORP Subcommittees and Council input. Key proposed zoning modifications for consideration include: 1. Lot Coverage. To promote housing production and allow for a range of project configurations, the draft proposed standards increase allowed lot coverage as the number of units increases. 2. Open Space. To allow for flexibility in the location and configuration of usable open space while maintaining existing minimum dimensions, the draft proposed standards modify the standards to include outdoor area on the ground within front, street side, or rear setback areas and also above ground (e.g. balconies) used for active or passive recreation use. 3. Height and Stories. To incentivize multi-unit housing production, the draft proposed standards allow maximizing height and increasing the maximum to four stories for projects with three or four units. 4. Setbacks. The draft proposed standards include applying a maximum front setback (measured from the front property line) to ensure consistent building placement with adjacent structures, and reducing minimum rear setbacks to be consistent with existing ADU and SB 9 requirements. 5. Step backs. To enhance the feasibility for multi-unit configurations, the proposed draft standards apply a front step back (measured from the face of the building wall and not the property line) and removes all other upper-story setback and step back requirements. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 6. Floor Area and FAR. The City Council previously directed the City Manager to consider scaling the FAR to increase as the number of units increase on a site. The proposed draft standards increase height, number of stories, and lot coverage as the number of units on the site increases, which effectively increases achievable floor area as number of units increase without creating a new FAR standard. 7. Preservation. To incentivize preservation of existing housing units, the proposed draft standards consider an option to increase allowable floor area for sites with retained existing habitable space. 8. Permit Requirements. City Council direction calls for allowing two-to four-unit projects in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, MU-R zoning districts. The proposed draft standards would allow two- to four-unit projects with a Zoning Certificate in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. Two- to four-unit projects are currently permitted by-right in the R-1 under SB 9. Three- and four-unit projects are currently not permitted in the R-1A zones. Where permitted, two- to four-unit projects all require a Use Permit and a public hearing. ➢ Staff requests City Council’s feedback on the proposed zoning modifications and development standards for two- to four-unit projects in low-density residential districts. Rezoning: Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed-Use Residential Objective Standards The City is in the preliminary stages of developing objective standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects ("multi-unit 5+"). The intent of this effort is to add, remove, or modify objective standards as needed to provide clarity and predictability for streamlined projects (e.g. SB 35), reduce the number of use permits a project requires, and to ensure that such projects are compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The following is a summary of the overall methodology for developing multi-unit 5+ standards: 1. Analyze Recent Project Approval Findings. Using residential projects entitled since 2016, the Objective Standards team will compare the current Zoning Ordinance requirements to as-built dimensions and analyze the relevant non-detriment findings in the staff reports to inform potential objective standards. The initial list of development standards to review will be based on the standards currently being evaluated for two- to four-unit projects (e.g. coverage, height, setbacks). 2. Identify Trends by Zoning District and Project type. The Objective Standards team will study recent development trends by zoning district and by residential project type (e.g., mixed-use, multifamily, or group living accommodations) to determine where modifying of existing standards is necessary. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 3. Tailoring Draft Standards. Using the findings and trends analysis, the Objective Standards team will develop preliminary draft zoning standards. Draft development standards will recognize the different residential types and scales of multi-unit 5+ projects. For example, a three-story, five-unit residential-only building may require different objective standards from a five-story, 100-unit mixed-use building especially when transitioning between low-density residential neighborhoods and higher density, or mixed-use areas. Included in this effort is consideration of how new development under revised building envelope standards may impact neighboring rooftop solar access where a Commercial or MU-R district borders a Residential district. In the initial review of existing development standards for multi-unit 5+, the Objective Standards team has identified key early policy questions that require Council input. 1. Mixed-Use vs. Residential-Only. In all Commercial districts except the C-T, C-DMU, and C-AC, development standards vary between mixed-use residential and residential-only projects, providing significantly greater achievable floor area for mixed-use projects. These regulations were intended to encourage mixed-use development along the City’s commercial corridors; however, this incentive has resulted in unintended ground floor vacancies. This was noted in a 2017 Council referral requesting flexible ground floor uses[^p516-10] to fill vacancies. Modifying the development standards along the commercial corridors outside the nodes would provide residential-only projects the benefits afforded to mixed-use residential projects. This change would provide flexibility of uses while continuing to support areas of commercial activity and increasing housing capacity. ➢ Staff requests City Council’s feedback on whether residential-only projects on commercial corridors—outside designated nodes—should have the same built envelope and maximum floor area as mixed-use residential projects. 2. Height and Stories. In the C-DMU Core, the ZAB may issue a Use Permit to increase the height to a maximum of 180 feet for three buildings and a maximum of 120 feet for two buildings. To-date, one 180-foot building has been constructed, one 120-foot building has been issued building permits, one 180-foot building has been entitled, and one 180-foot building is awaiting entitlement. The Southside Plan’s preliminary environmental analysis projected up to three 12-story buildings that would include up to 500 units. To provide clarity and predictability for future potential projects, and increase housing capacity in the limited number of identified opportunity sites in the Downtown and Southside areas (approximately 14 parcels in Downtown and nine [^p516-10]: April 4, 2017. Referral to allow non-commercial ground floor uses. Wengraf et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/04_Apr/Documents/2017-04-04_Item_21_Referral_to_the_Planning_Commission_to_Allow_Non-commercial_Use.aspx Page 11 86 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 in Southside), rezoning provides an opportunity to increase maximum heights and/or the number of tall buildings allowed within C-DMU Core and Southside. > Staff requests City Council’s feedback on potentially raising maximum heights and/or uncapping the number of tall buildings in Downtown and the Southside once objective standards and programmatic elements to incentivize affordable units are in place. **Project Timeline and Implications** In order to meet the Housing Element’s statutory deadline of January 31, 2023, the EIR timeline and HCD’s review periods, environmental review for this project has been initiated. Berkeley is on target to meet the statutory deadline for the Housing Element with little or no leeway in the timeline due to a 74-day decrease in timeline imposed by AB 215 which came in to effect on January 1, 2022. The schedule will remain uncertain until the project nears completion. The project team is working diligently to meet the statutory deadline for a compliant Housing Element, but recognizes that final adoption requires various parties, within and outside the City, to act under very tight timelines. The Housing Element EIR will cover rezoning and Residential Objective Standards; however, adoption of these elements can occur a few months after adoption of the Housing Element without penalty from the State if additional time or review is required. **BACKGROUND** Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units[^p517-11]. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35). **Table 1: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles** | Income Level | 2015-2023 RHNA Units | 2023-2031 RHNA Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Very Low (< 50% AMI) | 532 | 2,446 | | Low (50-80% AMI) | 442 | 1,408 | | Moderate (80-120% AMI) | 584 | 1,416 | | Above Moderate (>120% AMI) | 1,401 | 3,664 | | **Total** | **2,959** | **8,934** | [^p517-11]: December 16, 2021. Final RHNA Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/tools-resources/digital-library/proposed-finalrhnaallocationreport2023-2031pdf Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals. POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Based on Council direction, project findings, and stakeholder and public input to date, the Housing Element team will prepare and release a public draft Housing Element Update in early Summer 2022. The general public will have 30 days to review and submit comments, and the City must allocate a minimum of two weeks to address and respond to public comments before submitting a Draft Housing Element to HCD for a 90-day review. After incorporating HCD comments, a final Housing Element Update is anticipated to be submitted to Council in early 2023 for local adoption prior to submittal for State certification. FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the State does not certify the 6th Cycle Housing Element prior to May 31, 2023, the City faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. CONTACT PERSON Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489 ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Housing Referrals 2. Illustrated Missing Middle Models 3. Draft Proposed Standards for Two- to Four-Unit Residential Development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 LINKS: 1. December 9, 2021. *Housing Element Update Work Session 2*. Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/City_Council_12-09-2021_-_Special_Meeting.aspx 2. November 9, 2021. *Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows*. *Supplemental Packet 3*. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021-11-09_Item_20_Objective_Standards_Recommendations_for_Density,_Design_and_Shadows.aspx 3. November 9, 2021. *Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows*. *Supplemental Packet 2*. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021-11-09_Supp_2_Reports_Item_20_Supp_Droste_pdf.aspx 4. September 21, 2021. *Housing Element Update Work Session 1*. Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/09_Sep/City_Council_09-21-2021_-_Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 5. April 28, 2021. *Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report*, Off-Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/Housing%20Element%20Update%2020042821.pdf 6. March 25, 2021, *Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update*. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%2020-20Mayor%20203-25-21.pdf Housing Element Update WORKSESSION March 15, 2022 7. March 25, 2021, *Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)*. Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021-03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx ### Figure F-12 Work Session #3 Presentation <
> | WHAT WE'VE HEARD | | | :--- | :--- | | | Presented to 13 Berkeley Boards & Commissions[^p520-1] | | | Held 18 Meetings with 14 Stakeholder Interest Groups[^p520-2] | | 1. Public Workshop #2 | Held two online public workshops, ~60 participants | | 2. Stakeholder Interviews | Tabled at a Downtown Farmers Market | | 3. Downtown Farmer's Market | Received 745 responses from Nov '21 citywide survey | | 4. Residential Tour & Survey | Received 49 responses from Residential Tours survey | [^p520-1]: Planning Commission (9/1, 2/2); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1, 1/20); Commission on Disability (9/1, 2/2); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2, 2/3); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9, 2/3); Commission on Aging (9/15, 1/19); Energy Commission (9/22, 1/26); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27, 2/1); Housing Advisory Commission (9/30, 2/3); Rent Stabilization Board (1/3, 10/21); Civic Arts Commission (1/5, 2/2); City Council (1/20, 2/15); LUPC 10/4, 1/13, 10/22 | [^p520-2]: Black/African American Faith Institutions, Market Rate Developers, Affordable Developers, Senior Center, Real Estate Professional, Property Managers, Homeless Services, Housing Advocacy, Disabilities Services, Latino Advocacy, Institutional (BUSD, UC Berkeley), West Berkeley Business District, Neighborhood groups | # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> ANALYZE ADDITIONAL UNITS FOR EIR > +1,200 units at BART sites to match current EIR assumptions¹ > +770 units to accommodate for R-1 and R-1A rezoning² > +1,000 units to accommodate Southside rezoning in C-T, R-S and R-SMU³ ¹ See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf ² See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf ³ See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf [^p521-1]: See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf [^p521-2]: See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf [^p521-3]: See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022-03-24_Item_01_Housing_Element_Update_Draft.pdf # City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 2-4 Unit Residential Objective Standards 1. 10 Existing Standards Models 2. 4 Prototype Models 3. Draft Development Standards <
> --- ## Standards for 4-4 Unit Residential <
> **ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES** * Creates a new "Multi-Unit 2-4" land use category * Allows this use in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R Districts * Establishes development standards for this use --- ## Existing Standards > Illustrate and analyze existing standards in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts > Use typical 5,200 sq. ft. lot (40’ by 130’) > Show developable envelope (“glass box”) defined by setbacks and height > Identify achievable floor area and building volume limited by lot coverage, step backs, FAR, and other standards <
> --- ## Existing R-1 Standards <
> | Model Outputs | | | :--- | :--- | | Dwelling Units | 1 | | Floor Area, Total | 6,240 sf | | Floor Area per Unit | 6,240 sf | | FAR | 1.2 | | Density | 8.4 du/ac | --- ## Summary of Existing Standards | | Units | Floor Area | FAR | Density | Limiting Factors | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **R-1** | | | | | | | Model 1: Single Building on Internal Lot | 1 | 6,240 sf | 1.2 | 8.4 du/ac | Lot coverage | | **R-1A** | | | | | | | Model 2: Single Building on Corner Lot | 2 | 7,008 sf | 1.2 | 16.9 du/ac | Lot coverage | | **R-2** | | | | | | | Model 3: Two Buildings on Internal Lot | 2 | 5,209 sf | 1.0 | 16.9 du/ac | Corner lot building | | Model 4: Two Buildings on Corner Lot | 2 | 4,891 sf | 0.9 | 16.9 du/ac | separation, upper | | Model 5: Two Buildings on Corner Lot | 2 | 5,684 sf | 1.1 | 16.9 du/ac | story setbacks, and | | **R-2A** | | | | | lot coverage | | Model 9: Two Buildings on Corner Lot | 3 | 6,217 sf | 1.2 | 25.1 du/ac | Corner lot setbacks | | Model 10: Two Buildings on Internal Lot | 3 | 4,881 sf | 0.9 | 25.1 du/ac | and lot coverage | | **MU-R** | | | | | | | Model 8: Two Buildings on Internal Lot | 4 | 7,800 sf | 1.5 | 33.5 du/ac | FAR | | Model 9: Four Buildings on Corner Lot | 4 | 7,800 sf | 1.5 | 33.5 du/ac | FAR | | **SB 9** | | | | | | | Model 10: Two Buildings with Split Lot | 4 | 2,400 sf | 0.9 | 33.5 du/ac | SB 9 allows 800 sf | | | | | | | per unit | --- ## Prototype Models > Show potential configurations of three- to four-unit projects based on recent development in Berkeley and surrounding jurisdictions > Identify whether the residential types and configurations may conflict with existing zoning standards > Prepare new development standards for consideration in each low-density Residential District <
> --- ## Four Prototype Models <
> --- ## Four Prototype Models <
> --- ## Four Prototype Models - Context <
> --- ## Four Prototype Models - Conflicts with Current Zoning <
> --- ## Proposed Draft Standards > Zoning districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R outside of H overlay > 2-4 unit projects only > Summary table with existing and proposed new standards > Options for certain standards <
> --- ## Proposed Draft Standards * Density * Lot Area * Lot Area per Unit * Lot Coverage * Open Space * Building Height * Setbacks * Step Backs * Building Separation * Floor Area Ratio <
> --- ## Floor Area and FAR and Preservation <
> **Option to increase floor area if existing front main residential building preserved.** --- ## Permits Required - Existing | Existing Permit Requirements | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Dwelling Types** | **R-1** | **R-1A** | **R-2** | **R-2A** | **MUR** | | Single-Family | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | AUP | | Two-Family | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | AUP | | Multi-Family | NP | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | ZC Zoning Certificate UP(PH) Use Permit(Public Hearing) AUP Administrative Use Permit NP Not Permitted --- ## Permits Required - Proposed | Proposed Permit Requirements | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Dwelling Types** | **R-1** | **R-1A** | **R-2** | **R-2A** | **MUR** | | Single-Family | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | AUP | | Multi-Unit 2-4 | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | | Multi-Unit 5+ | NP | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | ZC Zoning Certificate UP(PH) Use Permit(Public Hearing) AUP Administrative Use Permit NP Not Permitted --- ## ZORP Subcommittees Feedback > By-right approvals > Unit sizes > Preservation incentive > Shade and Solar Access Impacts * Concern about impacts on adjacent rooftop solar (existing and potential future) * Concern about individual properties, as well as citywide renewable energy generation and climate resilience * Requests for new objective standards for shade and solar access impacts **Q: Council feedback on proposed zoning modifications and development standards for two- to four-unit projects in low-density residential districts?** --- ## Model for Solar Studies **Models help us answer...** > Expected rooftop solar access impacts? > Would these impacts constitute a detriment? > Are new objective standards needed? > If so, what is the best approach? <
> --- ## Solar Conditions **Solar Energy Production Months** Assuming February through October (the summer half the year), but also knowing that there are more months. **Applicable Hours of Day** 8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, 4pm <
> On average, May is the most sunny month with 324 hours of sunshine On average, December has the lowest amount of sunshine with 160 hours The average annual amount of sun hours is 3072 hours APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> https://vimeo.com/686933499 ### Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed-Use Methodology 1. Overview 2. Proposed Methodology 3. Early Policy Questions 50 <
> **ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES** > Considers diversity of project types, sizes, locations > Codifies typical City requirements > Reduces reliance on subjective Use Permit requirements 51 **Mixed Use vs. Residential Only** > In most Commercial Districts, development standards vary between mixed-use and residential-only projects > Results in significantly greater achievable floor area for mixed-use projects > Intended to encourage mixed-use development along commercial corridors > Unintended ground floor vacancies <
> 52 **Example: C-C District** | | Mixed Use | Residential Only | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Lot Area, min | No min | 5,000 sf | | Bldg Height, max | 40', 50' w/ UP | 35' | | # Stories, max | 3, 4 w/ UP | 3 | | Lot Coverage (Interior), max | 100% | 1-2 story: 45% 3-story: 40% | | Lot Coverage (Corner), max | 100% | 1-2 story: 50% 3-story: 45% | | Floor Area Ratio, max | 3.0 | No max | | Approx. Max Floor Area on a 5,000 sf interior lot | 15,000 sf | 6,000 sf | > Q: Should residential-only projects on commercial corridors—outside designated nodes—have the same built envelope and maximum floor area as mixed-use residential projects? 53 **Heights & Stories** > Majority of the City allows a maximum height of 35' and 3 stories. > In Downtown: Max two 120-foot buildings + three 180-foot buildings in C-DMU Core > In Southside: Currently allows 45-75 with use permit in R-3, R-S, R-SMU, C-T, C-SA > In Southside Plan Initial Study: Up to three 12-story buildings > Q: Should the City raise maximum heights and/or uncapping the number of tall buildings in Downtown and the Southside once objective standards and programmatic elements to incentivize affordable units are in place? <
> 54 **2019 GHG Inventory** <
> **DECARBONIZING BUILDINGS** > Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Construction > Low Carbon Concrete > EBCE Renewable 100 > Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy 55 **Reducing transportation emissions** <
> 56 **THANK YOU** <
> 57 **FOR MORE INFORMATION** www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards **CONTACT US** HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> Office of the City Manager WORKSESSION September 20, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Residential Objective Standards: Middle Housing and Southside SUMMARY In response to City Council referrals, recent changes in housing-related State laws, and the requirement to update the City’s Housing Element, City staff are preparing Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes for: 1. **Lower density districts**, which include the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts, to create or modify objective residential development standards to encourage duplexes, triplexes/fourplexes, townhomes, and other small-scale multi-family housing types (“middle housing”) that have historically appeared in Berkeley neighborhoods comprised of single-family homes. The intent is to address the need for more housing options, including rental and ownership. 2. **The Southside Area**, to create or modify objective standards for building height, coverage, parking, ground-floor residential uses, and zoning district boundaries to increase residential development potential—particularly student-oriented housing—in portions of the R-3, R-S, R-SMU, C-SA, and C-T zoning districts within the Southside Area. The proposed amendments are based on input from community engagement through the Housing Element Update as well as prior meetings with Council, Planning Commission, Southside Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Subcommittee, and the Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Subcommittees. The City Council is asked to receive a staff presentation and provide feedback on the proposed objective development standards and approaches. 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: manager@CityofBerkeley.info Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS As stated in prior reports[^p525-1], the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include: * Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals. * Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals. * Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review. # LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council's direction to end exclusionary zoning[^p525-2] and allow for “missing middle” development[^p525-3] in Berkeley’s lower density zones[^p525-4]. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to: * Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and * End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation. Middle housing can meet the needs of renters as well as create more ownership opportunities by offering flexibility for a range of unit sizes and incentivizing housing types that are “affordable by design,” i.e. with less development cost per unit due to the increased density and other modified development standards. The draft proposed standards are designed to increase the total number of units allowed based on lot size, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot as the number of units increases, and encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities. In the lower density Residential zoning districts, this is accomplished by marginally increasing allowed lot coverage and floor area ratios (FAR) as the number of units increases, but at a rate that results in lower average unit sizes for larger buildings. In the MU-R district, this is accomplished by increasing FAR as the number of units increases, as there is already no limit to lot coverage. Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further discussed below and a detailed table listing all of the draft proposed development [^p525-1]: November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows. Berkeley City Council. [^p525-2]: February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. [^p525-3]: April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council [^p525-4]: The ES-R District is excluded from this program because new dwelling units are currently prohibited in that limited area due to extreme hazards and inadequate infrastructure. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION standard changes can be found in Attachment 2. In addition, staff are considering strategies for wildfire mitigation, view preservation, and solar access and address these concerns in the report following the discussion on standards. Table 1. Summary of Proposed Lower Density Residential Standards | Standard | Recommendation | Policy Goal | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Minimum and Maximum Densities | Set minimum and maximum densities expressed in units per acre | Encourage appropriate densities
Increase predictability of review process and outcome
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) | Set a maximum FAR that scales up as the number of units increases | Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts
Encourage a mix of unit sizes that are "affordable by design"
Comply with SB 478 which prohibits a local agency from imposing a FAR less than 1.0 on a housing project with 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a housing project with 8 to 10 units | | Minimum Open Space | Reduce required minimum open space, and set the requirement based on square feet of building area, rather than per unit | Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts | | Maximum Height | Set a maximum average height and/or maximum overall height without an option to modify with a Use Permit | Streamline the approval process
Increase predictability of review process and outcome | | Lot Coverage and Setbacks | Increase allowable lot coverage as the number of units increases;
Reduce rear setbacks with reduced building height. | Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts | | Building Separation | Remove building separation requirement where there is more than one building on a lot | Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts | | Permits and Levels of Discretion | Enable projects with two or more units to be approved with a Zoning Certificate (ZC) | Maintain middle housing scale in low-density residential districts
Streamline the approval process | APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION ### Zoning Map Amendment In response to City Council’s feedback at its March 15, 2022 worksession, the proposed R-1A and R-2 district standards have been merged to be one set of standards, identified as “Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2)”, which also would be reflected on a zoning map amendment (Attachment 1). Both R-1A and R-2 districts are in the same General Plan land use designation already: Lower Medium Density Residential (LMDR). ### Permits and Levels of Discretion *Current Standards:* Table 2 includes the current permit requirements in lower-density residential districts for residential and live/work projects that include more than one dwelling unit. The proposed standards do not change any permit requirements for Single-Family, Group Living Accommodation or Mixed-Use Residential[^p527-5] uses in these zones, so those regulations are not listed. *Table 2. Current Permit Requirements* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Two-Family | NP | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | AUP [1] | | Multi-Family | NP | NP | NP | UP(PH) | NP | UP(PH) | UP(PH) | AUP/UP(PH) [1] | | Live/Work | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | AUP/UP(PH)[1] | [1] A Use Permit is required to establish a unit that is within 150 feet of an M or MM district; or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. *(BMC 23.206.090(B)(8) MU-R Mixed Use-Residential District)* UP(PH) = Use Permit (Public Hearing); AUP = Administrative Use Permit; NP = Not Permitted *Proposed Standards:* The proposed standards, shown in Table 3, would combine Two-Family and Multi-Family Residential uses into a single Multi-Unit Residential use type. The City would provide ministerial approval with a Zoning Certificate for Multi-Unit Residential and Live/Work projects that comply with all objective standards; no discretionary permit or public hearing would be required. A Zoning Certificate is a ministerial approval reviewed by staff to verify compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and is not appealable. *Table 3. Proposed Permit Requirements* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Multi-Unit Residential | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC | ZC[1] | | Live/Work | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | ZC[1] | [1] A Use Permit is required to establish a unit that is within 150 feet of an M or MM district; or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. *(BMC 23.206.090(B)(8) MU-R Mixed Use-Residential District)* [^p527-5]: Mixed-use residential is allowed in the R-2 and R-2A, and involves combinations of residential use with other permissible non-residential uses, such as childcare center and religious assembly. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION ### Minimum and Maximum Densities In July 2017, Council directed staff to consider adoption of a numerical density and/or building intensity standard that can be applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis in an easy and predictable manner.[^p528-6] *Current Standards:* The Zoning Ordinance does not include any minimum or maximum density standards expressed in “units per acre” for low-density residential zones. In the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts, density is limited by requirements for a “minimum lot size per unit” standard and by specific residential land use types (e.g. “Single-Family”, “Two-Family”). * The R-1 district currently permits only single-family uses. The resulting density on a 5,000 square foot lot is approximately nine units per acre. However, SB 9 State legislation applies throughout single-family zoning districts including in the Hillside Overlay (H) district, and permits up to two units ministerially on a lot and/or an urban lot split to subdivide an existing single-family parcel into two parcels. * The R-1A district currently permits single-family and two-family uses. No more than two units are allowed on a lot. The resulting density on a 5,000 square-foot lot is roughly 17 units per acre. * R-2 and R-2A districts currently permit single-family, two-family, and multi-family residential uses with a UP(PH), with density determined based on lot size. The resulting density on a 5,000 square-foot lot is roughly 17 units per acre in the R-2 district and 26 units per acre in the R-2A district. * MU-R currently permits single-family and two-family uses with an AUP, and multi-family with a UP(PH) or AUP depending on project size and proximity to a M or MM district. The resulting density on a 5,000 square foot lot is roughly 35 units per acre. *Proposed Standards:* Table 4 summarizes the proposed density standards expressed in units per acre, and includes the maximum number of units that may result from each standard on a typical 5,000 square foot lot in each zone. There is no minimum density requirement for lots in the H district. Minimum densities would apply for new development on vacant lots or redevelopment and infill of existing nonvacant lots. SB 9 would no longer apply to the R-1 district because it would no longer be a single-family zone. Projects with five or more units that include affordable units on-site would be eligible to utilize the State Density Bonus Law. [^p528-6]: July 11, 2017. Housing Accountability Act. Berkeley City Council. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION *Table 4. Proposed Density Standards* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Minimum Density (units/acre) | 10 | No min. | 10 | No min. | 20 | No min. | 20 | | Maximum Density (units/acre) | 25 | 20 | 35 | 20 | 55 | 55 | 55 | | *Example: Resulting units on a 5,000 sf lot* | | | | | | | | | Minimum Units | 1 | No min. | 1 | No min. | 2 | No min. | 2 | | Maximum Units | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | The proposed density standards do not include any eligible Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) permitted under recently-adopted ADU provisions. A maximum of one ADU is permitted on lots with more than one detached dwelling. A maximum of two detached ADUs or up to 25 percent of the total number of existing units may be converted into ADUs on a lot with a duplex or multiple attached dwelling units. In R-1H, R-2H, and R-2AH, a maximum of one ADU or JADU is permitted. ### Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) *Current Standards:* The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific FAR standard in the R-1, R-1H, R-1A, R-2, R-2H, R-2A, R-2H and R-2AH districts. However, an effective maximum FAR of 1.2 can be calculated based on existing standards for lot coverage and maximum number of stories. The BMC includes a maximum 1.5 FAR in the MU-R district. *Proposed Standards:* Table 5 summarizes the proposed maximum FAR standards. The existing effective FAR is applied to one-unit and non-residential projects, which would continue to require a use permit and public hearing process[^p529-7]. No FAR limit is applied if a project is subdividing existing habitable space to create additional dwelling units. The City Council has referred consideration of an increase in the FAR as the number of units increases on a site. The recommended FAR standards also reflect guidance from the ZORP Subcommittees to encourage the development of smaller or medium-sized, cost-efficient units that are “affordable by design.”[^p529-8] In addition, SB 478 prohibits a local agency from imposing a FAR less than 1.0 on a housing project with three to seven [^p529-7]: The focus of the Middle Housing project is to facilitate multi-unit housing development; analysis of single-family development standards is not a part of this scope. [^p529-8]: The ZORP Subcommittees also recommended development standards that would incentivize, but not require, the preservation of existing buildings. However, this would assume there is merit to preserving all existing street-facing buildings and that “preservation” can be objectively defined. For these reasons, the proposed FAR standards do not include a preservation bonus. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION units, or less than 1.25 on a housing project with eight to 10 units. Table 5. Proposed Maximum FAR Standards | | R-1 | R-1H | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 Unit or Non-Residential | 1.2 [1] | 1.2 [1] | 1.2 [1] | 1.2 [1] | 1.2 [1] | 1.2 [1] | 1.5 [2] | | 2 Units | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | | 3 - 7 Units | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.5 | | 8 + Units | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.75 | [1] UP(PH) [2] AUP ### Minimum Required Open Space *Current Standards:* Table 6 summarizes current minimum open space requirements in lower-density districts, on a per unit basis. *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standard would require 150 sf of open space for every 1,000 sf of floor area on a project site in each of the lower density districts, not based on the number of units since individual units may vary in size and occupancy. The proposed standard is designed to permit greater flexibility in the configuration of open space on a lot while also preserving the requirement to provide residents with usable open space. Table 6. Required Open Space | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Current Minimum Open Space** | | | | | | | | | | Per Dwelling Unit (sf) | | | 400 | | | 300 | | 150 | | **Proposed Minimum Open Space** | | | | | | | | | | Per 1,000 sf Floor Area | | 150 | | -- | | 150 | | | ### Maximum Height *Current Standards:* The Zoning Ordinance generally limits average building heights for main buildings in most lower density residential districts to 28 feet and 3 stories, with a possible increase to 35 feet with an AUP. In the H district, the Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to increase the allowed average height (28 feet) and allowed maximum height (35 feet). In the R-1A district, rear main buildings are limited to 22 feet and 2 stories. In the MU-R, the maximum height is 35 feet and 3 stories without the need for an additional AUP. Current standards also limit the height of residential additions to 14 feet, with a possible increase to 35 feet with an AUP. *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standards for maximum building height include the following (see Table 7): * Outside of the H District, the maximum average building height in lower-density residential districts would be 28 feet and the maximum overall height would be 35 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION feet. In addition, the maximum height would be reduced to 22 feet within 15 feet of a rear property line. * Within the H District, the maximum overall building height would be reduced to 28 feet, to address concerns for both wildfire mitigation (e.g., less fire fuel in the form of building materials), structural fireground operations (e.g., ground ladder placement for access to windows and the roof), and view preservation. * The limit on the maximum number of stories would be removed; maximum height would be measured in feet. * Maximum height standards for main buildings, rear buildings, and residential additions would be the same. (ADUs have separate regulations that would be unaffected.) The proposed development standards largely preserve existing height limits, while providing a pathway for a nondiscretionary process based on objective standards. The proposed standards also include provisions that consider potential impacts on neighboring properties, such as lower maximum heights near the rear property line and reduced height limits in the H District. Attachment 3, Figure 3.5 includes height measurement diagrams that illustrate how the existing and proposed development standards consider sloped situations in the H District. *Table 7. Current and Proposed Height Standards* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Current Standards** | | | | | | | | | | Max. Average Height (ft) | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | -- | | Max. Height (ft) | -- | 35 | -- | -- | 35 | -- | 35 | 35 | | Max. Height with AUP (ft) | 35 | No max | 35 | 35 | No max | 35 | No max | -- | | **Proposed Standards** | | | | | | | | | | Max. Average Height (ft) | 28 | -- | 28 | 28 | -- | 28 | -- | -- | | Max. Height (ft) | 35 | 28 | 35 | 35 | 28 | 35 | 28 | 35 | ### Maximum Lot Coverage *Current Standards:* Table 8 summarizes existing maximum lot coverage requirements. Current requirements distinguish between interior and corner lots, and reduce maximum lot coverage for taller projects. *Table 8. Current Maximum Lot Coverage Standards* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Interior & Through-Lots** | | | | | | | | | | 1 Story | 40% | 40% | 40% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 100% | | 2 Stories | 40% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 100% | | 3 Stories | 40% | 40% | 40% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 35% | 100% | Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | Corner Lots | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 Story | 40% | 40% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 100% | | 2 Stories | 40% | 40% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 45% | 100% | | 3 Stories | 40% | 40% | 45% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 40% | 100% | *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standards, summarized in Table 9: * Marginally increase maximum lot coverage in most lower-density residential districts. * Use the total number of units in a project as the controlling factor for the standard, instead of the number of stories. * Eliminates the distinction between interior/through lots and corner lots. *Table 9. Proposed Maximum Lot Coverage Standards* | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 - 2 Units & Non-Residential | 40% | 40% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 100% | | 3 - 7 Units | 50% | 50% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 100% | | 8 + Units | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 60% | 60% | 100% | *Minimum Setbacks* *Current Standards:* The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates four types of setbacks: * Front and Rear Setbacks: Front and rear setbacks are 20 feet in the R-1, R-1H, R-1A, R-2 and R-2H zoning districts, and 15 feet in the R-2A and the R-2AH districts. In the MU-R zoning district, lots adjacent to a non-residential district have no rear setback, unless they abut a street, in which case a five-foot rear setback is required. A lot in the MU-R district adjacent to a residential district must provide a rear setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less. * Interior Side Setbacks: Interior side setbacks are currently four feet in the R-1, R-1H, and R-1A, and increases based on building height in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R2A-H. At the second story, the interior setback increases to six feet in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R-2H districts. Interior side setbacks can be reduced to three feet or five feet with a ZC. In the MU-R district, lots adjacent to a residential district must provide an interior side setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less. There are no other interior side setback requirements in the MU-R. * Street Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks are four feet in the R-1, R-1H, and R-1A districts, 10 feet in the R-2 and R-2H districts, and vary by height in the R-2A and R-2AH districts (six feet at first story, eight feet at second story and 10 feet at third story). APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION In the MU-R district, lots adjacent to a non-residential district must provide a five-foot street side setback. Lots adjacent to a residential district must provide a street side setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less. There are no other street side setback requirements in the MU-R. A Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to reduce the minimum setbacks in the H District. *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standards include the following, as detailed in Table 2 of Attachment 2. * Front Setbacks: Staff reviewed development patterns around Berkeley and found that many neighborhoods have existing setbacks of less than the zoning standard. Based on this, front setback standards are proposed to be reduced by five feet from the current standard, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. Furthermore, a project could provide a smaller setback based on the average of the front setback(s) of adjacent existing structure(s). * Rear Setbacks: The rear setback in all lower-density residential districts would be reduced to four feet, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. As noted above, a building’s maximum height would be limited to 22 feet within 15 feet of the rear property line. The four-foot setback is consistent with the required setbacks for ADUs. The 15- and 20-foot rear setbacks required for H district lots help maintain defensible space. * Interior Side Setbacks: The interior side setback in all lower-density residential districts would be a minimum of four feet, except in the H district where the interior side setback would increase to five feet, and in the MU-R, which would maintain its existing regulations. The increase from the current four-feet to a five-foot setback in the H district is to accommodate upcoming State Board of Forestry’s Zone Zero requirement for an ember-resistant zone within five feet of a structure in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Zone Zero is directed by AB 3074 (2020) and takes effect January 1, 2023 for new structures. Newly constructed ADUs would continue to adhere to a minimum four-foot setback. * Street Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks in the R-1, R-1H and R-1A would be 4 feet. There would be no changes to street side setbacks in the MU-R. *Building Separation* *Current Standards:* Current building separation requirements are summarized in Table 10: City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION Table 10. Current Building Separation Standards | | R-1 | R-1H | R-1A | R-2 | R-2H | R-2A | R-2AH | MU-R | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 Story (ft) | No min. | No min. | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | No min. | | 2 Stories (ft) | No min. | No min. | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | No min. | | 3 Stories (ft) | No min. | No min. | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | No min. | | Reduce with an AUP | -- | -- | AUP | AUP | AUP | AUP | AUP | -- | *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standards would eliminate all building separation requirements. Building and fire code requirements for fire rating and separation would continue to apply. ### Front Street-Facing Façade Requirements Currently there are no objective design standards for front-facing facades and elevations. During the June 1, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments expressing concerns about blank walls as viewed from the public right-of-way. To create visual interest and prevent blank walls facing the street, the proposed development standards would require a minimum of 20 percent of the front façade elevation within the front 40 feet of a lot to be comprised of entries, windows or glazing, and/or railings. Trim, including window shutters, would be counted towards meeting this requirement; garage doors would not be included. Attachment 3, Figure 3.6 includes front façade elevation diagrams to illustrate how the proposed standard would be measured. ### Neighbor Noticing Similar to the current ADU notification requirement, City staff would mail notices to owners and tenants of adjacent, confronting, and abutting properties within ten working days of a building permit application submittal. Notification would include information on how to contact the applicant on the design and construction of the proposed project. ### Wildfire Mitigation The State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) develops initial boundaries for VHFHSZ throughout California, and the final boundaries of a VHFHSZ are adopted by each jurisdiction. The VHFHSZ formally adopted by the City is larger than originally proposed by CALFIRE and is consistent with the boundaries for Fire Zones 2 and 3, and largely follows the boundary for the H district. The majority of sites in the H district are within R-1H, where SB 9 currently applies. Middle housing projects in the H district would be subject to the same existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures that are currently applied to SB 9 projects.[^p534-9] [^p534-9]: SB 9 does not include an absolute prohibition on development in fire hazard areas. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, sites must adopt “fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D). APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION Staff will continue to confer with the Berkeley Fire Department on objective wildfire mitigation measures for streamlined projects in the VHFSZ. Considerations include maintenance of defensible space, as well as standards that improve fireground operations and evacuation access. ### View Preservation Following the June 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments expressing concerns about potential private view impacts resulting from by-right development in the H District. Currently, a new home in the H District requires a UP(PH), and a major residential addition requires an AUP. To approve an AUP for a major residential addition, the Zoning Administrator must find that the addition would not “unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, or views.” Under existing H District standards, a view corridor is defined as: > A significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property. To approve a UP(PH) or AUP, the ZAB or Zoning Administrator must find that the proposed project “will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.” While the Zoning Ordinance does not define detriment, the City's informational handout for AUPs and UP(PH)s states that a project resulting in the “unreasonable obstruction of a neighbor's significant view” may be considered detrimental. If by-right housing development is to be allowed in the H District, the City would no longer use the discretionary permit process and the non-detriment findings to consider potential neighbor view impacts resulting from proposed projects. For this reason, staff proposes to implement an objective 28-foot maximum building height standard in the H district, which cannot be adjusted by a discretionary permit (see Attachment 3, Figure 3.5 Height Measurement in the H district). This would reduce the maximum building height and provide a more predictable development envelope in order to reduce possible obstruction of neighbor views. ### Solar Access Members of the ZORP Subcommittees and community have expressed concern about how the proposed development standards may impact solar access to neighboring existing or planned rooftop solar panels. In response to this concern, staff produced solar models to evaluate shadow impacts in a “maximum impact scenario” (see Attachment 3, Figure 3.7 Solar Modeling Diagrams). The solar model considers: * *Building Height*: A flat-roofed 35-foot building height compared to the shadow effects of a flat-roofed 28-foot height building; * *Building Volume*: The entire building envelope (which in actuality would be reduced by FAR and coverage standards); Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION * *Orientation:* East-West and North-South building orientations; * *Daytime:* Between 8:00am and 4:00pm, although the highest solar generation is usually from 11:00am to 4:00pm when sun rays are at right angles to the panels; * *Equinox:* A solar equinox day (September or March), where there is greater differentiation between the shadows as compared to the winter solstice, where solar panels at both 28-feet height and 35-feet height would be more equally impacted by reduced daylight; * *No Other Shade:* Clear skies and no existing trees or vegetation that could impact solar access. In this “maximum impact scenario” model, the amount of increase in shadow area for the seven-foot height difference is less than 10 percent averaged over the course of a day. As a result of the solar model analysis, staff proposes: * A 28-foot maximum average height, paired with a 35-foot maximum height to the ridge, and * A maximum building height of 22 feet in the rear 15 feet of a lot. These height standards would address solar access concerns in balance with the objective of providing opportunities for more housing development throughout the city. Lastly, as a civil matter, State law allows for parties to voluntarily enter into solar or view easement agreements (e.g., where a neighbor may grant an easement to a solar system owner). ### SOUTHSIDE PLAN AREA The existing Southside Plan was adopted in 2011 and since 2016, the City Council has forwarded six referrals related to increasing housing production and availability in the Southside Area. The proposed standards in this section refer to the area located on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus, roughly bounded by Bancroft Way, Dwight Way, Fulton Street and Piedmont Avenue (see Attachment 1, Map 3. *Southside Area – Existing Zoning*). The intent of these proposed standards is to implement the City Council’s direction through revised zoning regulations. Table 11 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the general direction of the recommended changes and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further discussed below and the specific development standard changes can be found in Attachment 2. *Table 11. Summary of Proposed Southside Area Standards* | Standard | Recommendation | Policy Goal | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Minimum and Maximum Densities | Set minimum and maximum densities expressed in units per acre | Encourage appropriate densities | | | | Provide predictability for the review process and outcome | | | | Facilitate calculations for State Density Bonus and possible future local density bonus | APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) | Set a maximum FAR that scales up as units increase | Encourage housing development Facilitate calculations for State Density Bonus and future local density bonus | | Minimum Open Space | Reduce required minimum open space, and set requirement to a per 1,000 square foot standard, rather than per unit | Encourage housing development Increase predictability of development outcomes | | Maximum Height | Set a maximum height limit without option to exceed with a Use Permit | | | Lot Coverage and Setbacks | Increase lot coverage and reduce setbacks | | | Building Separation | Remove building separation requirement | | ### Minimum and Maximum Densities The Zoning Ordinance does not include any minimum or maximum density standards for the Southside districts that are expressed in “units per acre”. A maximum density of 350 sf per resident is allowed for Group Living Accommodations (GLA) in the R-3, R-S, C-T, and C-SA Districts, and 175 sf per resident in the R-SMU. The ZAB may approve a UP(PH) to increase the GLA density. *Proposed Approach:* The specific values for minimum and maximum dwelling units per acre are pending additional staff analysis and feedback from City Council, Planning Commission, and community engagement activities. ### Maximum Height In October 2017 and May 2018, Council referred staff to increase height in the R-SMU, R-S, and R-3[^p537-10], as well as to allow up to two 12-story buildings and increase height for six projects[^p537-11] in the Southside Area, from Dwight to Bancroft and from College to Fulton. For all Southside zoning districts, the proposal is to remove the Use Permit option to exceed height limits without added project quotas to provide clarity and predictability. Height limits stated in the Zoning Ordinance will be the maximum building height allowed, unless waived through State or a local density bonus. The limit on the maximum number of stories would be removed; maximum height would only be measured in feet. Zoning standards for building height are proposed to be changed in the following ways: * Allow up to 85 feet in R-SMU district (increase from 60 feet, four stories) and in C-T north of Dwight (increase from 65 feet, no stories given). This would feasibly [^p537-10]: October 31, 2017. Increase Height and FAR in the Southside. Berkeley City Council. [^p537-11]: May 1, 2018. Increase Student Housing in the Southside. Berkeley City Council. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION --- | --- permit a building of at least 12 stories if a project were to maximize State or a local density bonus. * Allow up to 65 feet in the C-T district south of Dwight (currently 50 feet, or up to 65 feet with a Use Permit). * Allow up to 55 feet in R-S district (increase from 35 feet, three stories). * Allow up to 45 feet in R-3 district (increase from 35 feet, three stories). * Allow up to 60 feet in the C-SA district (currently 36 feet if non-residential and 60 feet if residential). The Council also requested zoning provisions to facilitate the construction of student housing through a process that does “not require additional CEQA review”[^p538-12] or through a local density bonus in the R-SMU and/or C-T (north of Dwight) districts[^p538-13]. At this time, staff believes the zoning height amendments listed above provide opportunities to reach that height using State density bonus law. In Fall 2022, staff will be presenting to Planning Commission a local bonus program that reflects recent State law for student housing, without requiring the participation of UC Berkeley[^p538-14]. ### Maximum Lot Coverage and Minimum Setbacks Zoning standards for building setbacks and lot coverage are proposed to be changed in the following ways, as detailed in Table 4 of Attachment 2: * Permit 70 percent lot coverage in R-3 district locations (increase from current 50 percent maximum) * Permit 75 percent lot coverage in R-S district locations (increase from current 70 percent maximum). * Permit 85 percent lot coverage in R-SMU district locations (increase from current 60 percent maximum). * Permit 100 percent lot coverage in C-SA district locations (to match existing standard for non-residential land uses). Change existing minimum setback requirements as follows, with no changes to C-SA district locations: * No minimum front setback required for R-SMU, R-S, and C-SA districts (currently already allowed with an AUP in R-SMU and R-S, and by right in C-T). * No minimum street side setbacks required for R-SMU and R-S districts. * No minimum side setback required for the R-SMU district (currently already allowed with an AUP). [^p538-12]: November 27, 2018. Advance More Student Housing Now. Berkeley City Council. [^p538-13]: May 30, 2017. Pilot Density Bonus Program. Berkeley City Council. [^p538-14]: SB 290, Skinner. Gov. Code §65915 Density Bonus. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION * Reduce the various lower-story and upper-story side setbacks for R-SMU, R-S, and R-3 districts to a single setback of 4 feet. * Reduce lower-story and upper story rear setbacks for R-SMU, R-S, and R-3 districts to a single setback of 4 feet. No minimum would be required in the C-SA within the Southside Area, except when adjacent to a Residential District. * Eliminate requirement for shade studies in the C-T district. For all Southside districts, remove specified discretionary review option to modify setbacks and lot coverage. *Minimum Required Open Space* Current Standards: Table 12 summarizes current minimum open space requirements in Southside Area zoning districts. *Table 12. Current Required Open Space* | | R-3 | R-S | R-SMU | C-SA Mixed Use | C-SA Residential Only | C-T | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Per Dwelling Unit (sf) | 200 | 50 | 40 | 40 | 200 | 40 | | Per GLA Resident (sf) | 90 | 20 | 20 | No min. | 90 | No min. | *Proposed Approach:* Similar to the proposed Middle Housing standards, staff propose creating an open space standard for the Southside districts based on a ratio per 1,000 sf of building floor area instead of on the number of units. The proposed open space standard would be designed to increase floor area dedicated to residential development while also preserving the requirement to provide residents with common and/or private usable open space. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION ### Building Separation *Current Standards:* Current building separation requirements are summarized in Table 13. *Table 13. Current Building Separation Standards* | | R-3 | R-S | R-SMU | C-SA | C-T | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | 1st story | | | 8 ft | | No minimum | | 2nd story | | | 12 ft | | | | 3rd story | | | 16 ft | | | | 4th story | | | 20 ft | | | | 5th story | | | | 24 ft | | | 6th story | | | | | 28 ft | | *Proposed Standards:* The proposed development standards would eliminate all building separation requirements. Building and fire code requirements for fire rating and separation would still apply. ### Ground-Floor Residential Use *Proposed Approach:* Zoning standards for ground-floor residential use are anticipated to be changed to allow ground-floor residential throughout the C-T District if it is located behind a commercial use that fronts the street. In all Southside locations where there is ground-floor residential use, zoning provisions would also include design standards to incentivize or require ground-floor activation, consistent with the C-T District’s purpose to “encourage those uses and structural architecture that reinforce, and discourage those uses and architecture that interrupt, the pedestrian orientation of the district.” ### OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Minimum and maximum standards for parking spaces will remain unchanged for lower density districts and in the Southside Area. Current standards include: * *Minimum Parking:* No minimum parking requirement, except for parcels located along narrow roads in the H District. If located on a roadway less than 26 feet in width, a minimum of one parking space per unit for projects with fewer than 10 units. For projects with 10 or more units, one parking space per 1,000 sf of gross floor area is required. * *Maximum Parking:* With limited exemptions[^p540-15], a maximum of 0.5 spaces per unit is allowed for residential projects with two or more dwelling units on a parcel if a project is located within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop or along a transit corridor with 15-minute headways during peak periods. [^p540-15]: Off-Street Parking Maximums for Residential Development. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.322.070(A)(2) APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION Newly constructed residential units are not eligible to receive parking permits under the Residential Permit Parking Program (RPP) as provided in BMC 14.72 Preferential Parking Program.[^p541-16] Proposed changes to parking-related standards include: * *Tandem Parking:* Currently, an AUP is required to provide off-street tandem parking spaces for all residential uses except ADUs. The proposed standards would allow tandem parking without an AUP to encourage reduced driveway widths and curb-cuts. * *Front Setback in the H District:* Currently in the H district, the Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to reduce the minimum required front setback. The proposed standard would maintain the existing front setback requirement, but permit surface parking within the front setback to allow for off-street parking.[^p541-17] * *Landscape Buffer:* Another commonly requested AUP is for an exception to the landscape buffer that is required along off-street parking spaces, driveways, and other vehicle-related paving. The landscape buffer is not commonly provided in existing sites and the proposed standards would eliminate the requirement to align with existing conditions. ### DISCUSSION ON RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FRAMEWORK When considering policies to address objective residential standards, including density, solar access, or view preservation, State law prohibits: a) the adoption of any new subjective development standards for housing development projects; and b) the adoption of new objective standards that would reduce the number of achievable residential units. > Do the proposed development standards and approaches achieve the goals of the City Council referrals, namely encouraging the development of middle housing in lower density districts and increasing housing production and availability in the Southside Area? > Are there provisions of the proposed zoning standards that should be changed or revised? > Are there additional considerations that remain unaddressed by the proposed development standards? [^p541-16]: Preferential Parking Program. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/14.72.080 [^p541-17]: Small accessory structures, such as sheds, that are less than 120 square feet and eight feet in height will continue to be allowed without requiring a permit. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION ## BACKGROUND ## CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS The proposed objective standards are presented to respond to the following City Council referrals: *Table 14. City Council Referrals and Reports* | Residential Objective Standards | | | :--- | :--- | | Housing Accountability Act (7/11/2017) | Requested research into a set of objective zoning standards for new development projects in the following four areas:
• Density and/or building intensity
• Public health and safety standards
• Design review standards
• Views, shadows, and other impacts that underlie detriment findings | | Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows (11/9/2021) | Consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes
• Increase certainty for applicants
• Reduce administrative costs and burden associated with discretionary review. | | **Lower Density Districts** | | | Missing Middle Housing (4/23/2019) | Examine methods to provide for a broader range of housing types in areas of Berkeley with access to parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services. The Council directed the City Manager to explore opportunities to allow “missing middle” housing types in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A zoning districts. | | Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning (2/23/2021) | Allow multi-family housing in residential neighborhoods throughout Berkeley, and to allow for small-scale multi-family development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A zoning districts. As part of this effort, the resolution calls for the city to also:
• Protect public safety in all neighborhoods
• Allow for new housing that reflects the existing mix of multi-family housing types within neighborhoods
• Provide strong anti-displacement and tenant protections
• Accommodate families in new and rehabilitated multi-family housing developments
• Ensure that new development does not demolish any rent-controlled or below market-rate housing
• Explore incentives for projects to contribute to the need for affordable housing
• Carry out a robust community process when developing zoning changes. | | **Southside Area** | | | Community Benefits within C-T (7/12/2016) | Allow increased development potential in the Telegraph Commercial (C-T) District between Dwight Avenue and Bancroft Avenue and develop community benefit requirements, with a focus on labor practices and affordable housing. | APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION | | | | :--- | :--- | | Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T (4/4/2017) | Create a Use Permit process to allow non-commercial use on the ground floor in appropriate locations, where commercial might otherwise be required. A pilot project is suggested for the C-T District. | | Pilot Density Program in C-T (5/30/2017) | Develop a pilot Density Bonus program for the C-T District to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents. | | Increase Height and FAR (10/31/2017) | Facilitate student housing by increasing the height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the portions of the R-SMU, R-S and R-3 District which are located within the Southside area west of College Avenue. | | Increase Student Housing (5/1/2018) | Convert commercial space into residential use within all districts in the Southside located west of College Avenue. | | More Student Housing Now (11/27/2018) | Convert commercial space in the C-T to residential use, expand the Car-Free Housing overlay in the Southside, allow two high-rises for student housing, and consider micro-units and modular units. | | **Affordable Housing Overlay** | | | Affordable Housing Overlay (11/9/2021) | Consider an affordable housing overlay to permit increased height and density, with ministerial approval, for qualifying 100% affordable housing projects in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, MUR, and all C-prefixed zoning districts. | ### PRIOR FEEDBACK ON LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS *City Council Worksession Feedback* As part of the Housing Element Update, staff received feedback pertinent to middle housing standards at the March 15, 2022 City Council worksession.[^p543-18] Councilmembers identified the following key considerations: * Permit higher density equitably throughout the City, including in high resource, high income neighborhoods, and consider provisions of the H District. * Create an incentive for adaptive reuse and smaller, more affordable units, including allowing for more than four units in lower density districts. * Consider adopting the same standards for the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A districts (i.e., merging zoning districts) and treating Residential zones similarly. * Embrace climate adaptation and resilience through local power generation, but solar access should not be a barrier to creating more housing. *ZORP Subcommittees Feedback* To advise staff on the development of objective standards, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board appointed members to two ZORP Subcommittees. [^p543-18]: March 15, 2022. *Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards*. City Council Worksession. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION The Subcommittees met concurrently on two occasions. On December 15, 2021, the Subcommittees met to receive a background presentation and to approve the Objective Standards Framework and overall project approach. On February 16, 2022, the Subcommittees met to provide feedback on an initial version of the proposed middle housing development standards. In their two meetings, the ZORP Subcommittees identified the following considerations when determining appropriate objective development standards: * Encouraging smaller units that are “affordable by design.” * Permitting more density while discouraging financial speculation. * Balancing the environmental trade-offs between protecting rooftop solar access and higher densities. ### Planning Commission Staff presented preliminary standards for lower density districts to the Planning Commission on June 1, 2022 to elicit feedback from commissioners and the community. At the meeting, commissioners identified the following as important items: * Encourage smaller unit sizes and consider eliminating minimum lot size requirements. * Reduce minimum required open space dimensions -- currently a minimum width and length of 10 feet is required, or a minimum of six feet for balconies. * Consider a “shared solar budget” or arrangement between incumbent solar owners and neighbors whose projects may create new shadows. ### PRIOR FEEDBACK ON SOUTHSIDE AREA STANDARDS ### Planning Commission On December 17, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed and provided input on the proposed project description for the Southside EIR. Planning staff returned on February 5, 2020, with the proposed scope of ordinance changes and zoning map amendments to include in the EIR Project Description. A public hearing and EIR Scoping Session was held on September 2, 2020 to receive a project update and hear from stakeholders and members of the public on issues that the EIR should address. Notable comments from the Scoping Meeting included ensuring an adequate analysis of recreation and parks resources and the accuracy of the EIR’s buildout assumptions. ### Southside EIR Subcommittee On December 17, 2019, the Subcommittee held a meeting to review options to consider in the project description. The Subcommittee was generally supportive of the options provided by staff. Their main concern was whether the current boundary of the Southside contains enough opportunity sites to justify the EIR and zoning changes. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION # RELATED CONCURRENT PROJECTS ### Housing Element This focus area includes policies that ensure compliance with State Housing Element law and implement zoning policies proposed in the 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element to meet the City’s approximately 9,000-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and a minimum 15 percent buffer. A first draft of the Housing Element Update was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 10, 2022. The proposed middle housing standards are featured in the draft Housing Element Update under Program 29-Middle Housing, and the Southside zoning map and development standard amendments are featured under Program 27-Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors. The Housing Element draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes 1,745 additional units throughout the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MUR districts. An additional 1,000 units in the C-T, R-S, and R-SMU districts within the Southside Area is also analyzed for the 2023-2031 planning period. As part of the Housing Element process, the City has received public input on residential objective standards at City Council worksessions, public workshops, stakeholder meetings, and outreach events. The proposed objective standards allow for increased housing capacity and streamlined residential development consistent with the updated Housing Element. ### Proposed Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements In March 2022, Planning Commission recommended to City Council the approval of a comprehensive update to the City’s affordable housing requirements[^p545-19], which would apply to all new residential development including middle housing projects, establish a per-square-foot in-lieu fee instead of assessing fees on a per-unit basis, and consider a sliding scale reduced fee for projects with less than 12,000 gross residential square feet. Staff are preparing an item for possible City Council action in Fall 2022 to update the Citywide affordable housing requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. ### Demolition Ordinance Update The Demolition Ordinance prohibits demolition of specified dwelling units where a building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years or “there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.” Applicants are generally required to provide relocation benefits, including moving expenses and differential rent payments. In addition, displaced tenants are provided a right of first refusal to rent new units. The City is currently reviewing the demolition ordinance to ensure compliance with State density bonus, SB 330, and other laws, and will amend [^p545-19]: March 2, 2022. Public Hearing on Amendments to Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Planning Commission. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION the administrative procedures, fee, and replacement requirements accordingly. Staff will bring recommended amendments to Planning Commission in Fall 2022. ### Affordable Housing Overlay and Local Density Bonus At its meeting on July 6, 2022, the Planning Commission heard a staff report[^p546-20] and provided feedback on two items: 1) A May 2017 City Council referral to develop a *local density bonus program* for the C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial) zoning district to allow density bonuses without requiring on-site affordable units and to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low income residents; and 2) A November 2021 City Council referral to request to consider an *affordable housing overlay* to permit increased height and density for housing projects comprised entirely of affordable units. The Planning Commission communicated to staff that it wanted to move forward with a local density bonus program. Staff will present two options for such a program to the Planning Commission in Fall 2022. One will be based on SB 1227 (Skinner), which provided for student housing through the State density bonus, and a second will be based more directly on the City’s affordable housing impact fee program. The Planning Commission provided feedback on the affordable housing overlay referral and referred a number of the specific recommendations to other work which will focus on multi-family housing in the higher-density zoning districts. ### ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals. ### POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION **Middle Housing.** Staff anticipate presenting a draft ordinance for Middle Housing to the Planning Commission in Spring 2023 after the final Housing Element Update and final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are adopted. Upon receiving further direction and recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff will return to the Council with a final recommended Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes. **Southside.** Throughout the Fall 2022 semester, City staff will conduct outreach and engagement with Southside Area stakeholders, including UC Berkeley students and campus planning, affordable and market-rate residential developers, and neighborhood groups. Based on City Council direction and initial engagement efforts, staff will return [^p546-20]: July 6, 2022. *Affordable Housing Overlay ad Southside Local Density Bonus Program*. Planning Commission. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION to the Planning Commission in late Fall with revised development standards for Southside, to be presented in concert with options for a local density bonus methodology. Upon receiving further direction and recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff will return to the Council with a final recommended Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes. As part of separate upcoming project, “Phase 2 Residential Objective Standards for Higher Density Residential and Commercial Districts”, the Planning Department will consider confirming, modifying or creating objective design and development standards for projects in higher density residential and commercial districts, which may include R-3, R-4, and all C Districts. These policies will provide clarity and predictability for State-streamlined projects (e.g. SB 35, AB 1397) and create a pathway for additional local streamlined projects in order to reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings. FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION In addition to staff time, the City has budgeted $350,000 to hire a consultant to assist in preparing objective design standards for higher density residential and commercial districts. CONTACT PERSON Grace Wu, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 ATTACHMENTS 1. Maps of Lower Density Zoning Districts and Southside Plan Area 2. Existing and Proposed Development Standards Tables 3. Lower Density Residential Diagrams *Referenced City Council and Planning Commission Referrals and Reports* 4. July 12, 2016. Community Benefits within C-T District. Berkeley City Council. 5. April 4, 2017. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T District. Berkeley City Council. 6. May 30, 2017. Pilot Density Program in C-T District. Berkeley City Council. 7. July 11, 2017. Housing Accountability Act. Berkeley City Council. 8. October 31, 2017. Increase Height and FAR in Southside. Berkeley City Council. 9. May 1, 2018. Increase Student Housing. Berkeley City Council. 10. November 27, 2018. More Student Housing Now. Berkeley City Council. 11. April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing. Berkeley City Council. Middle Housing Objective Development Standards | WORKSESSION 12. February 23, 2021. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning. Berkeley City Council. 13. November 9, 2021. Affordable Housing Overlay. Berkeley City Council. 14. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows. Supplemental Packet 2. Berkeley City Council. 15. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows. Supplemental Packet 3. Berkeley City Council. 16. March 3, 2022. Public Hearing on Amendments to Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Planning Commission Staff Report. 17. March 15, 2022. Housing Element and Residential Objective Standards. Berkeley City Council Worksession. 18. July 6, 2022. Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus Program. Planning Commission Staff Report. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # Figure F-13 Work Session #4 Presentation <
> ## Why are we creating Residential Objective Standards? **City Council Referrals + Reports** 1. Community Benefits within C-T (2016) 2. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T (2017) 3. Pilot Density Program in C-T (2017) 4. Increase Height and FAR in Southside (2017) 5. Housing Accountability Act (2017) 6. Increase Student Housing (2018) 7. More Student Housing Now (2018) 8. Missing Middle Housing (2019) 9. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning (2021) 10. Objective Standards for Design, Design, Shadows (2021) 11. Affordable Housing Overlay (2021) ## What are Objective Standards? <
> ## What is the goal of Residential Objective Standards? <
> <
> ## “What type of housing would you like to see more of?” <
> **Desire for a mix of housing types and higher density living** ## Council, Commission, and Committee Feedback **ZORP Subcommittees (12/15 & 2/16)** * Encourage smaller units that are “affordable by design” * Permitting more density while discouraging financial speculation * Balance protecting solar access and allowing higher densities **Planning Commission (6/1)** * Encourage smaller unit sizes * Reduce minimum open space dimensions * Neighbor negotiation over solar & shadows * Concern about blank facades **City Council (3/15)** * Consider merging zoning districts * Permit higher density equitably throughout the City, including the Hillside Overlay * Incentive for adaptive reuse and smaller, more affordable units, allow more than four units * Embrace climate adaption, but solar access should not be a barrier to creating more housing ## AGENDA – 2 PARTS **PART I – MIDDLE HOUSING** 1. Draft Proposed Standards 2. Wildfire, Views, and Solar **PART II – SOUTHSIDE AREA** 1. Draft Proposed Standards **DISCUSSION** <
> ## MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS **NOT A BLANK SLATE** * Existing Standards * Development Patterns * City Council Referrals * State Laws * Environmental/Social/Economic/Demographic Factors 1. Merging Zoning Districts 2. Allowed Uses & Permits Required 3. Min and Max Density (Units per Acre) 4. Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 5. Min Open Space 6. Max Height 7. Min Lot Coverage & Setbacks 8. Min Separation ## Middle Housing Map Amendment – Merge R-1A and R-2 <
> ## Land Use & Permits & Noticing Required <
> *Discretionary permit still required for:* * Structures of Historic Merit -> Structural Alteration Permit * Cortese List Hazardous Waste and Substances site ## Minimum & Maximum Density (Units per Acre) | | R-1 | R-2 | R-2A | MU-R | R-1H | R-2H | R-2AH | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Min. Density (du/ac) | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 | No min. | No min. | No min. | | Max. Density (du/ac) | 25 | 35 | 55 | 55 | 20 | 20 | 55 | | Resulting units on a 5,000 sf lot... | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Min. # Units | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | No min. | No min. | No min. | | Max. # Units | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 6 | | + ADUs! | | | | Varies* | | | | *ADUs allowed per https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.306 * More than 1 detached dwellings -> max 1 ADU * Duplex or attached multi-family dwellings -> max 2 detached ADUs OR 25% of # existing units converted **Note: Minimum densities would apply for new development on a vacant lot or redevelopment of a nomacant lot.** ## Density - Examples <
> ## Floor Area Ratio: Encourage smaller unit sizes <
> ## Floor Area Ratio: Encourage a mix of housing types <
> ## FAR - Examples <
> ## Building Height Standards <
> * **28-foot max average height AND 35-foot max height** * Except MUR, which maintains 35-foot max height only * Reduce to 22 foot max height within rear 15 feet of lot * Reduce to 28 foot max height in the H Overlay * Limit by height in feet; not # of stories * Main buildings and additions treated the same City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> <
> Four Prototype Models & Neighborhood Context <
> 21 Development Standard Considerations <
> 22 Front Elevation Facade <
> 23 Parking Spaces <
> 24 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. Wildfire 2. Views 3. Solar Access 25 <
> 26 Wildfire Hazards Mitigation <
> 27 Private View Impacts Existing rules: * AUP or Use Permit required for major residential addition or new home * Residential additions may not “unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, or views” * Additions and new homes may not be “detrimental or injurious” to adjacent properties * A project resulting in the “unreasonable obstruction of a neighbor’s significant view” may be considered detrimental 28 Private View Impacts * Proposed standards would allow middle housing by-right * The City would no longer use the discretionary permit process to consider potential neighbor view impacts * Proposed standards include changes to building height standards to address private view impacts for middle housing projects <
> 29 Hillside Overlay Height Standard <
> 30 Shadow Studies Purpose: * Better understand and quantify potential shadow impacts on adjacent rooftops * Assess whether additional standards are needed * Consider how effective additional standards would be in reducing shadow impacts <
> Model Methodology * Projected shadows from allowed building envelopes on the equinox (March or September 21) * Calculated the percentage of adjacent rooftops shaded at 8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, and 4pm <
> Result: Less than a 10% difference in shadow impact when building height increases from 28 to 35 feet Proposed Standards Based on Model Results <
> * Proposed height and setbacks standards are sufficient to address rooftop solar impacts; additional standards are not needed * Proposed middle housing standards, including lot coverage and FAR limitations, are sufficient to address privacy and aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties * Homeowners may establish a solar easement with their neighbor to guarantee no future reduction in solar access (not enforced by the City) 33 SOUTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Background 2. Fall 2022 Outreach & Engagement 3. Zoning Map Amendments 4. Allowed Uses & Permits Required 5. Max Height 6. Min Lot Coverage & Setbacks 7. Min Open Space 8. Min Separation <
> Southside Background City Council Referrals + Reports 1. Community Benefits within C-T (2016) 2. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T (2017) 3. Pilot Density Program in C-T (2017) 4. Increase Height and FAR in Southside (2017) 5. Housing Accountability Act (2017) 6. Increase Student Housing (2018) 7. More Student Housing Now (2018) 8. Missing Middle Housing (2019) 9. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning (2021) 10. Objective Standards for Design, Design, Shadows (2021) 11. Affordable Housing Overlay (2021) Southside Zoning Ordinance Amendments Project (2020) * Zoning map adjustments * New development standards * Revised permitted land uses * Administrative Draft EIR * Housing Element EIR These proposed standards encourage more development than the 2020 proposal 35 Outreach & Engagement Fall 2022 <
> 36 120 **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### Southside Map Amendments – Expand R-SMU <
> ### Southside Map Amendments – R-3 to R-S <
> ### Proposed Southside Development Standard Changes * **Land Use & Permits** Permit residential uses at the ground floor in the C-T * **Maximum Heights** Increase maximum heights by 10 ft to 20 ft * **Lot Coverage** Increase lot coverage to between 70% and 85% * **Minimum Setbacks** Reduce most setbacks in the R-S and R-SMU Reduce side setbacks in the R-3 * **Bldg. Separation** Eliminate building separation requirements (Fire and Building Code still apply) * **Open Space** New ratio based on total floor area, not per unit ### Southside: Pending additional analysis & input **Density...** Per unit? Per room? Per bed? State (& local) density bonus Housing Element RHNA: Separate living quarters **Floor Area Ratio....** Sliding scale? ### Possible Future Actions <
> ### THANK YOU <
> **CONTACT US** HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info **Meeting the Referral Goals?** Do the proposed development standards achieve the goals of the City Council referrals, namely encouraging the development of middle housing in lower density districts and increasing housing production and availability in the Southside area? **Changes or Revisions?** Are there provisions of the proposed zoning standards that should be changed or revised? **Additional Considerations?** Are there additional considerations that remain unaddressed by the proposed development standards? City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F3 PLANNING COMMISSION In addition to meeting with City Council, Housing Element Update presentations were given at three Planning Commission meeting between September 2021 and May 2022. These meetings provided an update to Commissioners and members of the public on the Housing Element, and sought input on key stakeholders for outreach. Staff specifically requested comments on the scope and content of the EIR, on issues that the EIR should address, as well as feedback on the Sites Inventory and proposed housing programs. Each subsection will include the staff memo and associated presentation. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Planning and Development Department** Land Use Planning Division **STAFF MEMORANDUM** DATE: September 1, 2021 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grace Wu, Senior Planner Alene Pearson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort **RECOMMENDATION** Receive information about the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, discuss potential community partners to be included on the stakeholder list, and identify a commissioner to participate in public outreach efforts related to the Housing Element Update who will report back to the Planning Commission at future meetings. **BACKGROUND** The Housing Element Update will serve as the City of Berkeley’s housing plan for the next eight-year cycle (the 6th cycle, 2023-2031), consistent with mandates of State law and regional planning efforts. It is an important opportunity for Berkeley’s residents and community members to come together on assessing housing needs, identifying policy and resource priorities, and finding solutions to implement a wide range of housing choices. The plan contains goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City’s decision-making around the development and rehabilitation of housing and necessary zoning amendments to accommodate a substantial increase in the amount of housing, including affordable housing, in the city. Racial and social equity, and protections for vulnerable and historically impacted communities, are key factors in this Housing Element Update. State law also requires that the Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housing and examines its policies and programs to ensure they prevent poverty concentration and segregation. As part of the outreach effort for the Housing Element Update, 10 boards and commissions were identified as having a role in the outreach and policy preparation process because their recommendations may have direct implications on the City’s housing policies, programs, and residential development standards[^p553-1]. Each Board or [^p553-1]: Commission on Aging; Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission; Commission on Disability; Energy Commission; Housing Advisory Commission; Homeless Services Panel of Experts; Homeless Commission; Landmarks Planning Commission; Planning Commission; Zoning Adjustments Board. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort Staff Memorandum September 1, 2021 Commission is being asked to identify a member to participate in the public outreach efforts by joining the email list, attending three public workshops over the course of 18 months, and providing project updates at their respective board or commission meetings. ### Key Components of a Housing Element The content of the Housing Element and the methodologies used for analyzing constraints and sites inventory are dictated by State law and guided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element includes the following components: 1. *Housing Needs Assessment*: Examine demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identify existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., large families, persons with disabilities). 2. *Evaluation of Past Performance*: Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs. 3. *Housing Sites Inventory*: Identify available sites for housing development to ensure there is enough land zoned to meet the future need at all income levels. 4. *Community Engagement*: Implement a robust community engagement program, reaching out to all economic segments of the community, and especially underrepresented groups. 5. *Constraints Analysis*: Analyze and recommend remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development. 6. *Policies and Programs*: Establish policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023-2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing needs. State law does not require that jurisdictions *build* or *finance* new housing, but cities are required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. ### Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Overall, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle, compared with 187,990 for the 5th cycle (2015-2023). Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of units across income levels, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)[^p554-2], that must be planned for in the Housing Element Update. Berkeley’s draft RHNA is 8,934 residential units. The City did not appeal its draft RHNA allocation, recognizing that the allowable circumstances for appeals outlined in Government Code Section 65584.05 were not applicable to the City of Berkeley[^p554-3]. The [^p554-2]: May 20, 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. ABAG.https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023-2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf [^p554-3]: 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Process. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation/2023-2031-rhna-appeals-process 124 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort Staff Memorandum September 1, 2021 final target RHNA will be issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in December 2021. Table 1 provides a comparison of Berkeley’s RHNA numbers at all income levels during the 5th cycle, the number of new units that have been issued building permits between 2015 and 2020, and the draft RHNA for the upcoming 6th cycle. While the total units issued building permits over the last five years are in line with the 5th cycle RHNA, challenges remain for meeting lower and moderate income housing targets. Table 1: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles | Income Level[^p555-4] | 5th Cycle RHNA Units | Units Permitted 2015-2020[^p555-5] | 6th Cycle DRAFT RHNA Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Very Low (< 50% AMI) | 532 | 232 | 2,446 | | Low (50 – 80% AMI) | 442 | 41 | 1,408 | | Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) | 584 | 91 | 1,416 | | Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) | 1,401 | 2,579 | 3,664 | | **Total** | **2,959** | **2,943** | **8,934** | ### Timeline Due to strict deadlines imposed by the State and severe penalties for missed deadlines[^p555-6], it is critical that the Housing Element Update stay on schedule and is approved by City Council and certified by HCD by January 31, 2023. This means that the majority of the housing needs analysis and assessment, sites inventory, and rezoning will be identified within the first six months of the 18-month project in order to allow for sufficient time to conduct a thorough and legally defensible environmental review (see Figure 1: Housing Element Project Timeline). **Figure 1: Housing Element Project Timeline** <
> [^p555-4]: 2021 income levels by family size are available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/2021IncomeandRentLimits.pdf [^p555-5]: Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 [^p555-6]: Failure to comply would impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. Many state and regional grant and loan programs require a compliant Housing Element, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), the Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) One Bay Area Grant transportation funding. 125 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort Staff Memorandum September 1, 2021 **Outreach and Engagement** Outreach and engagement are integral parts of this project from initiation to adoption. The overall plan for outreach and engagement includes 20 stakeholder interviews, a community-wide survey, 20 small format meetings, three work sessions with the City Council, and three public workshops. Based in part on the feedback received from the 10 boards and commissions, City staff—working with an outreach consultant—will invite community partners and stakeholders to participate in the interviews and small format meetings. **DISCUSSION** 1. Which community partners should be included on the stakeholder list, with the goal to further fair housing and engage racially and socially disadvantaged communities? 2. Which member of the Planning Commission is interested and able to participate in the Housing Element Update public outreach effort? Participation includes joining the email list, attending three public workshops over the course of 18 months, and providing project updates at future commission meetings. **Prepared by:** Grace Wu, Senior Planner, gwu@cityofberkeley.info, 510-981-7484 **LINKS** 1. April 30, 2021. *Housing Element Off-Agenda Memo*. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/Housing%20Element%20Update%2020042821.pdf 2. April 28, 2015. *Adopted 2015-2023 5th Cycle Housing Element*. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/2015-2023%20Berkeley%20Housing%20Element_FINAL.pdf # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-14 Planning Commission Meeting #1 Presentation** ## HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OVERVIEW **6th Cycle 2023-2031** City of Berkeley Boards and Commissions September 2021 Grace Wu, Senior Planner <
> ## Agenda 1. The Berkeley General Plan 2. Housing Element Overview 3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) o Berkeley RHNA 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle o RHNA & Sites Inventory 4. Sites Inventory 5. Housing Considerations 6. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Process 7. Discussion The Berkeley General Plan is a comprehensive and long-range statement of priorities and values developed to guide public decision-making in future years. All land use approvals and decisions must be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The Berkeley General Plan contains the following "Elements": 1. Land Use 2. Transportation 3. Housing <- We are here 4. Disaster Preparedness and Safety 5. Open Space and Recreation 6. Environmental Management 7. Economic Development and Employment 8. Urban Design and Preservation 9. Citizen Participation ## Housing Element Overview <
> * Required Element of the General Plan * Must be updated on an 8-year cycle, certified by HCD * Currently planning for the 6th cycle (2023-2031) * The certification process takes several months and the statutory deadline is January 31, 2023 ## Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) For each region, the State analyzes: + Jobs to homes ratio + Proximity to jobs and education centers + Expected job and population growth + Demographic trends that affect housing demand = # of units to plan for in each region, by income level = Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA <
> * The methodology for distributing the RHNA was approved in January 2021 * The Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle (vs. 187,990 in 5th cycle) * Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 units * The final RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021 ## Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th Cycle <
> ## Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 5th & 6th cycle <
> ## RHNA & Sites Inventory <
> * Must show enough land zoned for housing to meet our RHNA * Include a buffer (no net loss by income level) * More feasibility analysis required for: * Small Sites less than 0.5 acres * Large Sites greater than 10 acres * Non-vacant sites * New rules for reused sites *If actual housing production is less than RHNA, certain affordable projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35) ## Sites Inventory <
> * City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it * Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments * Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action * Reliant on the development industry to construct housing units ## Housing Considerations <
> ## The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> ## The 6th Housing Element Update Process <
> ## Discussion 1. Which community partners should be included on the stakeholder list, with the goal to further fair housing and engage racially and socially disadvantaged communities? 2. Which member of your board or commission is interested and able to participate in the Housing Element update outreach effort? * Join the email list * Attend three public workshops (Oct 2012, early 2022, summer 2022) * Report back at future board / commission meetings. ## Links to Slides 1. The Berkeley General Plan 2. Housing Element Overview 3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) o Berkeley RHNA 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle o RHNA & Sites Inventory 4. Sites Inventory 5. Housing Considerations 6. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Process 7. Discussion City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division DATE: February 9, 2022 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Alene Pearson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Housing Element Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session ### INTRODUCTION The City of Berkeley is currently updating its Housing Element, which will serve as the City's housing plan for the next eight years (2023-2031). An Environment Impact Report (EIR) is required to evaluate the potential physical environmental impacts that could result from actions required to implement the policies and programs proposed in the Housing Element Update. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been issued and a 30-day comment period is underway (see Attachment 1). In this scoping session, the Commission will receive a status report on the Housing Element Update and NOP, consider public testimony, and provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR. ### BACKGROUND The City of Berkeley is preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate that requires each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected needs for households with varying income-levels in the community. The Housing Element Update will establish goals, policies, and actions to address the existing and projected housing needs in Berkeley according to State law and guidance from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). ### Berkeley’s Final RHNA Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of housing units to plan for during each eight-year housing element cycle, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), based on local economic and demographic trends. On December 16, 2021, the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducted a public hearing and adopted the Final RHNA Plan for the 2023-2031 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: planning@cityofberkeley.info 128 # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session housing cycle. Berkeley’s RHNA is 8,934 residential units. For comparison with Berkeley’s RHNA from the previous cycle (2015-2023), see Table 1. Table 1: Berkeley’s RHNA | Income Level | 2015-2023 RHNA Units | 2023-2031 RHNA Units | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Very Low (< 50% AMI) | 532 | 2,446 | | Low (50-80% AMI) | 442 | 1,408 | | Moderate (80-120% AMI) | 584 | 1,416 | | Above Moderate (>120% AMI) | 1,401 | 3,664 | | Total | 2,959 | 8,934 | ### Housing Element Site Inventory Analysis An essential component of the Housing Element is to identify sufficient sites that can accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA. Sites are considered suitable for residential development if they are zoned appropriately and available for residential use during the planning period. HCD provides a framework for determining if the current zoning regulations, physical conditions of parcels, and existing land uses on parcels provide adequate sites to accommodate Berkeley’s RHNA. The staff report that accompanied the City Council Worksession on December 9, 2021 provided a detailed overview of the steps necessary to identify sufficient sites (see Attachment 2). In summary, jurisdictions must complete the following five steps: 1. Identify Likely Housing Sites and Production 2. Screen for Vacant and Underutilized Parcels 3. Screen for Suitability of Parcels 4. Evaluate and Analyze Sites 5. Calculate Potential Buildout of Sites The final site inventory will include a detailed data table, according to a template provided by HCD, that lists potential sites that have been identified to meet Berkeley’s RHNA. The site inventory table provides characteristics of each potential site (including existing use, zoning, address), calculates allowable buildout by income category, documents the viability of each parcel to build housing (with photos and descriptions), and shows the results of the AFFH analysis. Note, the inventory does not require development of any particular site and is not indented to imply that a site will be developed at a certain density, only that it could be based on the HCD framework. The intent is to demonstrate that the City has adequately planned and zoned for appropriate development that could be attractive to private, non-profit and public housing developers at appropriate densities to meet the projected demand for housing in a variety of income categories. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session **Preliminary Site Inventory Analysis** The process summarized above is iterative, and not necessarily linear. The project team has completed the first round of steps 1 and 2 and has conducted a preliminary analysis of potential buildout (step 5) in order to understand the capacity of sites under current zoning and to identify the outside limits of the project to be analyzed in the EIR. Although this may seem premature, the CEQA timeline and HCD’s review periods require the start of environmental review at this stage in order to meet the Housing Element’s statutory deadline of January 31, 2023. The first two steps in the site inventory process require identification of adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Attachment 3 provides a preliminary assessment of sites, presented in three categories, described below: * *Sites Likely to Develop* * *Sites in the Pipeline* * *Opportunity Sites or Potential Additional Sites* *Sites that are likely to develop* include projects that received their land use entitlement after 2018 but have not yet been built. For these projects, the affordability breakdown in the table reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include future ADUs in the category of “sites likely to develop” based on past development trends. Furthermore, HCD’s methodology provides assumed levels of affordability for ADUs. Lastly, development at the BART sites is included as “sites likely to develop” based on current planning efforts -- because project specifics are not known at this time, a conservative total estimate of 1,200 units is being used with 35% affordability split evenly between Very Low and Low Income affordability levels. *The preliminary assessment of sites likely to develop accounts for over 5,100 units.* *Sites in the pipeline* include projects that are under review or are actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels for sites in the pipeline reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. *The preliminary assessment of sites in the pipeline accounts for over 2,400 units.* *Opportunity sites or potential additional sites* do not have specific projects associated with them. This category includes parcels that are assessed based on HCD criteria as potential opportunity sites for future housing development. HCD’s criteria includes the following: * Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. * Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. * Buildings on the parcel are greater than 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings. * Parcel does not have historic buildings and rent controlled units. * Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. * Parcel is not State- or county-owned. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session **Buildout Potential and Income Limits of Opportunity Sites** Berkeley’s zoning districts do not have maximum density standards expressed in “dwelling units per acre”, so the preliminary number of potential units for opportunity sites was calculated using 70% of the upper limit of a density range that reflects recent projects that have been built within the district. The project team is following HCD guidance to develop accurate density estimates and buildout potential and is still in the process of researching and refining these numbers. Because opportunity sites are not associated with actual development proposals, HCD provides guidance on assigning assumed income categories to the units that could be developed on these (or similar) parcels. The HCD methodology is based on allowable density, with increased density serving as a proxy for more affordability. Parcels that are zoned to allow 30 dwelling units per acre or more are categorized in the “lower income” category (Very Low- or Low-Income households) and parcels with zoning that allows less than 30 units per acre in the Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income categories. The HCD guidance for this stage of the analysis is an admittedly blunt approach to considering the issue of housing affordability. Berkeley has other tools at its disposal for addressing the affordability of new development, preservation of existing units, and other aspects of housing policy, which will also be described in the Housing Element. The focus in the EIR, however, is on the physical development activity necessary for meeting the overall RHNA; additional analysis will be provided in subsequent discussions about the other policies and programs that will be included in the Housing Element Update. **Potential Rezoning and EIR** Based on the units already accounted for in “Sites Likely to Develop” and “Sites in the Pipeline”, HCD certification will require that the Housing Element identify opportunity sites to accommodate approximately 2,000 units. *Preliminary analysis of opportunity sites identified over 8,000 units, suggesting that current zoning is adequate to meet HCD’s RHNA requirements for a compliant Housing Element.* Although Berkeley’s current zoning seems to be sufficient to meet RHNA, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the City aims to achieve. In particular, density bonus and inclusionary units have fallen short of providing the overall 20% Very Low and Low Income units expressed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. Furthermore, City Council has provided direction through referrals and resolutions (see Attachment 4) regarding where and how to encourage additional housing, with a focus on affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types. In order to allow these actions to occur, the Housing Element EIR needs to study potential environmental impacts that could result from up-zoning and new programs. The project description for the EIR will broadly cover requested actions from Council in order to City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session provide flexibility as the Housing Element Update proceeds and opportunity sites are identified. **DISCUSSION** Public Review Period and Scoping Meeting The Planning Department has hired Rincon Consultants to prepare the CEQA analysis, including the NOP, which informs public agencies and the community early in the process of the broad strokes of the process. The NOP was released on January 17, 2022, beginning a 30-day review period, which will close on February 16, 2022. This scoping meeting informs the community and public agencies about the Housing Element and EIR, and solicits comments from the Planning Commission and the public regarding the EIR scope, issues of concern, potential alternatives, and mitigation measures. These comments, along with the comments collected through the entire review period, will be considered in the preparation of the EIR. The result of the EIR analysis will inform future Planning Commission discussion and the recommendations submitted to the City Council for adoption. CEQA and Zoning -- Next Steps Following the close of the NOP comment period, the Draft EIR will be prepared and circulated for the required 45-day public comment period. Although the Housing Element Update would not approve any physical development (e.g., construction of housing or infrastructure), the EIR will assume that such actions are reasonably foreseeable future outcomes of the Housing Element Update. As such the EIR will evaluate the potential physical environmental impacts that could result from future actions for implementing the policies and programs, and resulting development, at a programmatic level. The Draft EIR will also examine a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, including the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative and other potential alternatives that may be capable of reducing or avoiding potential environmental effects while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project. In addition, the EIR will address cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and other issues required by CEQA. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session The estimated timeline for the public portions of the CEQA review are as follows: | Description | Timing | Public Review Process | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Development and Release of Public Draft of Notice of Preparation (NOP) | December 2021 - January 2022 | 2/9/22 -- Planning Commission review | | 30-day NOP Comment Period | January 17 – February 16, 2022 | Scoping Meeting at 2/9/22 Planning Commission | | Draft EIR released for 45-day review and comment period | July 15 – August 29, 2022 | Planning Commission hearing | | Discussion of Housing Element EIR changes | September – November 2022 | Subcommittee and Planning Commission review | | Final EIR and Final Housing Element adopted | November 2022 – January 2023 | Planning Commission recommendation; City Council action | **STAFF RECOMMENDATION** The Planning Commission should review the NOP, provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR, and receive comments from members of the public, organizations and interested agencies on issues the EIR should address. Written comments can be directed in writing to Grace Wu, Senior Planner either by mail or electronically: Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 [GWu@cityofberkeley.info](mailto:GWu@cityofberkeley.info) Comments must be received on or before 5pm on Monday, February 21, 2022. **ATTACHMENTS** 1. Notice of Preparation 2. Staff Report from December 9, 2021 Housing Element Update Work Session 3. Preliminary Site Capacity Analysis 4. Housing Element Related Referrals and Resolutions 133 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Figure F-15 Planning Commission Meeting #2 Presentation <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> 134 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> **CEQA** 1. Purpose 2. Draft EIR 3. CEQA Topics 4. EIR Process 5. Scoping Meeting & Comments <
> **What's in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?** > A project description > An environmental setting > Evaluation of environmental impacts > Thresholds of significance > Mitigation measures > Project alternatives > A meaningful discussion of project alternatives that would reduce adverse environmental impacts **List of CEQA Topics** * Agriculture and Forestry Resources * Biological Resources * Cultural Resources * Geology and Soils * Energy * Wildfire * Public Services * Transportation * Land Use and Planning * Hydrology and Water Quality * Hazards and Hazardous Materials * Tribal Cultural Resources * Population and Housing * Aesthetics/Visual * Recreation * Noise * Air Quality * Mineral Resources * Greenhouse Gas Emissions * Utilities and Service Systems <
> **Purpose of the Scoping Meeting** > Inform the community and concerned agencies about the project and the EIR > Solicit input regarding the EIR scope, issues of concern, potential alternatives, and mitigation measures > Inform the community about future opportunities for input **We Welcome Comments Regarding:** > The scope, focus, and content of the EIR > Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce environmental effects > Alternatives to avoid or reduce environmental effects > Please submit written comments by Monday, February 21, 2022 to: Grace Wu Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Or via email GWu@cityofberkeley.info 135 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 **Planning and Development Department** Land Use Planning Division DATE: | May 4, 2022 --- | --- TO: | Members of the Planning Commission FROM: | Grace Wu, Senior Planner SUBJECT: | Housing Element Update: Preliminary Sites, Goals, Policies, and Programs **INTRODUCTION** The City of Berkeley is currently updating its Housing Element, which will serve as the City's housing plan for the eight-year period between 2023-2031. Under state law, the Housing Element must provide a Sites Inventory that catalogs a jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element must also identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. This report provides a preview of the preliminary Sites Inventory and the Goals, Policies, and Programs that will be included in the public draft of the Housing Element Update, which will be available in June 2022. The Draft Housing Element will then undergo further review by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and comment be incorporated prior to returning to Planning Commission for recommendation and City Council for local adoption. **BACKGROUND** The City of Berkeley is preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to comply with the State mandate that requires each local jurisdiction to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected needs of households at varying income-levels in the community. The Housing Element Update will establish goals, policies, and programs to address the existing and projected housing needs in Berkeley according to State law and guidance from the HCD. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). **Housing Element Site Inventory Analysis** # APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 2 of 7 May 4, 2022 The staff reports that accompanied the Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 2022[^p567-1] and the City Council Worksession on March 15, 2022[^p567-2] provide a detailed overview of the criteria and steps necessary to identify land suitable for residential development that can be feasibly developed during the 2023-2031 period. In summary, the City adhered to the following five steps: 1. Identify Likely sites, reflecting recently entitled projects since 2018 and current BART planning efforts at North Berkeley and Ashby stations. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) trends are also incorporated within Likely sites. 2. Identify Pipeline sites, based on projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application. 3. Identify Opportunity Sites, or potential sites for future housing development, based on HCD's criteria: a. Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. b. Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. c. Buildings on the parcel are greater than 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings. d. Parcel does not have historic buildings and rent controlled units. e. Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. f. Parcel is not State- or county-owned. 4. Evaluate and analyze Opportunity Sites for realistic feasibility. 5. Calculate overall Sites Inventory capacity, by income category (Table 1). ### Table 1 Summary Sites Inventory Capacity | Sites/Projects | Total Net Units | Income Distribution | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Above Moderate | | Likely Sites | 4,685 | 622 | 628 | 249 | 3,186 | | *ADU Trend* | 800 | 240 | 240 | 240 | 80 | | *BART Properties* | 1,200 | 210 | 210 | 0 | 780 | | *Entitled Projects* | 2,685 | 172 | 178 | 9 | 2,326 | | Pipeline Sites | 2,414 | 204 | 180 | 68 | 1,962 | | *Applications under review* | 2,126 | 178 | 86 | 68 | 1,794 | | *Anticipated* | 288 | 26 | 94 | 0 | 168 | | Opportunity Sites | 9,028 | 1,649 | 1,649 | 2,886 | 2,845 | | **Total Site Capacity** | **16,127** | **2,475** | **2,457** | **3,203** | **7,993** | | **2023-2031 RHNA** | **8,934** | **2,446** | **1,408** | **1,416** | **3,664** | | RHNA Surplus | +7,193 | +29 | +1,049 | +1,787 | +4,329 | [^p567-1]: February 9, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element EIR Scoping Session. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/2022-02-09_PC_Item%2010.pdf [^p567-2]: March 15, 2022. City Council Housing Element Worksession #3. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2022/03_Mar/Documents/2022-03-15_Item_01_Housing_Element_pdf.aspx 137 Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 3 of 7 May 4, 2022 The preliminary Likely and Pipeline sites are detailed in Attachment 1. For projects under Likely sites, the affordability categories reflect actual project plans, including density bonus units. For Pipeline sites, the affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. For ADUs, the City assumed levels of affordability based on the draft *Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo*, produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).[^p568-3] ### Opportunity Sites: Density and Affordability Assumptions The Opportunity Sites includes a detailed table, in accordance with HCD’s template, that lists potential sites that have been identified to have the realistic capacity to meet Berkeley’s RHNA (Attachment 2). The table provides characteristics of each opportunity site (including assessor parcel number, existing building age, vacancy status, existing zoning, density assumption, and capacity assumption) to calculate allowable buildout by income category. The City estimated development potential for Opportunity Sites by calculating the average density achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district. This calculation is critical since the majority of the City’s zoning districts do not have density standards. The density assumptions listed in Table 2 were used to calculate the capacity of Opportunity Sites. Table 2 Achieved Density Trends and Density Assumptions | District | Average Density Based on 2 or More Projects (du/ac) | Density Assumption for RHNA (du/ac) | Methodology Overview | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | R-1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | | | ES-R | 1.2 | 1.0 | | | R-1A | 16.4 | 15.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 14.6 to 18.2 du/ac | | R-2 | 21.6 | 20.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 12.9 to 36.9 du/ac | | R-2A | 26.9 | 25.0 | Based on 13 projects with densities from 12.9 to 50.8 du/ac | | R-3 | 45.9 | 40.0 | Based on 9 projects with densities from 21.4 to 85.1 du/ac | | R-4 | 86.1 | 75.0 | Based on 5 projects with densities from 26.8 to 150.6 du/ac | | R-S | 102.5 | 100.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 64.5 to 129.1 du/ac | | R-SMU | 212.0 | 200.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 189.5 to 234.6 du/ac | | C-C | 143.1 | 125.0 | Based on 2 projects with densities from 112.6 to 173.5 du/ac. Note that 1 project was approved under the former C-1 zoning designation but is now zoned C-C | [^p568-3]: September 8, 2021. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 4 of 7 May 4, 2022 | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **C-U** | 158.8 | 150.0 | Based on 5 projects with densities from 17.5 to 268 du/ac. Note that 3 of these projects were approved under the former C-1 designation but are now zoned C-U | | **Neighborhood Commercial (C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO)** | 58.1 | 50.0 | Based on 3 projects with densities from 28.6 to 94.7 du/ac | | **C-SA** | 183.5 | 180.0 | Based on 7 projects with densities from 106.7 to 207.8 du/ac | | **C-T** | 168.1 | 160.0 | Based on 10 projects with densities from 31.3 to 442.9 du/ac | | **C-DMU Core** | 339.8 | 320.0 | Based on 9 projects with densities from 188.1 to 457.4 du/ac | | **C-DMU Outer Core** | 247.4 | 225.0 | Based on 6 projects with densities from 143.4 to 390.0 du/ac | | **C-DMU Corridor** | 167.8 | 150.0 | Not enough projects so based on C-DMU Buffer projects | | **C-DMU Buffer** | 167.8 | 150.0 | Based on 6 projects with densities from 129.3 to 190.5 du/ac | | **C-W** | 136.8 | 135.0 | Based on 22 projects with densities from 53.4 to 272 du/ac | | **C-AC** | 210.0 | 210.0 | 70% of max density defined in recently adopted Specific Area Plan | | **MU-R** | 28.0 | 34.8 | Based on 9 projects with densities between 20.0 to 34.8 du/ac | State law (AB 2342, Government Code 65583.2) uses density as a proxy for income levels and affordability for the sites inventory. Under state law, the “default density” for most jurisdictions in urban counties is 30 units/acre. Default density refers to the density considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing. Table 3 shows the site characteristics used to determine affordability for the sites inventory. In general, zones with lower assumed densities and smaller parcel sizes are presumed to produce units that are affordable to moderate and above moderate households. The sites inventory assumes that sites with densities of at least 30 du/acre are affordable to lower income households. **Table 3 Affordability by Density, Size, and Site Capacity** | Income Level | Site Characteristics | | :--- | :--- | | **Lower < 80% AMI** | Site size is between 0.35 and 10 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites; AND Density assumed is at least 30 du/ac; AND Site capacity is at least 50 units | | **Moderate 80-120% AMI** | Site size is between 0.10 and 0.35 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites; AND Site capacity is between 30 and 50 units | | **Above Moderate > 120% AMI** | Density assumed is less than 30 du/ac; OR Site capacity is less than 30 units | Housing Element Sites Inventory and Opportunity Sites 139 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 5 of 7 May 4, 2022 This report includes a preliminary list of Opportunity Sites, and the assumed income category by parcel, that met the above criteria. This list is assessed to ensure that the units identified to accommodate the RHNA—particularly lower income units—will affirmatively further fair housing and are not disproportionately concentrated in areas with larger populations of interest or special needs populations such as racial and ethnic minority groups, persons with disabilities, and cost-burdened renters. This list is being shared prior to the June 2022 release of the Housing Element public draft to allow additional time for discussion and review. The Sites Inventory will undergo further review by HCD this summer, after responses to public review comments are incorporated. Note, the Sites Inventory, including the Opportunity Sites, does not require development of any particular site and is not intended to imply that a site will be developed at a certain density or income level, only that it could be based on HCD’s framework. The intent is to demonstrate that the City has adequately planned and zoned for appropriate development that could accommodate private, non-profit and public housing developments at appropriate densities to meet the projected demand for housing in a variety of income categories. However, if actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35). Determinations are calculated at the mid-point and end of each eight-year planning period based on progress of a pro-rata share of the City’s RHNA. Currently, the City of Berkeley has made insufficient progress toward its very low and low income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50% affordability. In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low-Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households on-site. Preliminary analysis shows that this will affect approximately 18 opportunity sites (1,419 units), located along Berkeley’s commercial corridors. ### Goals, Policies, and Programs Berkeley’s Housing Element Update must include goals, policies and programs that will address identified housing needs—including special needs populations, respond to governmental and non-governmental constraints, and facilitate the development of housing to meet RHNA. Through outreach and engagement – at public workshops, board and commission meetings, Council worksessions, interviews and small-format meetings, tabling events, and surveys – the Housing Element team has compiled a comprehensive set of goals and policies that reflect feedback received. The preliminary set includes six main goals and 33 policies to enact those goals (Attachment 3). The six goals and their objectives are: APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 6 of 7 May 4, 2022 **Goal A Housing Affordability.** Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need. **Goal B Housing Preservation.** Existing housing should be maintained and improved. The City promotes energy efficiency and electrification improvements in new and existing residential buildings in order to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged. **Goal C Housing Production.** Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs. New housing should be developed to expand housing opportunities and choices in Berkeley to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient. **Goal D Special Needs Housing and Homelessness Prevention.** Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes. **Goal E Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.** The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley. **Goal F Governmental Constraints.** Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing. This list of goals was shared with staff from departments and divisions throughout the city[^p571-4] to identify specific programs (existing and proposed) that would facilitate implementation of policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. HCD requires that Housing Element Programs be well developed. Programs must include specific action steps to achieve the City’s goals and policies and take into account the following: * Include a timeline for implementation, * Identify staff resources (by Department and/or Division) that will be responsible for implementation, * Describe the City’s specific role in implementation and resources (e.g. providing funding, dedicating staffing), and * Identify specific and measurable outcomes. [^p571-4]: Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS), Rent Stabilization Board (RSB), Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA), City Manager’s Office-Neighborhood Service Code Enforcement (NSCE) Unit, Building and Safety, Office of Energy and Sustainability. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs Page 7 of 7 May 4, 2022 In this preliminary set, City staff identified 37 housing programs (Attachment 4), offered through several City departments and divisions. They each address one or more goals and policies outlined above. Many of the housing programs reflect City Council referrals that are funded and/or staffed and are already included in the future workplans for departments. **DISCUSSION** Are there gaps in the preliminary Sites Inventory? Are there gaps in the proposed housing programs? If so, what are specific implementation steps, metrics, and timelines that can be identified for them? With the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), the City must identify neighborhoods that the City will direct additional efforts and resources to address disparities in the availability of affordable housing, housing conditions, and neighborhood conditions. What are specific neighborhoods and actions where certain Housing Programs can focus on? **ATTACHMENTS** 1. Preliminary Likely and Pipeline Sites 2. Preliminary Opportunity Sites 3. Preliminary Goals and Policies 4. Preliminary Housing Programs APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Figure F-16 Planning Commission Meeting #3 Presentation <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> # Housing Goals A **Housing Affordability** Residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. D **Special Needs Housing & Homelessness Prevention** Expand supply of housing to special needs groups, including extremely low incomes. B **Housing Preservation** Existing housing should be maintained and improved for resiliency: -Energy, Water, Seismic -Reduce GHG emissions E **Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing** The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley. C **Housing Production** Provide adequate housing capacity to meet current and future housing needs. F **Governmental Constraints** Identify and mitigate barriers to construction and improvement of housing. # Draft Housing Policies | | Housing Affordability | Housing Preservation | Housing Production | Special Needs & Homelessness Prevention | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Governmental Constraints | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **H-1** | H-1: ELL, Low and Mod Housing | H-8: Maintain Housing | H-14: Publicly-Owned Sites | H-21: Homelessness & Crisis Prevention | H-28: Fair Housing | H-31: Reduce Gov't Constraints | | **H-2** | Funding Sources | H-9: Rental Housing Conservation | H-15: Medium-High Density Zoning | H-22: Homeless Housing | H-29: Accessible Housing | H-32: Streamline Review Process | | **H-3** | Permanent Affordability | H-10: Code Requirements | H-16: Family Housing | H-23: Family Housing | H-30: Affordable Housing | H-33: Incentivize Affordable Housing | | **H-4** | Economic Diversity | H-11: Prevent Delisted Maintenance | H-17: Accessory Dwelling Units | H-24: Senior Housing | H-31: Service Housing | | | **H-5** | Rent Stabilization | H-12: Seismic Resilience | H-18: Registered Housing | H-25: People/ Disabilities | | | | **H-6** | Low-Income Homebuyers | H-13: Resource Efficiency & Climate Resiliency | H-19: Monitoring Progress | H-26: Emergency, Transitional, Supportive Housing | | | | **H-7** | Berkeley Housing Authority | | H-20: University of California | H-27: Senior Housing | | | | | | | H-21: Jurisdictional & Reg'l Coordination | | | | **Agencies/Departments/Divisions** * Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) * Rent Stabilization Board (RSB) * Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) * City Manager's Office Neighborhood Service Code Enforcement (NSCE) Unit * Planning & Development: Building & Safety, Office of Energy & Sustainability, Land Use Planning # Preliminary Housing Programs <
> **WORK-IN-PROGRESS** HCD requires Programs to be: * **Specific and implementable (fundable)** * **Contain concrete actions** * **Have clear timelines** * **Contain metrics to evaluate success** | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | HP-1 Affordable Housing Berkeley | HP-9 Lead-Poisoning Prevention | HP-17 Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) | HP-25 Shelter Plus Care | HP-33 Streamlined Permit Processes & Timelines | | HP-2 Housing Choice Vouchers | HP-10 Housing Quality Standards | HP-18 BayREN Residential Energy Incentive Programs | HP-26 Community Agency Contracting | HP-34 By-Right Approval on Rosed Sites for Affordable Housing | | HP-3 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements | HP-11 Home Modification for Accessibility & Safety | HP-19 Priority Development Areas (PDAs) | HP-27 Housing for Homeless Persons w/ Disabilities | HP-35 Zoning Code Amendments: Special Needs Housing | | HP-4 Affordable Housing Overlay | HP-12 Accessible Housing | HP-20 BART Station Area Planning | HP-28 Fair Housing Outreach & Enforcement | HP-36 Zoning Code Amendments to Facilitate Housing Development | | HP-5 Preservation of At-Risk Housing | HP-13 Senior & Disabled Home Improvement Loans | HP-21 Middle Housing | HP-29 Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections | HP-37: Permit Processing Procedures | | HP-6 Replacement Housing, Demolition Ordinance | HP-14 Seismic Safety & Preparedness Programs | HP-22 Accessory Dwelling Units | HP-30 Tenant Survey | | | HP-7 Rental Housing Code Compliance | HP-15 Pilot Climate Equity Fund | HP-23 Monitoring RHNA Sites | HP-31 Housing Preference Policies | | | HP-8 Housing Code | HP-16 Existing Buildings Electrification (BESO) Strategy | HP-24 1000 Person Plan to End Homelessness | HP-32 Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) | | ### HP-3 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | In 2022, amend Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23.328, updating the citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) in the Zoning Ordinance.

In 2022, adopt a Resolution addressing tax voucher programs and establishing an in-lieu fee pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.020(A)(2). | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | Planning/HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund, SB 2 Grant Funding, Enterprise Fund—Community Planning Fee | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2, H-3, H-4, H-6, H-18, H-31, H-33 | # Housing Trust Fund <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | Fund a minimum of 500 units of nonprofit affordable housing.

Fund a minimum of 30% affordable housing at Ashby & North Berkeley BART. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | Measure O, AHMF, Condo Conversion Mitigation Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, HOME | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection; New Opportunities in High Resource Areas; Disproportionate Needs | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2, H-3, H-4, H-6, H-18, H-31, H-33 | ### HP-13 Senior & Disabled Home Improvement Loans | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | Provide low interest-free loans up to $100,000 annually for a total of 16 loans over eight years. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | CalHome Rehab Account (program income) and CDBG | | **AFFH** | Housing Mobility | | **Policies Implemented** | H-25, H-26, H-28, H-29 | # HP-31 Housing Preference Policies | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | By 2023, the City will adopt a housing preference policy. The City plans to conduct outreach on an ongoing basis, coordinate preferences with the Alameda County Housing Portal for applications, and collect data and monitor annually to assure impact. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | HHCS | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection | | **Policies Implemented** | H-1, H-7, H-28 | # HP-19 Priority Development Areas <
> **Priority Development Areas (PDAs)** San Pablo, Southside | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | During 2022-2024, develop San Pablo PDA Specific Plan. Conduct analyses, public and stakeholder engagement, and policy updates, including zoning and General Plan amendments, with the goal of adopting Specific Plan summer 2025.

By June 2023, complete Telegraph PDA/Southside Plan Area zoning map amendments and up-zoning. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund, ABAG/MTC PDA Planning Grant | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-15, H-16, H-18, H-20, H-21, H-31, H-33 | # HP-21 Middle Housing <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | By Summer 2022, amend Affordable Housing Fee schedule.

By Summer 2023, amend Zoning Code to allow two- to four-unit development on one lot. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
Targeted outreach in lower density residential districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R | | **Policies Implemented** | H-2, H-3, H-4, H-18, H-21, H-31, H-32, H-33 | # HP-36 Zoning Code Amendment to Facilitate Housing Development | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Specific Actions & Timeline** | By January 2024, as part of the Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards project, minimum densities will be applied to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units.

By 2026, develop Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed use developments. | | **Lead Department(s) / Agency** | Planning | | **Funding Source(s)** | General Fund | | **AFFH** | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas | | **Policies Implemented** | H-18, H-31, H-32 | # UPCOMING EVENTS **SAVE THE DATE!** Wednesday, June 29, 6pm Public Workshop #3 **Saturday, May 14, 2-5pm -** Roses in Bloom event at the Berkeley Rose Garden (1200 Euclid Ave.) **Thursday, May 19, 5-8pm -** Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party at Grove Park (1730 Oregon St.) ### CONTACT US HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info **FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST** https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update <
> By Sunday, May 8th: Renter Survey (4 minutes, $10 Berkeley Bowl gift card to first 100 respondents!) # Discussion 1. Are there gaps in the preliminary sites inventory? 2. Are there gaps in the proposed housing programs? If so, what are specific implementation steps, metrics, and timelines that can be identified for them? 3. What are specific neighborhoods and actions where certain Housing Programs can focus on? *With the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), the City must identify neighborhoods that the City will direct additional efforts and resources to address disparities in the availability of affordable housing, living conditions, and neighborhood conditions.* APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F4 BOARDS & COMMISSION MEETINGS Throughout the Fall and Winter of 2021, staff met with the following Boards & Commissions to introduce the Housing Element Update, seek input on key stakeholder for outreach, and identify a liaison to participate in ongoing Housing Element outreach efforts. Figure F-17 Boards & Commission Meetings | Boards & Commissions (excluding the Planning Commission) | Meeting Dates | | :--- | :--- | | Homeless Services Panel of Experts | September 1, 2021 | | Commission on Disability | September 1, 2021 | | Landmarks Preservation Committee | September 2, 2021 | | Zoning Adjustments Board | September 9, 2021 | | Commission on Aging | September 15, 2021 | | Energy Commission | September 22, 2021 | | Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission | September 27, 2021 | | Housing Advisory Commission | September 30, 2021 | | Rent Stabilization Board | November 18, 2021 | | Civic Arts Commission | January 19, 2022 | | City/UC/Student Relations Committee | January 28, 2022 | Each of these boards and comissions received the same memo and presentation as the one presented to at the Planning Commission Meeting #1, shown on pages 83-87. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F5 SURVEYS Three surveys were shared with the public between October 2021 and May 2022. In October 2021, a city-wide survey asked for thoughts and ideas on housing needs and strengths. The second survey served as a method to obtain feedback from two self-guided walking tours that took residents around Downtown Berkeley and West Berkeley, and asked participants to assess different types of housing (ADU, 2-4 unit, 5+ unit, etc.) and provide feedback on objective standards, features that contribute to or detract from the surrounding neighborhoods, and share more general thoughts about housing in Berkeley. The third survey specifically asked renters for feedback on tenant-focused housing programs and policies in Berkeley. This section includes an overview of all three surveys, summaries of the responses, and demographics of the respondents. All surveys were available on the Housing Element webpage and in print at the Permit Service Center. ## F5.1 CITY-WIDE SURVEY - OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2021 ### OVERVIEW As part of the City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update engagement effort, the public was invited to share thoughts and ideas on housing needs and strengths in Berkeley. The survey was open from October 28th through November 14th, 2021. A total of 747 individuals submitted survey responses. The survey consisted of three housing questions and eight demographic questions. This report summarizes the responses. Responses are used to inform the Housing Element’s assessment of needs and constraints as well as the identification of new housing locations. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # SUMMARY OF INPUT ### What is working well with housing? Respondents were asked to respond to the following prompt: *“Which of the following does Berkeley do well (select up to 3)? If other(s), please specify.”* Results are tabulated in the chart below. The top two choices were “sufficient tenant protections” and “building new accessory dwelling units (ADUs),” and more than a quarter of respondents also selected “building new multi-unit housing” and “incentives for energy efficiency and climate adaptation.” ### Write-In Responses “Other” was also a top choice (26.4%) and the write-in comments are summarized below. Some responses to “Other” reiterated one or more of the multiple-choice options. To avoid double-counting, those responses were not added to the multiple-choice tabulation. Additionally, many of the write-in responses focused on Berkeley’s housing challenges; those responses are included in the summary of Berkeley’s Housing Issues below. ### Historic Preservation * Maintaining the existing character of neighborhoods and older buildings through landmark and structure-of-merit designations **Figure F-18 City-wide Survey Response to "What is working well with housing in Berkeley?"** <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 **Financial Incentives for Retrofits** * Providing incentives for housing rehabilitation, including seismic retrofitting, energy efficiency, and climate adaptation **Tenant Support and Services** * Maintaining affordable housing prices with rent control * Providing helpful services to tenants through the Rent Board **Housing Production** * Building new multi-dwelling housing (affordable and market-rate) in appropriate locations along major corridors such as Shattuck Ave, University Ave., and San Pablo Ave * Building new multi-unit rental and affordable housing * Building new market-rate and luxury housing stock **Transportation** * Developing new alternatives to automobile transportation to reduce the need for off-street parking associated with housing projects **Policymakers** * Electing policymakers who are increasingly committed to affordable housing production, preservation, and protections **Fiscal Policy** * Offering property tax refunds to very low-income homeowners * Generating revenue for affordable housing **Housing Challenges** Respondents were asked to respond to the following prompt: *“What are the three most critical housing issues or challenges Berkeley faces? If other(s), please specify.”* Results are tabulated in the chart to the right. The top three choices were “homelessness,” “high cost of homeownership,” and “high rental costs.” Figure F-19 City-wide Survey Response to "What are the issues or challenges with housing in Berkeley?" <
> 148 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### Write-In Responses The “Other” write-in comments are summarized below. Some responses to “Other” reiterated one or more of the multiple-choice options, but to avoid double-counting, those responses were not added to the multiple-choice tabulation. ### Exclusionary Neighborhoods **Exclusionary Neighborhoods** * Exclusive neighborhoods that lack housing options for low-income families and continue to perpetuate economic segregation * Affordable housing requirements that fail to address exclusionary neighborhoods that currently serve wealthy single-family homeowners * Persistent failure to diversify the housing options in many neighborhoods holds Berkeley back **Opposition to new housing** * Organized opposition to new housing developments of nearly any size and location * Many NIMBY, anti-development members of the community who obstruct the creation of new housing ### Government and Regulations **Arduous Permitting Process** * Lengthy, complicated, unpredictable, non-streamlined, and costly process for approving new housing * Slow process that leads to higher costs and increased overreach from opponents * Resultant disincentives for maintenance, repairs, remodeling, and new construction **Lack of Historic Preservation** * Not preserving historic homes and neighborhoods * Allowing historic homes to be demolished * Need to renovate and add units to historic homes to preserve the character of Berkeley **Challenges to Section 8 program** * Lack of investment in the Section 8 vouchers and the long waitlist * Barriers to access to affordable housing based on vouchers or minimum income required * Connect Section 8 voucher-holders with the owners in need **Challenges with rent control and rent stabilization policy** * Severe policies and bureaucracy of the Rent Stabilization Board * Restrictions on evictions that are too stringent and prevent the necessary removal of some tenants * Rent control regulations that discourage the development of ADUs as rentals * Loss of housing stock and disincentives to investment and development due to rent control * Statewide legislation that gutted City rent stabilization (i.e., The Costa-Hawkins Law destroyed rental housing affordability by enforcing vacancy decontrol.) **Lack of oversight** * Lack of oversight from the City for illegal rent increases on below market-rate units * Poor living conditions in below market-rate units **High property taxes** * High City property taxes and fees that are not reflected in the quality of current city amenities * Property taxes that are too high for new homeowners and too low for longstanding homeowners * Need to raise taxes on wealthy property owners and use the revenue to build housing for all levels of income with a particular focus on extremely low income or no-income individuals **Unrepresentative housing engagement** * Opposition to housing at public meetings that is not representative of community sentiment * Lack of involvement of local neighborhoods and homeowners in decisions around proposed housing developments at BART station locations * Lack of specific information for residents that makes it difficult to participate in the process (e.g., how many new ADUs, how many single family-units are being built, what are affordable housing requirements, how many low-income housing units are required, etc.) **Local leadership** * Failure of City to understand core causes and solutions in considering the need for new housing * Several City Council members who are unsupportive of new housing developments * Overrepresentation of YIMBY's on the City Council **New Housing Development** **High land cost** * High land costs that make building new housing stock challenging **Private building on public land** * Allowing for-profit housing on public land * Public land that is used for other than public housing * Allowing market-rate housing on public land, including the BART stations **Vacant spaces** * Vacant and underutilized retail space on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings that could be used for housing * Current underutilization of closed schools and other vacant buildings * Thousands of unused vacant rental units, some of which are public nuisances, should be rehabilitated and made available for tenancy **Lack of parking in new developments** * Parking requirements that are too low for the parking need * Lack of parking requirements that makes existing residents more resistant to new housing **Housing Stock Imbalances** **Limited housing stock** * Not enough housing of all types including multi-unit and single-family homes * The scarcity of housing inventory, which leads to higher prices for land and homes * Market-rate rental market shift from family-owned to corporate assets, creating transient renters who are either unable to save for a house because of high rent or forced to move where they can afford a house **Oversaturation of market-rate housing** * Wrong housing balance, resulting in the displacement of those who can't afford market-rate housing * Need to limit the construction of market-rate housing, as it does not solve the housing shortages for those most needing housing **Insufficient amount of affordable and low-income housing** * Need for more affordable housing rather than primarily market-rate housing * Lack of affordability for many of the City's residents of housing defined as “affordable” * Lack of affordable housing explicitly for Berkeley residents or that gives priority to Berkeley families * Lack of deeply affordable housing and those below $50K household income **High Housing Costs and Displacement** **High cost of rentals** * New rental units that are not affordable to much of the community, including teachers, residents, or young people who have grown up in Berkeley * Lack of support for the working class, those making minimum wage, and the middle class **High cost of homeownership** * The high cost of homeownership, which prevents many residents from owning a home * Need increased resources and programs to support first-time homebuyers **Displacement** * Lack of solutions to prevent displacement due to the high cost of rentals and homeownership **Special Needs Housing** APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Lack of solutions for housing homeless and supportive housing * Homeless health and safety issues as a product of housing issues * Lack of strong overarching strategy to deal with the ongoing crisis * Need increased resources to help those struggling with mental illness and addiction, to prevent individuals living on the street Inadequate senior housing options * Lack of support for seniors who still have a mortgage and need help staying in their homes * Not enough downsizing options for seniors * Lack of affordable senior housing * Lack of senior housing in the hills Lack of sufficient housing for people with disabilities * Need to improve the availability of accessible and inclusively-designed housing * Implement recommendations from the Commission on Disability and involve the community in engagement on this topic Insufficient student housing and consideration for UC Berkeley students * Impacts of increased student enrollment at UC Berkeley on available housing * Involve students in housing discussions in Berkeley since they make up such a large portion of the residents * Prioritize making housing more accessible and affordable for students * Work with the co-ops to expand affordable housing options for students * Oppose the practice of UC Berkley ground leasing new private dorms **Related Challenges** Population growth * Unsustainable population growth * No clear long-term limit on population Lack of solutions to address the climate emergency * Need to create more policies and solutions for how housing can mitigate instead of add to the climate emergency * Plan for environmental hazards *Housing Types and Locations* The City of Berkeley must identify sites to accommodate over 9,000 new units through 2031. Survey respondents were asked to: *“Identify up to five neighborhoods where more new housing should be prioritized in that area.”* Participants could select up to five neighborhoods, and for each neighborhood, they were asked to select one or more housing types that are appropriate in that area. The preferred locations by housing type are shown in the bar charts below. Additional bar charts of preferred housing types by location are included in the appendix. Overall, respondents preferred greater density and varied housing types in all neighborhoods. Generally, respondents also indicated that: * All neighborhoods are appropriate for condos (multi-unit owned). * Permanent supportive housing (homeless, transitional) should be located in all neighborhoods. * Downtown is not suitable for 2-4 unit ‘plexes. * Apartments (multi-unit rental) should be prioritized in Downtown and Southside. * Berkeley Hills is not an appropriate location for senior housing and housing for people with disabilities. *WRITE-IN RESPONSES* Respondents were also asked to provide any other thoughts they may have about the location or type of housing in Berkeley. The main themes are summarized below. The complete list of responses is included in the Appendix. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 **Location-Focused Comments** **All neighborhoods** * New housing should be built in all neighborhoods across Berkeley. * All neighborhoods should have a balance of all types of housing. * Overarching principles of equity should be used in the geographic distribution of housing. * Senior housing, supportive housing, and housing for people with disabilities should not be segregated to particular areas but integrated and accessible across the city **Corridors** * Housing density should be concentrated along major corridors such as University Ave., San Pablo Ave., Shattuck Ave., and MLK Jr. Way. * Housing along corridors provides needed access to transportation, businesses, and amenities. * High-density housing should be in underutilized commercial zones where there is existing infrastructure and transportation as shown in the General Plan (Shattuck Ave., Adeline St., University Ave., San Pablo Ave.). **North Berkeley BART** * Build new housing at a scale comparable to the existing neighborhood. * Include commercial uses such as cafes as well as residential. * Preserve some parking spaces. * Do not build more than six stories. * Develop mixed-income housing. **Berkeley Marina** * Develop new housing in the Marina. **Downtown** * Build affordable senior housing, permanent supportive housing, and housing for people with disabilities to access existing resources and amenities. * Concentrate larger apartment buildings Downtown. * Reduce the negative impacts on existing communities by focusing new larger developments in neighborhoods designed for higher density, such as Downtown. **Berkeley Hills** * Build low-income and denser housing that has traditionally been absent from the Hills. * Build taller structures that are designed to utilize natural terrain to protect views/yards. * Provide new housing for students and for those who desire to bike from the Hills. * Do not build new housing in the Hills due to lack of public transportation, narrow roads, and threats from fire. * If ADU development is limited in the hills, then all expansion must be limited in the hills including any expansion within existing footprints * Buy the properties in the Hills, tear them down and re-wild the entire hills region and have it become a part of Tilden Park. **West Berkeley** * Do not locate more transitional or housing for the homeless in West Berkeley, which is already overburdened with this type. * Do not build new housing developments in West Berkeley, which already has seen sufficient new housing developments and multi-unit apartment buildings. **UC Berkeley Campus** * Build larger buildings (7 – 12+ stories) around campus. **Vacant units and land** * Build housing on existing vacant land. * Use eminent domain to convert abandoned or underused commercial property to affordable housing. * Develop a program to fast-track building on empty lots, such as for tiny homes, prefab housing, and storage container homes. * Prioritize filling existing vacant units; do more to encourage people to rent out the existing empty units. * Repurpose empty first-floor retail spaces into housing. 152 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Rehab vacant buildings for housing. * Develop in place of dilapidated or abandoned buildings currently along Shattuck Ave. and University Ave. Fire zones * Do not encourage housing in high-risk fire zones 2 and 3. Higher-income neighborhoods * Lower-income housing should be built in historically economically exclusive neighborhoods. * New housing should be concentrated in areas that have historically resisted new housing to help reduce economic and racial segregation. * Build a mix of housing types in wealthier neighborhoods, including multi-unit condos, multi-unit apartments, and permanent supportive housing. * Improve public transit in these areas to accommodate population growth from new housing. Transit-oriented development * Concentrate new multi-unit larger-scale development near public transportation including BART and bus lines. * Sites near public transit options should be prioritized to reduce car traffic, reliance on cars and serve those without a car. * Improve frequency and expand coverage of the public transportation network across the city, including bus routes and safe bike paths. Regionally * Do not encourage more housing within Berkeley but rely on other cities in the Bay with more open space. **Housing Types** Affordable housing * Recognize housing as a human right. * Ensure no one is priced out of living in the city. * Build permanently deeply affordable housing through regulations such as increased inclusionary housing requirements. * Create housing that is affordable to residents at all income levels. * Prioritize affordable housing in areas that have been traditionally underserved and redlined. * Distribute affordable housing evenly throughout neighborhoods. * Prioritize affordable housing in areas that have not historically had it. * Specifically focus on redressing inequitable decisions that have been made around housing in Berkeley in the past. Low-income housing * Prioritize building low-income housing. * Increase the number of very low-income units. * Ensure low-income housing is inclusive of families, people with disabilities, seniors, and other special needs groups. Workforce housing * Create workforce housing. * Prioritize housing for City staff and teachers. Senior housing * Do not segregate senior housing into specific areas. * Ensure necessary services are located near senior housing, including places to shop. * Build senior housing in areas close to public transportation and services. Housing for people with disabilities * Create new housing that is accessible and inclusively designed. * Be cognizant of all types of disabilities and how housing may need to reflect unique challenges. Supportive and transitional housing for homeless * Distribute supportive housing across the city; do not concentrate it in one area. * Homeless transitional housing should be owned and operated by the City. * Prioritize getting people off the streets and into appropriate supportive housing. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * Provide adequate social services to homeless individuals. * Consider how to mitigate any adverse effects of supportive housing on existing neighborhoods. ### UC Berkeley and student housing * Coordinate housing needs with UC Berkeley. * Ensure UC Berkeley builds more University-owned and managed housing to accommodate all students. * Create housing that is accessible and affordable to UC Berkeley students, which will also benefit other neighborhoods since students will be able to live closer to campus * Renters should be granted subsidies from UC Berkeley, since the abundance of students introduces so much competition for rental properties. ### Family housing * Ensure there is appropriate housing that fits the needs of families. * Preserve existing family housing. * Recognize there are sometimes difficulties with families living in housing with shared walls as children can be noisy and neighbors are often unsupportive toward families in multi-unit housing. ### Single-family housing * Do not build any new single-family. * Recognize single-family housing is essential as both an entry-level and family-friendly housing option. * Balance mix of single-family housing with multi-unit apartments. ### 2 – 4 unit ‘plexes * Build 2 – 4 unit ‘plexes everywhere. * Prioritize 2 – 4 unit ‘plexes in less dense neighborhoods. ### Multi-unit housing * Build multi-unit apartments and condos throughout Berkeley but prioritize locations close to public transportation. ### Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) * Encourage ADUs. * Give priority to ADUs with off-street parking. * ADUs are well suited for existing residential neighborhoods. * Streamline the process and reduce the cost to build multiple ADUs in single-family neighborhoods. ### Market-rate housing * The City should not support market-rate housing on public land. ### Luxury housing * Locate luxury housing by freeway onramps like developments on West University Ave. * Do not build luxury housing on publicly owned land such as BART stations. ### Cooperative housing * Create more mixed-income cooperative housing. * Build cooperative housing for teachers and first responders like St. Francis Sq co-op in San Francisco. ### Land trusts * Create land trusts as an alternative homeownership model. ## Environment and Climate ### Climate action * New development needs to take care to protect mature trees; planting saplings does nothing to significantly help remediate climate change or establish an urban forest. * Build new housing with strategies in mind to combat the climate emergency. * Build new housing that is environmentally sustainable and carbon neutral. ### Green space * Design new housing that has ample green space. * Center new housing around parks and plazas. * Encourage and plan for new green spaces accompanying new housing for health and sustainability benefits. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Do not build new housing in existing green or open spaces that currently serve the city. * Recognize the importance of backyards. ### Housing Design and Character #### Design * Require setbacks for both aesthetics and safety. * Build new housing that has unique aesthetic design over generic box-like structures. * Prioritize good design and balance it with the cost and time required to build housing. * Ensure the design of new housing does not produce shadows that limit solar options or block light in such a way that people cannot have gardens. #### Parking * Develop new housing, especially multi-unit, with off-street parking for all residents. * Reduce parking only in locations that are well served by transit. * Build multi-unit apartments close to transit without parking to help meet climate goals. * Rather than sacrifice parking spaces at BART, replace less-desirable buildings with new denser housing. #### Neighborhood context * Preserve existing neighborhoods. * Develop new housing that complements the existing neighborhood context and culture to encourage social cohesion. * Ensure policies are sensitive to the impact of new housing on established communities while making clear to residents of those areas what benefits new development will bring. * Do not be afraid of changing the “feel” of a neighborhood to create enough housing. ### Regulations and Planning #### Housing Element and required RHNA units * Housing Element plan must be realistic and credible; the plan must represent likely actual construction in the eight-year horizon. * Reexamine the 9,000-unit requirement, which is too high and unrealistic. * Include the hundreds of empty new apartments that no one either wants or cannot afford in the count. * Dedicate all 9,000 units to low-income, homeless, seniors, and people with disabilities. * Develop a sufficient long-term plan instead of a 9,000 unit push now which will result in high-density towers. #### Zoning * Upzone all neighborhoods to encourage new housing of all types everywhere. * Prioritize upzoning in low-density neighborhoods such as the Hills to allow more multi-story apartments. * Create more mixed-use zoning; separation of uses through zoning promotes higher car usage. ### City Systems #### Infrastructure * Ensure sufficient infrastructure to accommodate all current and future residents. * Mitigate effects of increased population on infrastructure systems including maintenance of roads, sewage system, water, gas pipes, utility lines, and off-grid power. #### Amenities and services * Ensure new housing has access to amenities. * Consider how the whole community functions and how services can be integrated. Figure F-20 City-wide Survey - Preferred Location by Housing Type # Preferred Location by Housing Type <
> <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> <
> 157 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> <
> 158 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-21** City-wide Survey Participation Demographics <
> <
> 159 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> <
> Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 160 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table S0101 <
> Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table B03002. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separately from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the Hispanic or Latinx racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table S1901 <
> Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table B18101 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F5.2 RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOURS ## OVERVIEW As part of the City’s Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards projects, two walking tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for residents to provide input on the development of housing options in Berkeley (see tour booklets on pages 48-61). Each tour included an associated survey that asked the following questions for each residential project highlighted on the tour: 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?; 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?; and 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? The surveys were open to the public from November 23, 2021 to January 31, 2022. This document provides summary data from the individual walking tours as well as highlights some key themes across both surveys. All open-ended responses received are included in the later portion of this document and organized by tour and stop number. ## DOWNTOWN BERKELEY TOUR The Downtown Berkeley Tour (map shown below) received a total of 23 survey responses with 74% ofrespondents completing the entire survey. The Downtowntour included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only projects. When asked what features made the project compatible with the surrounding area, the most common answers across all tour stops were: * Building height; * Massing; * Placement; * Lot coverage; and * Other features (See Table A) Figure F-22 Downtown Berkeley Walking Tour Pamphlet Cover & Map <
> Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category included: * Building facade and articulation (bays, recesses, and parapets) * Building materials and colors * Unique architectural elements (“Berkeley” style) * Location of parking * Windows When asked what other features would create more compatability, respondents most frequently answered with: * Other features; * Massing; and * Yard space (See Table B) City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category included: * Landscaping, greenery, and open space * Vehicular access and loading areas * Architectural details * Building materials and colors * Street trees and planters * Parks or other public spaces * Building orientation to the street Figure F-23 Responses to question "What features made the project compatible with the surrounding area?" (A) and "What other features would create more compatibility?" (B). <
> <
> 164 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # 1 2010 Milvia St. Stonefire <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Buffer | | Units | 98 (8 BMR) | | Year | 2017 | | Height | 8 stories, 89’6” max | | FAR | 6.13 | | Density | 188 units per acre | | Coverage | 71% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? <
> BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area # OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES DOWNTOWN BERKELEY ## 1. 2010 MILVIA ST. ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Overall, I find this a very attractive and well designed building and appropriately sited on a major downtown intersection. The use of bricks on the ground alongside the sidewalk add definition to the building space. Exterior details and construction materials are very pleasing (and appear to be high end...thus I understand this is one of the most expensive apartments in the city.) Very large terra cotta planters along the building and sidewalk soften the landscape but are unfortunately poorly maintained. It appears that there is a large and attractive patio on the grounds mostly invisible to the public but a very nice amenity. (It would have been helpful to have been able to inspect courtyards and roof gardens, which seem to be essential amenities in such a dense neighborhood.) Of course, I would have like to see more BMR units in this building, but overall it is very successful. * The building is really over bearing, the only thing positive about it is that is not a solid box building. * Building is ok for downtown area. I like that it isn't one solid endless facade, like the ugly UC building across University Ave. from this. * Steel material on the lower portions gives life to the surface, relating better to people and feeling more organic. * The use of bays on the facades and the roof caps visible from street level relate to Berkeley historically, though I would not say that all buildings should have them. I also appreciate the balconies on the second floor, which make the building a little more social, a little less anonymous, even if no one is actually sitting there. * The high tower on the corner is reminiscent of other Berkeley buildings * Open decks for public * None * Really tall, even for downtown. -Attractive architectural style, insets and false balconies (railings only a few inches in front of windows) create faced interest, -Teeny little bit of green (planters, street trees) - could be better! * Parking for all residents or a no-car requirement are desperately needed, as are increased parking for shoppers and movie/theatre goers and means to improve traffic conditions. * Ground floor amenities such as retail and childcare. Lighting that illuminates the sidewalk at night. street trees. * Nice building, diversity of textures, somewhat activated ground floor (could be better), good scale for the location. * I am at this corner all the time. 165 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * I wish all buildings would have some kind of landscaping or planters along the sidewalks but if they are not maintained they will create an eyesore. * Two less floors would make the feel of the building pleasant and not so over bearing. We expect in the future to have many more people in Berkeley. We need to be thinking of wide sidewalks and setbacks that put open space in front between building edge and sidewalk. * Materials: Corten steel is heavy for the character of the neighborhood and not aging well/difficult to clean grafitti * Empty storefronts totally suck for pedestrian experience. If it is going to be a storefront mashed entirely up to the sidewalk, it shouldn’t be empty for more than three or four months. This shouldn’t be allowed. * Space for commons, public gathering, greenspace. These buildings are massive and hard. Not much that lends to a sense of a human scale. * 1. Massing is overly blocky, especially given the upper floor materials. 2. More creative ground floor retail frontage. * While the building is better than some, it is bulky and out of scale with its neighbors. * Make these buildings taller!! * Grocery stores are needed in new high density housing areas. Mass transit options must be improved and costs lowered for in town use of mass transit. * More height and more units, especially close to public transportation. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * An example of a commercial/residential intersection that has no aesthetic or softening features is at Dwight Way and MLK. Each building is fully built out without only a few cracks in the sidewalk where green (weeds) grow. I hope we will not repeat that mistake! * Rooftops covered with solar would be a common good. Everyone would be better off if rooftops were prohibited from being credited as open space and that money went to expanding and maintaining city parks instead. * I understand the height and size for the district, but the lots next door have some of the nicest outdoor seating/garden space in most of downtown. If all of downtown gets this tall and massive, then these few outdoor patio spaces will become increasingly needed. The tall looming buildings only work because they are next to smaller low rise buildings which allow passage of light to the street. Milvia is a very tiny street for such a large building. I hope some consideration for maintaining access to open sunny spaces can be made, rather than allowing absolutely all lots to be built to this size. Publicly accessible ROOFDECKS would help: could allow for taller build up everywhere, but also allow public access to sunlight, sky, and green spaces downtown. * Given the increase in density, it is essential that construction of hardscape also include greenspace and commons, places for people to recreate and socialize. * The retail space should be used for an indoor community area because it’s constantly empty. * Additional height and density in the this building would better suit the area. This area already contains many high rise apartment structures, and will be best aided by the addition of new units, regardless of concerns about sight lines or massing mismatch. * This is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. * This building is better than many but overall architecturally undistinguished and out of scale * Too high and wrong design or style. * Just having a railing rather than real balcony seems kind of disappointing though I realize it is a safety measure the sliding door/windows * As a 20+ year Berkeley single family home owner, I see many of these housing plans as a danger to the quality of living in the city. Homeowners need protections against neighborhood construction projects that add noise (how about limiting construction noise hours), too few parking places for new multifamily dwellings, and multistory (OVER 3 stories) for traditional 166 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT neighborhoods ## 2. 1885 UNIVERSITY AVENUE <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-1 Gen. Commercial | | Units | 148 (22 BMR) | | Year | 2010 | | Height | 5 stories, 54' | | FAR | 3.3 | | Density | 148 units per acre | | Coverage | 82% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Placement ☐ Height ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Yard Space ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 50 ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This building incorporates many of the materials and details of older buildings in the downtown area and in * Berkeley in general. This helps to create the impression that it is a series of buildings (because of the vertical “setbacks” along MLK and Berkeley Way. Trader Joe’s and the Greek Coffee Shop make it feel well used and vibrant. * Coming up University I could see that there is a roof terrace but I don’t know if there is any landscaped ground space. Both of those features seem important in very large buildings. * The building itself works and Trader Joes on the first floor is a welcome asset to the neighborhood not just the people in the building. TJ was a terrific part of the plan and since TJ has great staffing the TJ parking lot also works. * Great that it has some step back on the Berkeley Way side, but I still think it looms too much over the small house on that side of the building. I think this height is better than the Stonefire on Milvia. -I like the breaking up of the mass into smaller perceived units, rather than a single mass on the whole block. Pretending to be several smaller buildings works on the space. I like the courtyard-like insets away from the street on MLK and University sides. * Its close to public transportation, local community colleges, on top of a grocery store. * 1. Ground floor texture is good. 2. Recesses in the massing improves proportions. * The division of this building into distinct blocks (each 5 window bays wide on the University side) moderates the size. Funny how when this building went up, 5 stories seemed tall. Now it seems short. The ground floor is fairly open, visually, and I appreciate the generous covered retail entrance at the corner. The residential entrance is more subtle, which is appropriate. * The architecture is comparable with the Berkeley style * Don't create traffic and parking nightmares! * Ground floor amenities such as retail and childcare. elimination of setbacks (i.e. building close to the sidewalk) is ideal as it makes for a better pedestrian experience and more efficient use of lot space. * Great building. Wonderful color, amazing work with the tile and terra cotta insets. I don't generally favor overtly traditionalist styles, but this is very well executed, and I imagine many in Berkeley think it’s attractive. Ground floor activation is not great, but it’s wonderful having a grocery store here (which I frequent), and I understand that a grocery store does not need many entrances. 167 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Every time I go to Trader Joes I se people calling and waiting for Uber/Lyft. Part of the design for all large multiunit buildings needs to include a loading zone specifically for people pick up and drop off and deliveries. * Architectural style too traditional for a new building * Great that it has some step back on the Berkeley Way side, but I still think it looms too much over the small house on that side of the building. -I totally can’t tell what outdoor spaces residents have, but I assume some nice roof garden/terrace something? -Driveway cut on University is a bit unfortunate, but I like that the heavily trafficked TJ’s parking lot has the cul-de-sac on Berkeley Way where its ok for there to occasionally be a mess of cars because it doesn’t have thru-traffic to block; it would be much worse to always plug up University Ave. w/ a line of cars trying to get into TJ’s. * More green planting. * Grocery functions on University create a dead zone that’s often too busy for pedestrians to feel safe/comfortable. * Additional stories on the University side would increase compatibility with the future of Berkeley. Let’s look ahead! * Right style for area and community. Just too high. * Zero green, except for street trees. * Parking, noise and traffic must be addressed. * More height and density, especially close to public transportation. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Same for rooftop deck as for building 1. * Again, I think this is ok because the surrounding buildings on commercial lots are low. That maintains light down on the street. Once all buildings on all sides are built up, it will feel much darker. Its great to fit a whole grocery store with parking on the same lot as housing. I hope other lots that are largely surface parking, weithether grocery or CVS...etc. can add housing to the lot AND keep grocery/drug store w/ parking....etc. Best of both worlds. * There needs to be an increased in the requirement of providing open space and green space when constructing for greater density. * Happy to have a grocery store function here, despite the problems of how loading were dealt with. * I live in the adjacent neighborhood. It’s remarkable how little impact this project has had on traffic. It’s really negligible. * This is a gorgeous building and its mixed use nature fits well into the commercial space along University. The neighborhood would be better served however by greater density on the lot, particularly since this is a desired area to live in. * Out of all newer buildings this is the best style to fit its existing community. * Hate the mustard color (but that’s a personal opinion). Over-decorated with elaborate mosaics, sculptures and roof railing. (Perhaps an attempt at styling? Looking vintage? Mostly just looks bad.) * Setbacks on Berkeley Way side respect neighborhood. I prever the architecture on the north section (shingle style). The south section colors are jarring and the decorative elements are too repetitive and need more variety in design. Still this is a fantastic improvement over the strip mall fronted by parking lot that was there before. * The City must show respect for longtime home owners’ needs for quality of life. I don’t see plans for infrastructure improvements that will support greater housing and people density. Already the city doesn’t keep streets paved regularly, has inadequate parking, not enough services for seniors and the mentally ill, too many clogged traffic corridors, too many burglaries and safety risks, trash lying everywhere, filthy sidewalks in shoppi g areas, and rising noise and pollution levels. These problems need solutions and fixes BEFORE thousands of dwellings are built. * I would love for more buildings of this scale to be constructed in my neighborhood, near Arch and Cedar. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### 3 1805 University Ave. <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-1 Gen. Commercial | | Units | 29 | | Year | 1998 | | Height | 4 stories, 50’ | | FAR | 2.16 | | Density | 102 units per acre | | Coverage | 97% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Placement ☐ Height ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Yard Space ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area ### 3. 1805 UNIVERSITY AVENUE #### Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * The building is okay it is just boring beige * Height should be taller in this location, particularly along University. Taller building could then step back to the north abutting adjacent residential properties * I like that the storefronts have small local businesses. -Very compatible/human scale size for neighborhood. -Great step down along Grant. -I like that driveway cut is not on the main business street * Lot coverage is appropriate on University. * There isn't anything about the massing or lot coverage that makes this building particularly compatible or incompatible. It's just an ugly building, but at least it's housing. * In and out facade, ground floor stone tiles, irregular roof line, all add interest. Simple but attractive architectural style and tan color. * Parking! * This building is great! I don't really have a preference for the varied roof line, but I am happy to see buildings of this size and larger in berkeley.s. 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other) * Overall, this is a functional building and appropriate for University Ave. I like the varying heights of the “building modules” but would have liked to see some improvement in the stepbacks. * Give the building some design variation in color to make it more interesting. It is just bland. Variation in the color of the stucco shouldn't break the budget. * The overhangs over the sidewalk aren't very nice to be under, but is better than the Jones building on San Pablo because it gets so much southern sunlight, and this has a much more reasonable height than Jones. * While fine for the spot this is an ugly building. * This building does not have any tree wells, or requirements for trees on the sidewalk. * It would be nice for the residents facing University Ave to be able to have a balconies or terrace. * 1. Massing on University should be taller. 2. Building seems heavy, creating shadows on the storefronts through it's inept massing. * I don't mean to be flip, but a better architect would have helped. Street trees to hide the ugly thing? * The architectural style is both undistinguished and incompatible * •Zero green, not even a street tree * Parking * This is the worst of the lot. The massing/shapes are very blocky and obtrusive. University is a tough location. This would be better with more color/texture on the upper floors, and better coordination between ground floor and upper floors. For the University St. location, I think even more scale might fit better, perhaps with a courtyard to break up the facade. I support scale, but I can imagine many people disliking this implementation. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * This corner has a nice wide sidewalk and the corner Talavera shop has some semi bench like stones sticking out at an angle, sometimes used by passengers waiting for their busses at that corner. Perhaps slight tonal color differences in the verical modules would have made the building look softer and more residential. * While fine for the spot this is an ugly building. * Trees need to be an essential component of urban planning. They cool the city, reduce somewhat greenhouse gas accumulations, visually soften the hardscape, and provide habitat. Cities should not be ghettos for humans only and rats * Close to local public transportation and Trader Joe's a block away. * The building is like an initial massing sketch that got built, with no thought about materials, textures, interest, or hierarchy. * Down town Berkeley is in desperate need of additional housing, and this stretch of University would benefit from a 5x1 rather than just this 3x1. Additionally, the City of Berkeley is not currently hurting for open retail space and this neighborhood would be bettered by converting often empty commercial space into residential units. * Really ugly * This building is a blight * Just having a railing rather than real balcony seems kind of disappointing though I realize it is a safety measure the sliding door/windows * More busses and more parking are needed. **4. 1807 ADDISON STREET** *Comments* 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features* # 4 1807 Addison St. <
> | RESIDENTIAL 2-4 | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-2 Restricted 2-Family | | Units | 4 | | Year | 1978 | | Height | 2 stories, 19’ | | FAR | 0.56 | | Density | 25 units per acre | | Coverage | 33% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? * [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] Other. Please Specify ___________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? * [ ] Massing * [ ] Height * [ ] Balconies/Terraces * [ ] Lot Coverage * [ ] Stepbacks * [ ] Placement * [ ] Yard Space * [ ] Other. Please Specify ___________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? ( ) BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area *that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Even though this building is basically a box it is very pleasant and the setback from the street is exceptionally nice. * -Very discreet from the street. It has a lot of greenery in front, so it doesn't feel as much as an apartment. -I like that it's parking is hidden behind plants, unlike the building next door -Good that it only has one small driveway cut across the sidewalk. * The building is perfect for the neighborhood. The building is a good distance from the sidewalk leaving open space which is being used as a parking lot at this moment. * Front yard. * There isn't much to say about this one. It's a heavily landscaped one-story building. Does **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT anyone even notice it when walking by? It is 100% benign. Is that good? More housing would be better, and ‘more compatible’ with the needs of Berkeley. * -low second story increases compatibility with residential neighborhood. -set back from sidewalk to create a parking area. -small amount green detail in front of ‘front’ wall, and tree. Building turned sideways on lot so only see blank side wall front street (mitigated by tree and ivy). Attractive facade but not seen from street. * Parking * The greenery is nice 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * There are few apartments in the complex. The entire front of the property is taken up by an awkward and unattractive parking lot. The yard space is divided so that each tenant has only a tiny outdoor space. Seems better to create a more pleasant communal sort of area. Building itself has absolutely no character. It looks like a shoebox. However, perhaps the tenants have more privacy being set back from the street. * For buildings in the future using permeable paving in the parking lot and native plants as the greenery would be beneficial to the environment and support local ecosystems. * Lacks fenestration, orientation or entrances facing the public street. Setback too deep. Too many curb cuts, poor choice of drive aisle fronting the structure * Parking in front has nice screening from the street. The building is unattractive. There are no architectural details and no yard space. * Any attempt whatsoever to fit with the neighborhood stylistically, and not have parking exposed in front. * It would be nice if this building said ‘hello’ to the sidewalk in any way. * Window placement and over all design could be more attractive * Side-facing facade is very close to building next door. * Parking area a minus and should have been done differently * Parking * The front setback creates a lot of wasted space given that we are experiencing a housing crisis. I would love for sites like this to have less restrictive rules, so that interested developers have the opportunity to provide multiple units on one lot, and use more of the front yard space for housing (if the property owner is interested in doing so, of course!) * This is not great. Berkeley has many of these long, motel-style apartment buildings, and they provide much needed affordable housing. They also provide density with low height (I support height, but many don’t). But this implementation is bad - completely cut off from the street, no engagement with the neighborhood. The same scale buildings just down the street (1811, 1815, 1819) are all much better. None of them are exactly beautiful, but they are more visually and functionally generous to the street and to their occupants. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Having actually walked by this property, the 2 large trees on the sidewalk median are very helpful in making this property compatible and less intrusive. * I would like to see the building possibly add one more floor to the top and use more space in front as a yard. * Horrid - a building of this size/massing/placement could work in a lower-density residential neighborhood if it was detailed, articulated, and designed well. This survey should address design issues, not just massing/placement. This is an eyesore form the street and from neighboring properties, which is 80-90% of its problem. * This close to Berkeley’s urban core, such a diminutive building sticks out horribly. The neighborhood character would be improved by construction of a taller, denser structure without off street parking. * The poor building design is compounded by the building set back behind a parking area, common in these 1960s-70s designs. Is is not at all in sympathy with the neighborhood and no windows facing the street reduce street safety. * Argh. Where’s the infrastructure to support new housing? 171 ### 5. 2124 MCKINLEY AVE. #### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This older building is really quite sweet. * It has fun architectural elements, so even though it feels pretty close to sidewalk, it is still a decent scale to walk by, and not oppressive. * Very nice bay windows. The facade has nice features. * I appreciate that the parkings is in the back, and that the trash/recycling cans are not stored right up front. * Surface articulation (bays, recesses, and parapet detail) and surface interest (texture, window divisions, stucco * bands, panels). These are what make the three tall stories more acceptable for a single family residential neighborhood. * Bays, arches and cornice bands are classic Berkeley elements...but should you mandate them on new buildings? I do think cornice bands helped the Trader Joe’s building, and yet I would not mandate them. Perhaps there could be a list of features, and the requirement could be to provide at least one element of relief to flat façades, such as bays, cornice bands, OR visible roof treatments. * While the building crowds the neighbors it is a traditional Berkeley multi unit building that fits into the overall fabric of the City. * Attractive, old style design (1929 building). In and out movement of facade and elaborate entry adds to interest. * These represent a good height and look for residential neighborhoods. * This building is great. I love that it has 18 units but has bay windows and other features that signify classic bay area housing styles. * Great old Berkeley building. This structure would be appropriate on ANY street in Berkeley. I would welcome it next to or across from my own house. It’s not any taller than many of the larger peak roofed houses all over Berkeley, *** #### 5 2124 McKinley Ave. | RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-2 Restricted 2-Family | | Units | 18 | | Year | 1929 | | Height | 3 stories | | FAR | 1.29 | | Density | 84 units per acre | | Coverage | 51% | <
> 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? * [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? * [ ] Massing * [ ] Lot Coverage * [ ] Placement * [ ] Height * [ ] Stepbacks * [ ] Yard Space * [ ] Balconies/Terraces * [ ] Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area *** and provides much more housing, with a very beautiful and diverse facade. This is exactly the kind of building I have long imagined I might retire to, provided it has an elevator (I assume it doesn’t, but a newer building of similar design might) 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Driveway and parking area pure asphalt with no softening features. There is a bit of landscaping in the front which I favor but, like many other buildings, both single family and multunit, it is not well kept up. * The building looks like it could some love like new paint otherwise no criticism. It is a good fit in the neighborhood. * I can’t tell if it has any yard space for residents? -Given that it is on a back/side street, not a business street like APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Shattuck or University, I think it should have at least some parts of the street facade set back from the sidewalk a little bit more. The residential area should have more green spaces. * While the tallest building on the block it has some very nice architectural features. It is massive on the lot. It is an older building with some charm. * A little more landscaping in the front * The blank side facades are the most problematic aspect, not the actual height. If the building was set back form the side property lines with a narrow yard, shadows would be lessened, and that as well as windows and articulation would remediate the oppressive side walls. * Entire lot covered (building is very deep with parking in rear), leaving almost no space for plantings. More could be grown in available side space. -Tall for residential neighborhood. (How did it get built in an R2 zone?) * Just a few feet farther back from street would have been better for neighborhood compatibility. THe lack of winows on much of the north and south sides is also a minus. * Parking is needed 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Since this bldg. was built in 1929 it is very compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and has an attractive design and aesthetic (though it appears to be a bit neglected.) I don’t expect future construction in the 21st C. to be inspired by this building but I have noted on other properties, I like buildings to reflect something of the old character of Berkeley Having said that, I love the new parking structure between Center and Addison. It really makes the streets come alive and this is the best example of converting a parking giant to something fun! * Good example of multifamily that integrates well with single-family and duplexes on a residential side street. Need to align incentives for this time of small infill--I'm not sure it pencils for most developers. * The building doesn't really fit the aesthetic of the neighborhood and it looks out of place. The building is surrounded by single family homes or other apartments with a lot less units. * The new standards need to address ALL sides of new buildings and their impact. * While the building crowds the neighbors it is a traditional Berkeley multi unit building that fits into the overall fabric of the City. Much better than the new multi-family buildings being built now * Restore * The architecture is not great but much more pleasant than stops 3 and 4. * Will the city insure that these multifamily units willbe be maintained? There are many rundown multifamily buildings in Berkeley. 6. 1950 ADDISON ST. Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Because this building is on a narrow street with other large multi unit apts. and retail at ground level, I find it's use of glass and steel appropriate and adds light and movement. * I guess its good that they put bare minimum effort to not have an entirely flat facade, with the afterthought decorations on the facade, but it really feels like a half-finished afterthought to disguise its uncreative blockiness -I guess the step-down on the west is good. * Theres a lot of flat surface, but an overall idea of articulation makes the building more interesting. For this street in downtown the density and height are welcome. * This fits in on this rather non-descript block of Addison. It's too bad the façade elements don't do anything. They don't provide shade. They aren't balconies. They provide a little relief, I guess. This building passes, but doesn't contribute, in my opinion. * Moderne chic glass and silver metal facade is attractive * Parking needed. * Modern design! Very forward-looking which is great * I imagine this building is controversial, but I # 6 1950 Addison St. <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Buffer | | Units | 107 (4 BMR) | | Year | 2020 | | Height | 7 stories, 74’11” | | FAR | 5.06 | | Density | 227 units per acre | | Coverage | 97% | **1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?** ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ **2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?** ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ **3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** <
> BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 53 support it. It's the right scale for the location right downtown, and the facade has the advantage of being coherent, even if it's probably too corporate for most peoples' taste. I wish the ground floor engaged with the street more - it has lots of windows which is good, but no retail or other public usage. *2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * The Placement of the building is OK but it would have worked much better, I think, if the ground floor (or maybe first two floors could have been recessed to provide more openess on the ground. (I don't know the mechanics of that suggestion but there cetainly are buildings designed that way. Yard space isn't too critical at this address because the back side of the building faces on Center St. right across the street from MLK Park. We noted that there appears to be a large terrace on the roof which is always a great idea, in my view. * One less story would make this more pleasant on this narrow city street. The horizontal bars/metal banners don't add anything to the design and make it look like an office. The glass is too reflective and really shouldn't be used. Bird safe glass needs to be required. * Public art/mural on blank ground-floor wall * Can't tell if there is any roof deck yard space type areas. -This type of reflective windows is prone to bird-strike death. I wish Berkeley would adopt an objective standard recommended by Audubon Society to reduce harm to bird populations by mandating measures to reduce/ prevent bird strikes on windows. -I put it in the positive features as well, but this building was obviously designed as a giant block, then had some superfluous bars hung on the front to give bare minimum interest to the front. Its better than nothing, but still really ugly. All I can say is that it's super fortunate that this building is on a smaller back street that gets less traffic and use because it would be an embarrassment on a major street like Shattuck or University. I don't hate contemporary design when its actually nice DESIGN, but this just screams low-effort. * Pretty small sidewalk median strips. Even with the 4 trees planted, the stingy median strips means that these trees will be stressed, and have difficulty becoming health mature trees. * More balconies would make this look less like a commercial building ad more like a place that people who need light and air would live. * At least there is one bay. * Just awful * Wrong style * Parking and traffic are already a problem in this area. *3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * I've always enjoyed seeing the huge signs painted on the back of the building which can be seen from the park, with positive, upbeat messages and bright colors. I would love to see more artwork on the exterior of new buildings. * It is essential that as we increase density, we 174 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * also provide for appropriate, commensurate green space. * The building is beautiful and a great use of the building. It includes a gym for tenants and a parking garage. * On the commercial streets of downtown, even another two stories, if set back a bit, would be welcome. The way the ground floor addresses people on the street (coldly) is a big missed opportunity. * What’s going on with the ground floor? Is that supposed to be retail? That isn’t likely to work. The block is very quiet, totally unlikely to be competitive with other more active blocks or online shopping. Let’s be realistic so that we don’t have empty storefronts. * Really ugly. This is a bad design and not compostible. * This is a horrible incomparable design that makes people feel like widgets * Apartment should keep with the same style of area. * As with all the large, downtown apartment buildings on this walking tour, it is massive with no setback from the sidewalk and minimal plantings. Use this answer for all the following buildings.... * The balconies are interesting but I wonder how functional they are. The architecture is tolerable and I like the window design and the large area of the windows that bring in light (especially since they are on the north side) * How about making this park safe and attractive for families? It’s a filthy bum zone now. * Without giving too much leeway to really dramatic “starkitects,” I would love for zoning rules to allow for integrating new architecture and design styles into existing streets. Not every building has to look the same in order for a neighborhood to look and feel cohesive. Progress is good. :) **7. 1935 ADDISON STREET** Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * The use of color makes this building more interesting. Six stories is a height that works. * I like that the full height is not totally visible on the front facade. -I like that it manages to not totally overshadow the little restaurant courtyard behind it. -Broken up facade is good, though dull. -Bay windows look like they would give the residents nicer interior light. * 1. Ground floor articulation and texture make a difference. 2. Upper floor window detail reduces the apparent scale of the building, creating a more human scale that’s easier to mentally project human life into. * Bays * The varied facade is good and makes it appear 7 1935 Addison St. | Addison Arts --- | --- <
> | | **MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+** | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Buffer | | Units | 69 (7 BMR) | | Year | 2016 | | Height | 6 stories, 60' | | FAR | 3.46 | | Density | 207 units per acre | | Coverage | 97% 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? □ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form □ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) □ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk □ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet □ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings □ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas □ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents □ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? □ Massing □ Height □ Balconies/Terraces □ Lot Coverage □ Stepbacks □ Placement □ Yard Space □ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 smaller than it really is * Attractive paint job, interesting in and out facade and grillwork around roof. * What I see herearw more housing without parking or grocery shops. * Well done. Traditionally-inspired design, decent coloring (could be a bit more muted, to better replicate the copper cladding it's emulating), good variation in the massing. Masonry/tile on the ground floor is always an easy and popular choice, and lots of good retail space too. Would even say that the various setbacks and forms do not need to be so extreme, if that would help with costs. 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Just as mentioned previously, we should be thinking of wide sidewalks for the future. * Feels tall for the area, looming over media building. -Overhanging the sidewalk feels way more intrusive on this little street compared to the one on University at Grant, which was ok because its a wide street with lots of sunlight. This one here is just looming, dark, and unfriendly. * Planting, integrated or in large pots, would soften the streetscape. Even a few would create a sense of a street that's occupied, rather than barren. The 2010 Milvia St. pots are effective this way. * Color * There is not a decent public park in this area. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * I like the way the facade is cut up with the two color schemes making it look like a series of smaller buildings. * Also like that the ground level is distinct from the upper floors; more wood and recessed entrances. It seemed appropriate for its location along with the new Addison Apts. across the street. * This street feels really small for such tall buildings on both sides of the street. The pedestrian experience feels like a cold dark tunnel. If it weren't for the neighboring smaller buildings, this street would be lousy, especially with no set-backs from the sidewalk from this and the one across the street. If there is some way to regulate that specific combinations of buildings on a street need to leave some kind of access to green/sky/sunlight in combination with each other. I realize it would be nearly impossible to regulate, but sandwiching these tall buildings all along both sides of a narrow street, with protruding facades overhanging sidewalks both sides of street, will be incredibly hostile and uninviting to pedestrians. Maybe have a bit of courtyardlike setback on street facing facade? * This is just an ugly building. Not much of an aesthetic or design. The 2 tone colors are not attractive. Uglifies our city. * Although it's not unusual or terribly creative, the building creates solid downtown infill. * The colors are ghastly, but that does not mean that I would support the regulation of color in Berkeley. Who is the arbiter of taste? * Ugly and not compatible. * This is somewhat better than average * Apartments are the wrong style. Their too high * See #6 * There is a nice rhythm on the facade with the window bays. Too bad that only the top floor has decks. I guess the lack of windows on the front part of west and east sides is due to concern about future buildings being placed there. * Are you building tomorrow's Tenderloin/ ghettos? Who's going to enforce maintenance and safety? APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # 8 2055 Center St. Berkeley Central Apartments | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Core | | Units | 143 (23 BMR) | | Year | 2012 | | Height | 10 stories | | FAR | 7.56 | | Density | 277 units per acre | | Coverage | 96% | <
> 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? □ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form □ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) □ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk □ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet □ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings □ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas □ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents □ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? □ Massing □ Lot Coverage □ Placement □ Height □ Stepbacks □ Yard Space □ Balconies/Terraces □ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 51 ## 8. 2055 CENTER STREET ### Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * We thought the parking lot next door was way more attractive than the building and gave it a B- * I like that it doesn’t overhang the sidewalk -I like that the storefronts aren’t empty -It managed to break up front massing/facade without just looking cheap like the other one down Addison; and it managed to do it without looking like faux 1890-1910 architecture. * 1. Feels like a downtown building. 2. Balconies (just barely) make it feel residential rather than like a modern riff on old art deco office buildings. * Balconies give facade some interest. * No features make it attractive or complementary. * I appreciate that parking is somewhat hidden, but would love to see less space devoted to off-street parking for such a centrally located building.. 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other) * Why is this building always advertising for tenants. What is wrong with the units. * More color. A bit drab given the height and repetition of stories * Still concerned with bird strike window design. -Could still maybe use a bit more step back from street, to make it feel less dark, and get a bit more sky access * Needs more green space out front. The 3 trees planted - the one in the middle already looks deformed. Why pretend or just go through the motions. There needs to be sufficient care and space for trees really to grow rather than just die or become stunted half broken things. Awful. * Articulation of the ground floor surface that pedestrians experience would help mold the streetscape more interestingly. * These balconies fail to contribute to the aesthetics. They add no life, no welcome, no warmth because they are dark, flat, and deeply recessed. And is that more ground floor retail? Are offices at least allowed? That would be more promising. Anything is better than chronic vacancy. * Massive, fills lot, no set back from sidewalk, 3 skinny street trees, otherwise no green - similar to other downtown apartment buildings. A blocky behemoth. * Essentially you’re making downtown inaccessible for shoppers and theatre/movie goers. * This is mediocre. Size and massing is all good, and perfectly appropriate for the location. Facade is poor. The metal facade elements are good - clean, coherent, a few art deco nods towards the roof. The tile/masonry on ground floor and above look cheap - like bargain basement tile and cinderblock, even though I’m sure it was much more expensive. The balconies are also 177 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 terrible - uninhabited, uninhabitable, and ugly to look at - they give the whole building a cheap, uncaring feel. Better to not have balconies than to have these. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * This was my least favorite building; cold, uninteresting design, not distinctive in any way. Looks more like an office building than a place where people live. On the other hand, the parking garage next door is one of my favorite structures in Berkeley. I never thought you could make a massive parking lot look beautiful and fun to look at both day and night * Please adopt an objective standard recommended by Audobon Society to reduce harm to bird populations by mandating measures to reduce/ prevent bird strikes on windows * Downtown buildings are not just their surfaces, bulk, and materials. They sculpt the sidewalk space which has a tremendous effect on pedestrians' experiences of the city. Had this building undulated in and out at the street level, even slightly, imagine the difference in the experience of walking down the street, in comparison with the straight shot of parallel lines of building, curb, and parked cars. It's almost more of a car-speedoriented design vs. a human-speed one. Even 12” to 18” of undulation can create a better rhythm for people. * There is nothing to recommend this building; the balconies are too dark to be useful and so look like suicide platforms * See #6 * Nice that many units have “balconies” but the inset balconies/terraces are somehow less attractive than the ones that are not inset. They give a look look to the building. * Who’d want to live there? Yuck. **9. 2120 ALLSTON WAY** **Comments** 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * The sculptures on the front of the building 9 2120 Allston Way | Gaia Apartments :---|:--- | **MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+** | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Core | | Units | 91 | | Year | 2001 | | Height | 10 stories | | FAR | 5.52 | | Density | 267 units per acre | | Coverage | 97% | <
> 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify ________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area are really attractive, but they get lost in the background. * I love the tile at street level: much better pedestrian experience from sidewalk. Also love integration of arches. -I like the facade/massing STEPS BACK from sidewalk slightly; much better than the buildings which have overhangs over sidewalk. -looks like nice roof terraces. -I think I like this building the most out of the ones on the tour. Even though it is very large, it has lots of step backs on top. Lots of windows and roof terraces and looks like a nice place to be inside, as well as pleasant from the sidewalk. * I know there was controversy when this building was approved but of all the buildings seen so far, this building is the least intrusive, maybe because of the architecture on the ground floor, that makes the face of the building more interesting, and the set-back right above the middle. 178 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * 1. I’m not a big fan of the fake historicism, but the level of detail at the sidewalk does feel like Berkeley. 2. Creating two tower elements on the street facade helps the pedestrian experience by emphasizing vertical lines rather than unrelenting horizontal lines - especially on such a big building. * Tower element, window divisions, cornice bands, and arches are all very Berkeley. The landscaped terraces are wonderful. * The design is much more compatible with Berkeley design than the more modern buildings * Huge, artsy, new building. Attractive ground floor wrought iron, tile, sculpture. Central facade setback creates interest. * Such congested living spaces are not good for humans. * Wonderful. A testament to what assertive and coherent design can do. So much density, and still so welcoming and humane to passers-by.. 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * I was in this building years ago and if I remember correctly there is a dreary dark courtyard in the center which wasn’t inviting. * I am concerned that the residents might soon have a view of the side of a building on Shattuck and Oxford faces of the building. Its a nice number of windows now, but how much setback would a new tall building put up on the lots immediately next door to this? Would those windows get any natural light anymore? * More greenery and public space. * The building could have been conceived as multiple buildings to break up the overall feeling of a large mass * 2 trees in front, otherwise zero green * This looks like an area to avoid. I guess the residents will shop nearby, but someone who doesn’t live there will find it inaccessible and uninviting. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * This is an iconic building; a good melding of old and new and fits well with the style of Berkeley. I had the opportunity to attend an event on the roof terrace of this building, where the view was stunning looking both east and west. I like the treatment of the ground floor and archways which separates commercial from living units. * Arches are nice element. Not everything needs to be compatibility with whatever happens to be next door * See #6. * The step back helps but I still wonder if the height isn’t just a bit much for such a narrow street. I do like the architecture. * I love the tile and setbacks, but I don’t think they should necessarily be required for every building. Straight roof lines and rectangular buildings are great too. 10. 2119 UNIVERSITY AVENUE *Comments* 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * We liked this building, in fact we liked what was being done with the entire site, but the red tiles on the corner building don’t work. The variations in style, structure, color when viewed with the entirety of the block all worked together. We felt there was real care in design. * Looks decently set back on sides, so that even with new buildings next to it, its residents will still have a bit of natural light. I like the scale of this building, and that it manages to have a lot of architectural mix going on in such a small space * This is a funny building, right where shattuck comes into University. For so long it looked empty and not well used. * The capped tower element, visible roof overhangs, arched window recesses and ground floor are all very Berkeley, and I like them. But could you mandate these without winding up with a kitsch town? I don’t think so. * Attractive style and colors make it look sort of old tho it's a new building. Inset balconies add interest to the facade. * Not as unattractive as other units shown in this survey. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 10 2119 University Ave. Bachenheimer Apartments <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Outer | | Units | 44 (9 BMR) | | Year | 2004 | | Height | 6 stories | | FAR | 3.03 | | Density | 145 units per acre | | Coverage | 97% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? * [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to compatibility? * [ ] Massing * [ ] Height * [ ] Balconies/Terraces * [ ] Lot Coverage * [ ] Stepbacks * [ ] Placement * [ ] Yard Space * [ ] Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 49 * Beautiful first floor retail space * Very nice. New buildings in Berkeley should not be forced to copy traditional design elements, but it’s a fine approach and can be done very well, as here. The tower element is refreshing, and of course the windows are excellent. It references its neighbors, and fits in perfectly. 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other) * I was in this building years ago and if I remember We really liked how the whole block is coming together. * What is the purpose of the side yards? Building should be taller in this location * Sad empty storefronts!! 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * This building, like 2120 Allston (#9) is distinctive and has all the elements of good design that 2120 Allston has. Also restful colors, melds the past and the present and has very nice ground level elements and arches which distinguish it from the upper residential levels. Good ratio of market rate and BMR. * Affectatious. * This is one of my favorite new buildings * Building is too high * See #6 * I still think this is the most distinctive and attractive building constructed downtown in the last 20 years. * This style is more Berkeley-like and attractive. ## 11. 2101 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ### Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * We liked this whole complex. * Tower element, visible roof overhangs, cornice bands, arched elements are all very Berkeley. I appreciate the preservation of the ground floor facade. Others may disagree, but that facade has been a navigational landmark for me since 1984, a real place-maker. * This building is stylistically compatible with the location and adjacent buildings * Nice styling of new upper building (tho it doesn’t quite fit with the old ground floor). * Not walls of glass and more attractive * The break in the building a la the equitable building is a nice amenity for residents. I like that this building preserved the street design of the previous building, though i don’t necessarily think developers should be required to do so if it will significantly slow housing construction or increase costs.. 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other) * The red on the tile at the bottom does not work, * Color is very white 180 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 11 2101 University Ave. Acheson Commons <
> | MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-DMU Downtown Outer | | Units | 205 (18 BMR) | | Year | Under Construction | | Height | 6-stories, up to 75' | | FAR | 4.0 | | Density | 182 units per acre | | Coverage | 84% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Placement ☐ Height ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Yard Space ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area * As a central downtown, corner building, if could have been another one or two stories higher. * As always with the large, downtown, multistory buildings, no plantings. * Scale and massing are fine for this one - very appropriate for the downtown location. Design is a bit ramshackle - no coherent vision, sort of slapdash. Both ugly and anonymous. 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * I understand that the developers were trying to retain the decorative elements of the original building while creating a modern 5 stories above. I don’t like their solution. The color scheme doesn’t work. It kind of looks like a mistake. * Retention of facade is cool and ground-floor details are really beautiful * More trees please!! More sidewalk planting!! * 1. We need to take advantage of parcels that are not adjacent to single-family residential structures, and build even higher. 2. This is another slightly affectatious pseudo-historicist building that, although some details are interesting or done well, is revisionist rather than creative. * This is my favorite of the new buildings * Building height too high and too many units. * All the large, downtown, multistory buildings fill their lots and leave no space for any plantings. I suggest you require roof gardens (including trees and milkweed) on all future buildings like these. This would fit with our desire and policy to go green in Berkeley.** -I didn’t answer the individual questions on these large buildings. They are all compatible with a ‘large, tall downtown’ look, all fill their lots, none have setbacks from the sidewalk or upper story stepbacks, there are no yard spaces and few have balconies. * This new development is helping complete a more harmonious, taller but still varied facade for the block on University Avenue. The architecture above the ground floor however is rather dull. * Style-wise these are OK. 181 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # WEST BERKELEY TOUR The West Berkeley Tour (map shown on right) received a total of 26 survey responses with 88% of respondents completing the entire survey. The West Berkeley tour included 12 tour stops with a range of “missing middle” housing types including multiple detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and mixed-use projects. When asked what features made the project compatible with the surrounding area, the most common answers across all tour stops were: * Placement; * Height; * Massing; * Lot coverage; and * Other features (See Table C) Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category included: * Permeable pavement * Open space and landscaping * Shared driveways * Overall scale of building(s) * Architectural details * Light access * Roof form and facade variation When asked what other features would create more compatability, respondents most frequently answered with: * Other features; * Yard space; * Massing; * Lot coverage; and * Height (See Table D) Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category included: * Garage and driveway location and orientation * Building separation * Building orientation to street * Landscaping, trees, and open space <
> ## We would like your feedback! After the tour, here are TWO ways you can let us know your thoughts: | (1) | OR | (2) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **TAKE THE ONLINE SURVEY**
Scan this QR code or go to
[www.surveymonkey.com/r/PV9C7PZ](http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PV9C7PZ) | | **DROP OFF AT**
**1947 CENTER STREET, 3RD FLOOR**
**MON-THUR, 8:30AM-1:00PM**
Write down your comments on the
following pages and drop it off at the
City of Berkeley Permit Service Center
during regular business hours. | For more information, visit:
[www.cityofberkeley.info/Objective Standards](http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Objective%20Standards) | For questions, contact:
[HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info](mailto:HousingElement@cityofberkeley.info) **Figure F-24 West Berkeley Walking Tour Pamphlet Cover & Map** * Privacy concerns * Architectural style and building materials * Density (increase) ### Other Key Takeaways Looking at the collective results of both surveys, common themes in public comments included the following: 1. Architectural style: Individuals have different preferences for particular architectural styles which can affect what features they consider compatible. 2. Open space: The adequate provision and maintenance of landscaping, private or public open space, and other planting/greenery is integral in creating a compatible project. 182 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 3. Ground-floor design: For mixed-use projects, an active, human-scaled ground-floor can help lessen the visual impact and pedestrian experience of a taller and larger building. 4. Amenities: Residential amenities (proximity to transit, walkability, internal community spaces, parks, etc.) are particularly important to provide for projects with more than five units. 5. Storefronts: For mixed-use projects, active storefronts and a lack of vacancies contributes to the overall experience of the site. In conjunction with being intended as a way for Berkeley residents to understand and experience the range of housing options in the City, all input received will be used by the project team to inform the City’s Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards projects. The responses received will help the project team understand what features affect an individual’s experience of particular housing types and where regulations can improve this experience. Figure F-25 Responses to question "What features made the project compatible with the surrounding area?" (A) and "What other features would create more compatibility?" (B). <
> <
> 183 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES - WEST BERKELEY # 1. 1911 NINTH STREET ## Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Stepbacks help, but it depends on the surroundings, right? * Permeable paved areas * I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour. Didn't get to this building on the walk. One thing I need to say: the overall context is of utmost importance - the whole area needs to be considered for walkability, crowdedness, peacefulness, not only one building or another. Two many massive buildings within a couple of blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is needed. * This is a mixed street without a strong character. The building is tastefully done and generally improves the street. * I'm wondering why you're asking about compatibility. Shouldn't we be talking about the future pattern of Berkeley, and what constitutes a beautiful street or neighborhood, rather than asking if this "matches" buildings of the past? * Aesthetics fit in nicely with the neighborhood. * Style of building . * Successful design: -Although it is three stories, the entire building is not at maximum height; average building height is lower than the maximum of peak -Combining driveway with setback from fence property line -Permeable pavement in driveway enhances open space so driveway feels more garden-ish invites use for courtyard patio or gathering space -Private yard/green-space in front along the sidewalk seems more useable to residents than open to street -Massing is broken up: Facade of building is not single expanse. It makes it feel like a smaller house than it would if the front were all one single wall. -Use of wood-like siding, window frames and trim fits architectural styles of older houses in the neighborhood. -Looks like (1) 1911 Ninth St. <
> | 3 DETACHED UNITS ON A LOT | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-3 Multiple-Family | | Units | 3 | | Year | 2014 | | Height | 3 stories, 34'11" | | FAR | 0.95 | | Density | 20 units per acre | | Coverage | 39% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area they have nice number of windows for residents, but don't have giant invasive windows to look into the close-by neighbors on the north side. Maintains neighbor privacy without depriving residents of having good access to natural light * Very nicely done! * Architectural style, windows, & finishes. * it is not a box, the 3rd story is a pitched roof which decreases the intrusion and is more visually compatable * This is good. Not a lot of yard space for the occupants, but that's their choice, and will be reflected in the price. Does not impact the neighbors at all, and the building overall is of an appropriate scale (could be bigger, but it's fine as is). The two-tone band and batten on the front house is a bit awkward. Looks better in uniform blue with white accents on the second house. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Could be taller in parts, but needs more paving - from unused Wells Fargo? * Usable outdoor space, property trees, accessibility * I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour. Didn't get to this building on the walk. One thing I need to say: the overall context is of utmost importance - the whole area needs to be considered for walkability, crowdedness, peacefulness, not only one building or another. Two many massive buildings within a couple of blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is needed. * One could say this is compatible because of the gabled roof, but what does that mean? There are plenty of Berkeley buildings that have flat roofs or parapets that are perfectly compatible. What are you going to do with these survey results? It would be a mistake to mandate gabled roofs just because you showed a gabled roof next to other gabled roofs and people labeled it "compatible." * Upper story set back is on the south side, which would perhaps allow sunlight to a house on the north, if one was there. However it completely block light to an actual house on the north, reducing the comfort and value of that home. * Less lot coverage, more yard space. Overall good use of space - all neighborhood-appropriate style buildings that are not imposing. * Vegetation (native plants) * Its unclear if residents feel the open space meets their needs/interest. It would not be enough sunny yard for me, but not everyone cares about personal gardening space. If Berkeley is going to substantially infill all of our neighborhoods, we should have a plan to identify places for more public community gardens to offset the loss of private garden spaces. * More yard space, more open space between buildings, buildings separated by green space/ trees 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * More height on San Pablo side appropriate if stepped back to retain open space in back or create new open space on side. North setback is too small. Small roof area there now could be improved to function as balcony. * Placement of 3 buildings. A “dormitory usage.” Buildings on steroids, massive and crowded. There are small courts between buildings which create relief spaces common in the area. The "Block" & Hearst + have mix of 1 to 3+ (one being built) structures, plus a church... * I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour. Didn't get to this building on the walk. One thing I need to say: the overall context is of utmost importance - the whole area needs to be considered for walkability, crowdedness, peacefulness, not only one building or another. Two many massive buildings within a couple of blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is needed. * Increase in massing and height compared to 1909 to the north appear to be minimal because of the building to building separation and 2-story predominant context in this block. * Good example of denser infill. So much comes down to a well-proportioned building with good materials. This is a simple form, but the texture makes its scale feel smaller and clearly residential. * What do we value besides “compatibility?” * The building in the rear is out of scale with the other back yards adjoining it. If this is supposed to be family housing, I see no outdoor area available for children. Are driveways counted as yard space? If so, that misrepresents the coverage number. Green space is needed for habitat, climate protection, and human needs. This level of density is not appropriate to encroach on so much open land. The fact that is not BMR makes it all that much worse. * way too dense * Existing area have 1-2 story homes and the style and height of this building is out place of place. * Nice design including materials that fits well into the neighborhood. * Plantings encroach on sidewalk. This hinders pedestrian movement. * This was a well-done project. * Style is attractive tho building is tall for City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 neighborhood. I think no backyard, tiny front yard, little green. Adequate off-street parking ## 2. 1810-1816 10TH STREET ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Oniste outdoor space and trees * Consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz's book and Chuck Collins: https:// inequality.org/ great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the previous page. * The openness creates a unique opportunity for landscaping, but this is a unique configuration that doesn't fit into the general density of the neighborhood. It's nice, but should not be a standard. * This is a nondescript building with a lot of wasted space around it. Compatible? Perhaps. Good? Definitely not. * I believe these are legacy one bedroom units. I have nieces and nephews (immigrants from Latin America) who grew up in a very similar complex on San Pablo near Delaware when their families were very low income. Four families with a total of eight children. The large space around the units allowed kids living in contained space to have play area. * None it fit in the existing community. * Great open space, and obviously great access to sunlight for residents, and for pedestrians on sidewalk. -While Massing is a dull solid block, it works because the scale of the building is very compact (not oversized on the lot) and very far from neighbors/property line/sidewalk -Shared driveway: excellent that so many units only have one driveway cut across the sidewalk out front, and it leaves most of the lot open, rather than taken up by paving and parking. -Older architecture fits neighborhood. * Exterior stairs up to second floor - attractive and a nice touch.house. ## 2 1810-1816 10th St. <
> | 4 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 4 | | Year | 1943 | | Height | 2 stories | | FAR | 0.26 | | Density | 19 units per acre | | Coverage | 19% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 56 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Orientation to street and other houses. * Kid-positive * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the- global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the previous page. * This block has some large boxes and so this building fits in, thought stepbacks and balconies APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * would improve the social aspects and outdoor opportunities for residents. * Landscaping would help. * If these units are BMR, leave them alone. If they are not, it would be OK to add another story and allot space to BMR. * Could use landscaping, the large bark area does not provide a nice transition between public and private space. * None * Needs vegetation (native plants) * -While this has a lot of open space, it provides little or no privacy for the tenants: how can anyone have patio furniture or a bbq without it getting stolen here? The size of open space is great, but it maybe more than the residents need, and not arranged in a way that is most useful to residents: I can't tell from looking if the whole apartment comes out and plays ball games, or fetch with dogs in their vast front lot or parking area or not, so I can't judge its utility. -Massing design is just a single block -uninteresting, but unoffensive because the building size doesn't overwhelm the lot. -My preference is for permeable pavers, but at least the driveway seems decently maintained. Again, given the open space on the lot, the driveway material is less important. * Landscaping: Small bushed and a few tall trees. * More density * Make better use of the lot. * Ugly from street tho good height (at only 2 stories). Needs more plants, especially in front. * anything to make it less a box * This is not great. The lot is huge, but you’re ultimately not getting very much housing, and it also completely turns a cold shoulder to the street/neighbors. This would be much better with more and smarter lot coverage, like a generous green courtyard entrance to a single building, and smarter parking placement. More height would also be good - an extra story would go entirely unnoticed given the surrounding buildings, and assuming some more trees 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Garden would be good in front as at 1802 * Gathered 4-plexes are my favorite local housing approach. The buildings may be arranged variously, as is seen throughout the area. This particular example shares a sizable lot with its twin with plenty of open surroundings - great for kids. However, it seems a bit under-utilized. * I turned in a hard-copy for this building. * This is a rare find in the R1A zone - to have 4 units and only .26 FAR - and has to do with the enormous amount of surrounding yard space. Also has an “enclosed” feel because of how far it’s set back from the sidewalk and separated from neighboring buildings. * Would fit better if the landscaping matched it’s companion building next door. * This is a suburban site development pattern, not a more urban one. Not a great example to ask about - I would think people will respond more about this very different typology rather than the “compatibility” you’re asking about. * This space needs some trees and other greenery. Landlord should be required to add them. * Overall, thumbs up. Nice setback, off-street parking, lots of open space. Could probably add buildings/units (thoughtfully) to create more housing here. * It’s the right height and style for existing community. * Pretty simple 1943 design but quite pleasant including the way the two buildings face each other across the landscaped drive area. * In reviewing this project I kept in mind the period in which this was built. But, for today the property is wasted with yard space no one uses, the finishes are low quality, the FAR could be higher. * Nice big lot with ample parking. * It is a box devoid of architectural interestStyle is attractive tho building is tall for ### 3. 1080 DELAWARE STREET #### Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 *neighborhood? (Other)* * Best large building in san pablo corridor! * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the previous page. * At four stories, this is a large building for the area but doesn’t loom over the adjacent buildings, and in fact steps back so as not to infringe on the house to the west. This is going to be the future of the San Pablo corridor and that is OK. * Tower elements. Eaves visible from street level. * Part of the building has good set back, allowing tree scape. The portion on Delaware just before San Pablo should have same setback and trees for human scale. The step backs for light access to adjacent buildings looks well done. * I like the attempt to make it appear to be multiple buildings so that the massing is in scale with the neighborhood * Color * Overall style is compatible with neighborhood * Great that there is no driveway cut along San Pablo sidewalk. -Great step downs to small neighboring house -Materials of wood, some decorative choices, arches, peaked roof...etc. match neighborhood. -The variation in massing on facade helps offset the overhanging parts over the sidewalk (small overhanging bay windows, rather than the entire facade overhanging the sidewalk). * Excellent stepbacks from neighboring properties. * Architectural style, windows, & finishes. * Way too tall for Delaware St./neighborhood but very nice design, especially in and out facade. * architectural interest, variations in height & color. 4 stories is ok for san pablo avenue but It ### 3 1080 Delaware St. <
> | MIXED-USE 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-W W. Berkeley Commercial | | Units | 51 (4 live/work) | | Year | 2012 | | Height | 4 stories, 49' | | FAR | 2.15 | | Density | 108 units per acre | | Coverage | 83% | **1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?** ☐ **Massing.** Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ **Lot Coverage.** Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ **Placement.** Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ **Height.** Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ **Stepbacks.** Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ **Yard Space.** Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ **Balconies/Terraces.** Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ **Other.** Please Specify ____________________________________ **2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?** ☐ **Massing** | ☐ **Height** | ☐ **Balconies/Terraces** ☐ **Lot Coverage** | ☐ **Stepbacks** ☐ **Placement** | ☐ **Yard Space** ☐ **Other.** Please Specify ____________________________________ **3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area overshadows the homes to its west * Well done. San Pablo location warrants height and full lot coverage. The design has the randomness very typical of this kind of project, and is already looking dated, but that’s fine - buildings aren’t timeless until they’re very old. The step down to neighboring houses is well done, but not necessary. 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Design Review: please no more faux traditional architecture. * Open space on the street--include a break in the facade to provide a green space or a plaza for residents, neighbors, and people strolling by to enjoy * I’m somewhat concerned about those on the 2nd floor dealing with noise and fumes. I can’t tell APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * what the set-backs in the back are. . * More height is OK for San Pablo * This building is not “compatible” with the one story stucco commercial building across the street nor with the residence behind it on Delaware Street. Does that matter? Probably not. I would like to see the zones behind the major corridors up-zoned to create a transition, rather than asking buildings on the corridors to step down to R zone height. * Most of the units have very little outdoor space for families. * No public park/green space * Needs landscaping (native plants) * UNENGAGING STOREFRONT. Even if retail spaces are empty, or if they are live-work spaces, Berkeley needs to work on a way to match up local artists to fill the empty windows, or ANYTHING to make it more interesting. -can’t tell if there is open space provided for residents. -Substantially larger than neighboring buildings * No yards, some plantings packed into tiny green area in front. * Decreasing height to the west more setbacks * 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Except for its height and utter lack of life presence, this side of this recent “sentinel” is easier to take than the San Pablo frontage. The street aspect from the 10th/Delaware + is rather impressive- at night. No evidence of street-level life, along a wide inviting sidewalk. Very gloomy. The facing shingles are a disgrace [“sentinel” = a prominent neighborhood landmark] * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the previous page. * This is an excellent example of stepbacks away from the commercial area into the R1A zone, which really reduces the feeling of “mass” from the west side. * Good stepbacks/downs to blend with properties in back. * It’s more successful as a transitional building abutting the smaller-scale residences than as a San Pablo building. Zoning standards that would force this much fracturing of a facade could lead to chaotic-looking compositions. This one is verging on that. * This survey is asking about architecture, not streetscape or urban pattern. Just keep that in mind when you try to make use of the “findings,” because what you’ve found will be whether people can match shapes and features. I’m not sure how this will be helpful. * We need family friendly BMR units. That is the “missing middle” we really need, since market rate is for upper income people. * Nice transitions between public and private spaces. Good that highest walls face busiest street (San Pablo) * Building’s height is too high. Style is wrong style for existing community. * If San Pablo Ave is going to mostly be built to 5+ stories, which currently doesn’t fit the general neighborhood or street, there needs to be a plan to make the street levels engaging, support more retail, or arts, or nonprofits, or community uses… etc. * Nice lively design in facade and use of materials and attractive garage entry (which is unusual). It steps down to the neighbor homes very well. * SPA is where housing should be targeted. This is a great example of what can be done. This has great sidewalks, commercial space, and the garage entrance on a side street. * This is a really well-done project and its size is appropriate for its location. The way it steps down toward theneighborhood works well. The Architectural style and finishes used relate well to the neighborhood. 189 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 4. 1744-1756 10TH STREET ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This apartment building is acceptable in the neighborhood. * This building matches the scale of others on the block. Is that what you mean by “compatible?” Could taller be “compatible?” Sure it could. Must the building have the same setback all the way down the streetscape? I don’t think so. It makes it flat and boring. It would be better to allow a 50% encroachment for a portion of the property line, for interest. * Architectural style * Nicely very little driveway cut across sidewalk * OK but 1810-1816 10th from the same year is a much better design. * Placement with street feels good for structures of this era. * Pitched roof line, square interspersed with rectangle shapes. 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * Site and street trees * Blocky forms like this connote rental and multifamily ‘plexes. * Why would we want to increase the degree to which this building is ‘compatible’ with a very boring block that isn’t dense enough to meet the needs of this community? * This property could be improved if one units was removed and a third story added to the two units fronting 10th St. With a step back the unit fronting Delaware could also support a 3rd story. This would. These actions would improved density and add family friendly open space. * Fits in nicely with the neighborhood, nicely set back with attractive plantings in front yards. Mini front porches facing street a nice touch. Giant parking lot kind of a bummer, would be nice if some of it were yard/recreation space for the dwellings. --- 4 1744-1756 10th St. <
> | 5 UNITS IN TWO BUILDINGS | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 5 | | Year | 1943 | | Height | 2 stories | | FAR | 0.67 | | Density | 52 units per acre | | Coverage | 53% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 58 * None * Needs landscaping with native plants * Looks like yard space lacks privacy: no way to have patio furniture or bbq without it being stolen * Improved landscaping to buffer the building from the street. * More density * Very plain and unattractive shape. No yard, skinny strip of green around outer perimeter. * These buildings could be denser, and much more beautiful and welcoming for their occupants and the neighborhood. They’re “appropriate” in so far as they match the scale of some neighboring structures, but there are taller buildings nearby. They could definitely use better differentiation between the units (e.g. better stoops/porches). It’s nice that the parking is back away from the 190 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT sidewalk, and it could be improved by putting up a nice portico and gate/door over the driveway - nicer for residents, and nicer for the neighbors, as it would disrupt and hide the concrete expanse. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Superficially good, but really no usable common open space. Close to street okay now, but if large buildings/more traffic nearby, seems could be degraded livability. Stepback ok on north, but twin buildings in back shade yard next door to North. * The "yard" space is the lawned green buffers between sidewalk and buildings. The interior spaces are all to the benefit of vehicle parking, however. There is one shaded passageway with some planting. This “walker-built” arrangement of gathered 4-plexes is found throughout West Berkeley/Oceanview. I love them... * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ =See my comments on the first page. * Though the lot coverage is 8-13% above what’s permissible in this zone, it seems to not be noticeable because of the nice job of creating relative setback from the sidewalk and a front yard. The predominant context of this part of the block contains 2-story buildings. * Like that parking is behind and doors, and small porch & overhang, open up to sidewalk * Lack of thoughtful residential design elements that you’d find on single-family homes. People like those elements not just because they are single-family, but because they are more human-scale and interesting. * The city should plant, or require landlords to provide street trees. * Again, for the time in which this was built, it makes sense. But today’s standards, it’s a poor use of land. The FAR is too low. The pitched roof, windows, and siding are appropriate. * Nice backdoors/steps decorated by tenants with flower pots. Altho backyard is a concrete parking area it has a ‘communal’ feel since all backdoors open onto this space. **5. 1611 & 1613 10TH STREET** Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This back building seems to span two properties. How is that possible? Is it a single parcel despite appearances otherwise? * Matched predominant 1 story context of that part of the block (with second stories occasionally set back from the sidewalk) * Taller height in the rear, adjacent to CW zoning, is great. * It’s compatible because it’s low density. Is that kind of compatible “good?” * Only one driveway cut shared by two units -Highest part of back building is very tall, but at least not the entire footprint of building, so it isn’t looming * This works. Because of the color, it’s nearly invisible from the street anyway. the only person impacted by the density here is the immediate neighbor in the gray house. 2. *What features could be different to improve compatibility? (Other)* * No vehicle parking on site, high portion backs to San Pablo commercial, but NOT 2 stories! 3 story “observation tower” highly intrusive to western neighbors... * This building works well in the neighborhood and doesn’t affect the character at the street. * Appears congested due to forced rear setback. * Stylistically incomparable with existing house on property * Strange access to back unit * Driveway is not enough for occupants City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ### 5 1611 & 1613 10th St. <
> | 2 UNITS ON ONE LOT | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 2 | | Year | 2007 | | Height | 2 stories, 31’ | | FAR | 0.45 | | Density | 13 units per acre | | Coverage | 32% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Placement ☐ Height ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Yard Space ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Can’t tell if massive windows of back unit interfere with privacy of either houses on the street? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Two small and dreary houses. No frontage appeal. Hills view to East is blocked by tall recent addition to a property on next block over. While in physical concert with the street, they are less-than-ideal representatives. * Hard to tell how the rear building looks or is massed, etc. from these images. * Nice way to integrate two story building in back with one-story buildings in the neighborhood. * Missing Middle housing, and ADUs, need to be allowed to be AT the property line is situations like this, where a residential neighbor isn’t affected. Be aware that people taking the survey may not go to Google’s aerial view and see that there’s a big unit in the rear. * It’s perfectly compatible with old Berkeley. Once again, is that good? * The back building is really tall and very close to the back of the property. In this case it backs up on a commercial area so it’s fine, but I’d be very concerned if there were private residences behind it. Strange lot shape with unclear access to back unit. * Need drive for occupancy for street sweeper service. Also, to cut down parking issues on street. * Rear unit does not respect front unit design and materials seem inferior as 5 years old and already looking dingy. * Nicely done! * Good mix of styles, like the use of porous materials for the driveway. This is a good example of adding additional housing without losing existing housing. * Altho original house is quite attractive with a typical (for neighborhood) front yard, the words that immediately come to mind to describe the back house are modern monstrosity. I suppose no backyard due to second house back there. * its cramped and the 2nd story addition looks like it was dropped on - out of place. ### 6. 1626 & 1628 10TH STREET Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * We can’t see the yard, but this building is respectful of the neighborhood and doesn’t alter the character at the street. * Like the previous example, matched predominant 1-2 story form on this block. * It’s typical, therefore “compatible”. * Is that an ADU in the back? (The blue building with the shed roof.) It’s not particularly compatible in terms of form, but I don’t think that matters. It is compatible in scale with old 192 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # 8 1444-1446 Fifth St. <
> | 8 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | MUR Mixed-Use Residential | | Units | 8 total, 4 per lot | | Year | 2021 | | Height | 3 stories, 33’ | | FAR | 1.32 | | Density | 30 units per acre | | Coverage | 42% | **1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?** * [ ] **Massing.** Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] **Lot Coverage.** Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] **Placement.** Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] **Height.** Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] **Stepbacks.** Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] **Yard Space.** Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] **Balconies/Terraces.** Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] **Other.** Please Specify ________________________________________________ **2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?** * [ ] Massing * [ ] Lot Coverage * [ ] Placement * [ ] Height * [ ] Stepbacks * [ ] Yard Space * [ ] Balconies/Terraces * [ ] Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________ **3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area Berkeley. * Nicely maintains neighborhood character with new home WAY back * Height feels lower because roof line isn’t uniformly at maximum building height. -Good shared driveway and semipermeable pavement -looks like residents have small amount of private yard in middle * This works - very typical all over Berkeley right now. They kept the exact scale of the street (which is VERY low - too low), and even ameliorated any noticeable height using that slanted roof. I think they should be free to build at least two full stories on any residential street, but this is fine. There’s no yard, but that’s a choice for the occupants, and does not impact anyone else. * 2. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Ruinous addition in back * Trees * With full driveways separating homes, there’s plenty of opportunity for a higher building. * What do you mean by “improve compatibility?” Make things match? Preserve the scale of a previous century? * Make it more stylistically compatible with existing homes; color is awful * Back unit VERY close to edge of property. * Needs landscaping (native plants) * 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Can’t see back - appears to be well-planned. * The structure in back blocks the view of houses to its West. * Good way to preserve one-story character of neighborhood, with stepback. * Although this is obviously “compatible” with (the same as) the houses around it, it’s too suburban for what Berkeley needs to be today and tomorrow. * I wonder if the people behind the tall home on the next street over feel awful about a new, tall building pressed up against their back fence and looming over them. Hoping this kind of thing is accounted for when signing off on new buildings. * Building is the wrong style for area. It do not fit in with existing community * Rear unit a bit incongruous in design. Works as a way to increase density in single family neighborhood but not as compatible design. One doesn’t have to do the same style, just respect what is there. * Nicely done! * Good mix of styles/old & new. I like the porous materials for the driveway. This is a good example of adding additional housing without losing existing housing. * Original house very nice. Modern back house wouldn’t fit character of neighborhood if it were seen. Probably no backyard but small front yard/plantings typical of neighborhood. 193 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 7. 908-914 CEDAR STREET ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This building is fine for the neighborhood. I don't like the buildings- they are clearly built by a developer for a profit, but they are acceptable from a planning perspective. * Separation between front of subject building and adjoining 1 story building to the west (driveway goes to rear building and serves as separation barrier). * Overall scale and residential detailing and materials. * I do think these buildings are compatible, even though they are taller than their neighbors. * Very attractive, integrates well, really nice setbacks * Shared driveways; reduced driveway cuts across sidewalk -Achitecture styles vary from classic-isn to modernism, but all compatible with neighborhood -Nicely set back from sidewalk with garden -Looks like residents have private garden space. * Yard space front * This is great. Cedar is a busy street, and has no business having so many single-story buildings. This development has nice diversity of textures and depths across the frontage, good materials and landscaping. It fits in perfectly with the neighborhood. They've even reduced the impact of their driveway/parking space by splitting it to both sides. 2. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * More open space. Why does the City not have residential open space/storm water management requirements? * Landscaping, trees, street trees * Nothing. They are compatible enough. Personally, I would like to see a third story and an extra unit. * A traditional duplex would be better than --- ### 6 908-914 Cedar St. <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | **4 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS** | | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 4 total, 2 per lot | | Year | 2020 | | Height | 2-stories, 25'3" | | FAR | 0.69 | | Density | 16 units per acre | | Coverage | 39% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents [ ] Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? [ ] Massing [ ] Height [ ] Balconies/Terraces [ ] Lot Coverage [ ] Stepbacks [ ] Placement [ ] Yard Space [ ] Other. Please Specify __________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area shoving two SFH onto one lot * More units in a space this size. * None * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Buildings are bigger/bulkier and taller than other homes on block, don't fit with character of neighborhood. 2 more buildings in back, probably no back yard, small yard in front. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Appears to be well-planned. Could be wider setback on Cedar. Can't quite see back south set back. Appears to respect neighborhood. * A rear (hidden here) building is huge; IT is the affront here. Although recent and rather brusque, they are not unsympathetic to that stretch of a changing Cedar St. 194 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * This is a pretty low-key intervention of four units. Development like this throughout this neighborhood could maintain the general scale of buildings and overall experience of the neighborhood, while easily doubling the number of housing opportunities. * Just the sort of yuppie buildings that are driving out diversity from historically diverse neighborhoods; the type of cars in the drive ways say it all. * We need to increase density in Berkeley in general. These units are HUGE! I would like to see twice as many in a space this size. Otherwise, everything about this development is lovely. * Building should be the style as existing community. * Interesting how front units have varied design on similar floor plan (though back units kind of boring in design). Another good model for moving beyond single family residential zoning. * Nicely balanced. * A well-done project. I like these very much. I call houses on a lot like these “dualies”. I like that we’re seeing more and more of them. I feel it’s a great use of our limited land. The architectural styles and the finishes here are very good. * Two different styles which don’t complement one another. Create a very dissonant effect since they are the same size, have a single front fence, strong horizontals and very similar colors. ### 8. 1461-1467 FIFTH STREET Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Great site lanscaping in limited area, good street trees * Conformity with transitional industrial-residential area. Though taller than confronting properties, it works because the nearest residential units are across the street. * Ideal infill for a formerly industrial neighborhood with less concern about casting shadows on existing residential SF neighbors. --- ### 7 1461-1467 Fifth St. <
> | 4 DETACHED UNITS ON 1 LOT | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | MUR Mixed-Use Residential | | Units | 4 | | Year | 2015 | | Height | 3 stories, 33’ | | FAR | 1.29 | | Density | 34 units per acre | | Coverage | 43% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? * [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? * [ ] Massing * [ ] Height * [ ] Balconies/Terraces * [ ] Lot Coverage * [ ] Stepbacks * [ ] Placement * [ ] Yard Space * [ ] Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, Affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 61 * This is an eclectic neighborhood, so the fact that these homes introduce a new form is in fact “compatible.” The materials relate more to the industrial building next store, and less to the other residential buildings on the block, but that’s fine. This scale is more “compatible” to the future of Berkeley. * This only fits the industrial aspects of neighborhood because of the faux-warehouse look cladding. -Distance from front sidewalk is good -Permeable pavement is good * nod to quonset huts * NOTHING! This is an ugly lazy corrugated tin eyesore!! Yuck! * Haha, oh yes, this building. The technicolor silos. I’m actually surprised to learn this was built in 2015 - looks more like 1997 to me. Anyway, this design is awkward. The spacing between the 195 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 buildings seems incoherent, and they need more landscaping to really respect the surroundings. But the scale and facade materials are fine, given the semi-industrial character of the neighborhood.s. 2. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Too close together. * Design. I know it’s a matter of taste... Also, windows for the people who live there. * At three stories, these new developments in this neighborhood (this is one of three) change the area and I question whether this substantial change is intentional. There is limited outdoor space and the building creates excessive shade. To me is not an improvement. * Stylistically these don’t intend to be compatible; the “trees” out front are a joke. Looks like we are putting people in tire shops * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Too many driveway cuts across sidewalk. -Barely any private yard space. -Massing too monolithic. Even though it is the same height as 1446 Fifth St., this one *feels* taller because there is no break in the facade. -For three stories, this seems substantially taller than the three story townhouses on tenth (part of Jones development). * -Height with no stepback/stepdown overpowers neighborhood * A dramatic design that overwhelmed the neighborhood. It should have been set back or upper story stepped back to take away from thence of them towering over the sidewalk and neighborhood. Perhaps one less unit would reduced the enormous impact this development has. * Great use of space. Great design, but could use more useable outdoor space (larger balconies). * Driveways are too small and difficult to use. * Everything! This belongs in Emeryville! 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * As long as shorter commercial building is on North, setback is maybe okay. First floor units looked cramped and dreary. Offset somewhat by still peaceful location. * Very sympathetic predictors of rising seas. “Dormitory” housing - recreate elsewhere. No relation to transitorientation meaning all residents drive. * Using color stripes to break up a monolithic facade isn’t effective. * Fits in with other buildings on that block. One block down though are smaller Victorians so shouldn’t be there. * You can’t divorce the discussion of industrial materials and stark forms like these from the massing, open space, etc.; these tall buildings would be inappropriate towering over long-time single-family yards a few blocks east, but for this corner, in this block, in this neighborhood, they are channeling both residential and industrial expression, so work well. This neighborhood offers more opportunities for this sort of innovation than others do. * I hope people can adjust their eyes to this density quickly, because it really is the absolute minimum we should be thinking about. * What was the design review commission thinking * Not enough outdoor-yard space. Would be too tall and imposing on similar residential blocks with 1-2 story homes but seems to work here. Again, could probably fit more units in buildings of this size. * It doesn’t fit with existing community * Unattractive, stands out as ugly * I felt the third floor makes it seem a bit high but perhaps the neighborhood is moving that way. A shame that the front is so much taken with parking. I know it is in a kind of industrial district and trying to be hip but I don’t care for the corrugated metal siding. * More housing supply is the goal; any design that meets existing code (primarily life/safety/sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine; Berkeley aesthetic is eclectic * I’ve liked these since there were built. Unique look, single-family homes without the land waste. I like the finishes. As I was studying the site, an occupant came out on the balcony. I ask how he liked living there and he said he loved it, 196 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ### 5 1626 & 1628 10th St. <
> | 2 UNITS ON ONE LOT | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 2 | | Year | 2021 | | Height | 2 stories, 25' | | FAR | 0.43 | | Density | 17 units per acre | | Coverage | 39% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? * [ ] **Massing.** Overall building shape, size, and form * [ ] **Lot Coverage.** Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) * [ ] **Placement.** Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk * [ ] **Height.** Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet * [ ] **Stepbacks.** Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings * [ ] **Yard Space.** Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas * [ ] **Balconies/Terraces.** Upper-story open space used by residents * [ ] **Other.** Please Specify ____________________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? * [ ] **Massing** * [ ] **Height** * [ ] **Balconies/Terraces** * [ ] **Lot Coverage** * [ ] **Stepbacks** * [ ] **Placement** * [ ] **Yard Space** * [ ] **Other.** Please Specify ____________________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 60 and the neighborhood. * Crazy architecture (tho I like it) which doesn’t fit character of neighborhood (except the other new building across the street). Much taller than original homes on block. No backyard, small central front yard. Clever off-street parking (angled so as not to overlap sidewalk). ### 9. 1444-1446 FIFTH STREET Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Design, especially the street facades, is better than the previous example. * The stepbacks and balconies help. The large mass is broken by the building form, which is appreciated. * Same comments as previous around separation from nearest residential properties. Units under construction to the north are the same developer’s so residents can anticipate additional buildings with similar height next door. * Lovely, rich materials. * Nice aesthetics, landscaping, setback * Great that driveways are shared, and provide setbacks from neighboring property line; fewer driveway cuts across sidewalk, and parked cars/garage doors are hidden from sidewalk -Good broken up facade, so it doesn’t feel overwhelming. -Front greenspace along sidewalk looks small, but because it is well landscaped, it doesn’t feel insufficient -driveways look like they could double as gathering spaces for residents. * Nod to industrial quonset huts (and neighboring buildings) * NOTHING! * Better than the last one. Acknowledges that it’s in a mostly residential area, with some industrial hints. 2. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * This type of building signifies a new neighborhood in the making * Trees used too close to property lines and buildings, rooftop and balconies intrusive to neighbors, inaccessible * At three stories, these new developments in this neighborhood (this is one of three) change the area and I question whether this substantial change is intentional. There is no yard. * Better modulation of the side facades could have made these less imposing to the SF neighbors. * Replace the older single family homes on the block with this level of density, minimum. * Materials! Cheap faux wood is not a proper exterior material. Makes the whole thing look like it came from IKEA * Better density than #7 * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Also, there is so little ground (soil) left on these 197 lots. Better use of semipermeable surfaces would make this a more earth-friendly development. 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Okay for people who only want private/semi private common space. Otherwise, not enough open space. * Wadlund did great on these. * That "yard" space from sidewalk to building unit easy to render appealing. This will help - with 7 and 9 - determine the future appearance of West Berkeley. They do nothing to help with the greater housing problem. "Neighborhold folk" are unlikely to be found here. * Fits well with other buildings on the block. * Although these are on the edge of being too imposing to the smaller neighbors, this mixed-use block needs this sort of infill. * Yes, please. Build these everywhere. They are a very nice half step between single family residential and a multifamily building. * These are out of scale and have the worst sort of exterior materials. I don't mind aluminum, just not with the wood/faux wood veneer. * Wrong style * Same question on height as 1461-67 Fifth. Maybe it is OK but I still find it higher than the historic homes. At least the parking is handled better than 1461-67 Fifth. There is some playfulness in the design which I also like better here. Not much garden space but it does achieve fairly high density. * Updated/better version of the prior example; same comment: more housing supply is the goal; any design that meets existing code (primarily life/safety/sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine; Berkeley aesthetic is eclectic * Beautiful design. Great rooftop space. * Another new and great project. Architectural style, finishes, and big windows are a plus. Nice articulation and different rooflines. * Too tall, too bulky, too massive, too modern for neighborhood. (I like the architecture but you asked about compatibility). No yard, tiny front strip with plantings. * Yuck! # 9 802-808, 812 Page St. <
> | 4 DETACHED UNITS, 1 OFFICE | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | MUR Mixed-Use Residential | | Units | 4 | | Year | 2017 | | Height | 3 stories, 35' | | FAR | 1.3 | | Density | 27 units per acre | | Coverage | 54% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify ____________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 59 # 9. 802-808, 812 PAGE ST. ## Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * Permeable driveway with accessible walking path * Conformity with existing transitional residential industrial boundary, relative separation from adjoining residential buildings. * Parking hidden, not in front. * Yard in front, albeit small, is important for a residential character and, for the residents, at least a suggestion of privacy. * Compatible? No. Progress? Yes! These blocks are so underutilized. These new houses are an APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT inspiration toward the rich life we could have if we actually thought of Berkeley as a 21st century city rather than a 20th century bedroom community. * Unattractive * I like single driveway for multiple units * Nod to sawtooth building * Really like the mix of uses. Would really like to see a science base business or other commercial use in the one unit. * NOTHING! * Scale is fine for the neighborhood, which is just filled with weird buildings. They could probably be improved by being less blocky, and having more windows and other engagement with the street. 2. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Accommodation is clearly not the idea here! * Height is fine, but the design could be improved. Where’s the creativity? It’d be nice to have a balance between increased units (good) and a beautiful place to live and relax. More green space. * Site landscaping * These are just big boxes with parking and are depressing. They might as well be a huge building with two more units and parking underneath. Not well done. * Side facade modulation and interest is missing. * Up-zone everything around them. * Looks like it should be in the modern part of Copenhagen, not Berkeley * Needs landscaping (native plants) * -This only fits industrial parts of neighborhood, not the residential parts of the neighborhood; except that the industrial parts aren’t usually this tall. -Facade is single unbroken plane. Same problem as 1461 Fifth St. It *feels* taller because it is one flat surface. -No open space for residents? Driveway parking area doesn’t look like an inviting substitute for open space. -Barely any step back from sidewalk * This is going from bad to worse. if this is Berkeley's vision for the future - corrugated tin boxes with awful curves and angles - I'm moving!t. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Appears to need open space other than driveway. * Alas, this 7 and 8 are representative of a new brave residential architecture for notables who choose not to relate to city outdoor life (backyard, front yard) The well-proportioned drive/passage has few windows facing it. Overall, businesslike, closed-off. But not all that awful. (The atelier, top left!) * Integration with alley is poor. Don’t like the courtyard driveway that bisects the buildings. It’s car-centric and not ped-friendly. * A huge industrial-looking monster! Blocks sunshine from neighbors. Who would want to live next door to oversized shipping containers? * Design and parking layout is less successful than 1444-46 Fifth. * More housing supply is the goal; any design that meets existing code (primarily life/safety/sustainability vs aesthetic) is fine; Berkeley aesthetic is eclectic * Great layout for guest parking. * Overall, a well-done project. Like the dense use of the property. * I guess these go with the semi-industrial nature of West Berkeley. (They’re nice but bigger & taller than single family homes in neighborhood.) No yards, just tiny green spot with plantings in front. Good Off-street parking ## 10. 870-880 Jones S 10 t., 1500-1504 Seventh St. ### Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * Light can penetrate all units as well as adjacent properties * These are acceptable. * Though taller than surrounding buildings, pitched roof design makes it fit in. * I want to say the gables are compatible with City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 10 870-880 Jones St., 1500-1504 Seventh St. <
> | | 5 ATTACHED TOWNHOMES | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 5 | | Year | 1989 | | Height | 2 stories | | FAR | 0.48 | | Density | 18 units per acre | | Coverage | 28% | **1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?** [ ] **Massing.** Overall building shape, size, and form [ ] **Lot Coverage.** Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) [ ] **Placement.** Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk [ ] **Height.** Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet [ ] **Stepbacks.** Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings [ ] **Yard Space.** Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas [ ] **Balconies/Terraces.** Upper-story open space used by residents [ ] **Other.** Please Specify _________________________________________________ **2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?** [ ] Massing [ ] Height [ ] Balconies/Terraces [ ] Lot Coverage [ ] Stepbacks [ ] Placement [ ] Yard Space [ ] Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________ **3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area the single-family typology in terms of massing, but the overall building’s blunt-ness is not compatible. The questions you’re asking are not allowing for the nuances of what REALLY make buildings work or not. * These are compatible in many ways, which is why I checked the boxes. But are they good? No. The are boring and ugly. The facades are so flat despite the breaks in roofline and massing, and the window proportions are mismatched and senseless. Is bad architecture “compatible?” In this case, yes. Is that good? No. * Unattractive * Livable scale -Nice private yard space for residents -Good setbacks on all sides -Peaked roof matches older neighborhood buildings. * Not much to like. * Yard space is minimal - little backyards, front bit of lawn and plantings.. 2. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Less driveway, more green space. * Needs street trees * This building is clearly low income housing and making that designation so apparent does not seem necessary or dignified for the residents. Some landscaping and stepbacks would make this building more appealing. * Don’t like parking spaces in front. * These are blunt, the big swath of parking is ugly, and the screen walls create a brutal feel. * That big wide driveway is ghastly. I don’t think that you should force parking to the rear of Berkeley’s small residential lots because long driveways waste so much space, and backyards should be for people, not cars, however I do object to this swath of concrete. * Could be taller, larger units * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Lots of Driveway cuts across sidewalk * More density * Set too far back from street. Doesn’t use lot space well. Grass in front of structures is a waste of space. * Just build an apartment building instead of these. The residents don’t benefit from something that looks like a house but doesn’t function like one, and neither do the neighbors. Build an apartment building, with three stories and a flat roof, just a tiny bit taller than these, with better materials and a more creative design, and better, more * hidden parking management. that will yield more housing, with a more coherent and honest design. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Severe appearance will be mitigated by that one tree’s growth. The parking apron could be permeably paved, and the trash/”yard” space re-designed. * These are good example of having open space available. * All over the country, houses sit empty because 200 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz's book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the first page. * These questions, throughout both surveys, are missing the point. Why ask about "compatibility"? That's not a useful gauge of what the future of Berkeley should be; most people will interpret that to mean matching, and that's not useful in thinking about the future cityscape of Berkeley. Think about it: A building that's larger than its neighbors, and different than its neighborhood may be "appropriate" in the immediate context of architectural "fit" and our high demand for more housing, and not be "compatible" / "similar" to what's there now. I wish this survey had more of a preamble to get people in the right frame of mind. As it is, I don't think the checkbox selections will be meaningful. I also REALLY wish you'd asked people, once they're done with reviewing all the building examples, to step back and think about their responses and impressions in the aggregate, and express their thoughts on each of the seven categories you're asking them to box each project into. In my many years of creating surveys and questionnaires, those opportunities for big-picture feedback are often the most valuable part of a survey like this. * Placement is poor - despite large setbacks, it doesn't transition smoothly from street to building. Buildings feel disconnected. * This building blends better in the community then newer buildings * By stepping back the upper floor 4 feet or so, a balcony could have provided some additional outdoor space on the 2nd floor. Residents cold then "oversee" their neighborhood, thus adding to the security and visual enjoyment of the street. * These scattered site public housing developments are holding up fairly well with proper maintenance and the sort of generic traditional design goes well with the neighborhood. As always parking is difficult to deal with but at least there is some yard space. * Very little land available for residential; more density per parcel = more sustainable development * These look cheap and uninteresting. * A very uninspiring project. Front are all about parking cars. Wasted lot use. Large, unused yards, poor design, and cheap finishes. One of the poorest projects on the tour. * Simple, nice design. Only 2 stories but with the peaks appear taller and a little out of sync with surrounding single story homes. ### 11. 1508 10th St. Comments 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * I didn't get this one completed on walk. I do think these convivial shared paths can be wonderful - especially if they're not just driveways. Please see below. * These fit in the neighborhood but they seem like a missed opportunity for improving the block. * Like that parking is hidden, not in front. * 1. Scale on the street, window detail, and materials create a low-impact facade. 2. Six units on a smaller lot is great, but these are clearly small units, so not a great reference point. 3. Yes, they are "compatible" with the neighbors, but twice the unit count, as a 2-story building, could be just as "compatible". * This complex is perfectly compatible, but is that good? I vote for change. Not radical change, but a steady, meaningful increase in density. It's a city. * Stylistically fits into existing neighborhood. * Aesthetics really fit in with this neighborhood * Nice shared driveway that feels like a courtyard for gathering space. -Noticed that unit is easily converted to ADA accessible with ramp -Nice garden spaces * They did it right! Low visual impact, fairly earth friendly landscaping and hardscaping. 201 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 ## 11 1508 10th St. <
> | 6 UNIT COTTAGE COURT | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | R-1A Limited 2-Family | | Units | 6 | | Year | 1926 | | Height | 1 story | | FAR | 0.37 | | Density | 30 units per acre | | Coverage | 46% | 1. **For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?** [ ] **Massing.** Overall building shape, size, and form [ ] **Lot Coverage.** Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) [ ] **Placement.** Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk [ ] **Height.** Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet [ ] **Stepbacks.** Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings [ ] **Yard Space.** Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas [ ] **Balconies/Terraces.** Upper-story open space used by residents [ ] **Other.** Please Specify ________________________________________________ 2. **What features could be different to improve compatibility?** [ ] **Massing** [ ] **Height** [ ] **Balconies/Terraces** [ ] **Lot Coverage** [ ] **Stepbacks** [ ] **Placement** [ ] **Yard Space** [ ] **Other.** Please Specify ________________________________________________ 3. **Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 57 * Low, single story units like original homes in neighborhood. * This grouping invites neighborly interaction.. 2. **Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** * These older ‘garden court’ complexes add character to our neighborhoods. They could certainly be more than one story, say, a mix of one, two and three story units. * Trees * I would like to see these buildings with some two story areas- taller would be better! That would allow for more open space rather than just a driveway down the middle. * Solid walls are uninviting and a security concern. * Why do we want to increase compatibility with a low density boring neighborhood? We need to let the pattern change. Not radically, but steadily. * If a remodel were to be done, these could all be 2-story and increase density quite a bit. * None * Needs landscaping (native plants) * More density/height * Teensiest of ‘yards’. * I love these, and there are several examples all over Berkeley, but they’re just too short. Creating density on scarce land without height by covering the whole lot is the worst best option. The overall layout is charming though. 3. **Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?** * This is a very cute example, but not something that translates to building today. * The overall relation to the west side of 10th and nearby streets is sound. A replacement structure(s) wouldn’t hurt (m)any more than this very cozy attractive set of cottages. It is dominated by an anachronistic driveway, useful also as a play area. All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the first page. * While it fits that side of the street, the Jones St development overwhelms this. * Why do you want to know how something that’s already matching exactly the pattern of a neighborhood, could be changed to “improve compatibility”? I don’t see what that can teach us in tis exercise about where to go. I think a lot of people would agree that doubling the height of these buildings would be just as compatible. Many of these 7 aspects would be better asked as a sliding scale, like whether a project should be less dense, is just right, or should be more dense. Or have more or less yard space, or be taller or shorter. * This is what should be built 202 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Should be updated to 2-story units. * A OK example of the cottage compound though the parking drive seems non-functional compared to 1810-16 10th * These were great for their day and add to the diversity of housing types. * Very indicative of the time built. Charming cottage look. For today's needs, this is too low in density. But adds to the charm of the neighborhood. 12. 1080 12 Jones St. - Along San Pablo Ave. Comments 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other) * Being along a busy corridor makes this feel compatible. It’s got some character to the design. Perhaps not all of the first floor needs to be retail? First floor units are great for people who need wheelchair or other accessibility. * This isn't particularly compatible today, but I hope it will be compatible with where we are headed. It’s certainly an appropriate site for this scale of development. * The varied facade is the buildings only redeeming quality * Unattractive * Good break up of facade into multiple surfaces * I go by this building all the time. It’s great. San Pablo can accommodate any height, and of course the trees humanize the whole thing. We don’t need to force developers to use 19 different facade materials, but it’s fine here. 2. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Again, creating open space, green space, a small plaza on the street front would be VERY welcome. Look at these kinds of complexes in other countries -- South America, Europe, some places in Asian countries. * Trees, privacy for western neighbors, direction of traffic from building to San Pablo v increased neighborhood traffic * The fifth story seems too big for the street. That's 12 1080 Jones St. - Along San Pablo Ave. <
> | MIXED-USE 5+ | | | :--- | :--- | | Zoning | C-W W. Berkeley Commercial | | Units | 170 (16 BMR) | | Year | 2020 | | Height | 5 stories, 60'6" | | FAR | 3.55 | | Density | 99 units per acre | | Coverage | 70% | 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? [ ] Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form [ ] Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) [ ] Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk [ ] Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet [ ] Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings [ ] Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas [ ] Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents [ ] Other. Please Specify ________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? [ ] Massing [ ] Height [ ] Balconies/Terraces [ ] Lot Coverage [ ] Stepbacks [ ] Placement [ ] Yard Space [ ] Other. Please Specify ________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area a big jump and there is nothing nearby over four stories. Too tall. * Step backs on the 10th side were as thoughtful as possible to maintain feasibility but nevertheless somewhat dwarf the 1- and 2-story buildings across the street. * Height on the backside is too much. Should have more of a stepback to blend in with the part on 10th st and with the houses across the street. It effectively makes the lower height part on the 10th St. seem taller when viewed from across the street. the 1080 Delaware St building does it much better. * Could be taller along San Pablo * Why do we still have little residences on San Pablo Ave? If we want this new development to be compatible, then make sure that the zoning encourages redevelopment of those underutilized parcels. 203 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * OMG: no more wood/faux wood veneer on buildings. * We need to fill that commercial space when possible! * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Really dislike driveway cut across sidewalk on San Pablo. Not sure why the driveway on Jones was insufficient. -EMPTY, UNENGAGING STORE FRONTS on San Pablo AGAIN. -Dislike the amount of overhang over sidewalk. Some is ok, this is too much * Do not put garage entrances on San Pablo Avenue! This hinders the development of future bike and bus lanes. 3. *Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?* * Hard to see some from street. From Delaware, house next door has adequate setback that improves the west setback on 1080 Jones - otherwise it might be too small. Seems to need open space. * Those sapling trees will eventually mask much of the brutal effect. This is after all a major housing addition. The really sad part of this and TOC residential construction in general is the utter gloominess of the ground floor's (empty) tenancies. The San Pablo sidewalk width is very considerate for a major street's foot traffic! * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz's book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the first page. * Shows the continuing challenge of maintaining conformity with 2 very different zoning districts (C-W and R1A in this case). * 1. Planter boxes are a definite plus for the pedestrian experience. 2. Overall building is okay-ish, but far from imaginative. With the exception of the odd triangular terraces it's yet another piling up of Lego blocks. * Yet another IKEA box for yuppies. thanks berkeley city council * Wrong style and too high. * I really notice how much this building shades San Pablo Avenue sidewalk FROM ACROSS THE STREET. If we are building up San Pablo Avenue to this height, please make a plan for improved street lighting starting at 3pm. * A solid wall on San Pablo Avenue that casts a huge shadow. Stepping back from San Pablo, like the other side of the development would have made it less Manhattanesque. * It steps down to the 10th St side and goes to townhome style to interface with the neighborhood there but unfortunately on the Cedar Street side it looms menacingly over its neighbors. Less successful than 1080 Delaware. * Appropriate for location * With the exception of the garage entrance on SPA, this is a great example of what I would like to see on transit rich corridors. * Rather plain and uninspired architecture. Overall, makes sense as it's right along San Pablo Av. Like the large windows and active ground floor space. * What can I say, it's an apartment house. But it's on a commercial corridor so altho huge for Berkeley (by the old standards), it's ok. **13.1080 Jones St. - T 12 ownhomes Along 10th St.** *Comments* 1. *For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (Other)* * This building is appealing at street level and the massing works well by increasing density without challenging the existing character of the neighborhood. * It's compatible with the future of Berkeley. You can't fault this building for expressing new conditions, while the parcels around it reflect the conditions of 60 years ago. * The varied facade again is better than a flat plane, but that is the only redeeming quality APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT * Good placement of driveways * Unattractive * Great stepping down from massive San Pablo side to 10th St. side. -This three stories in front feels far lower than the other three story building in this tour near/on fifth. Maybe it is? If it is much lower than the other three story buildings, could we encourage more three stories at this height? Maybe relate lot coverage to story height (like average roof height?) -Despite many driveway cuts across sidewalk, these have been arranged to feel less obtrusive across sidewalk. - * I love the change in height from SPA to 10th Street. * Overall, well done. I like how the building steps down here, toward the neighborhood. I like the townhouse look to these eastern units. I like how the project is tied together on the northern side with the community space and parking entrance. * Nice metal-work balconies but small and not private. * Yes, very well done. The stepbacks in particular enable high density while keeping everything at a human scale for the neighborhood. As do the individual parking/entrance allotments. Every “house” is distinguishable by its facade design, without trying to pretend that these are any kind of traditional row house. Some neighboring houses are one story, but there are two and three story buildings in every direction within one or two lots. 2. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? * Better design * These same building heights could be executed in a gentler, more sensitive way, that would fit with the SF residential neighborhood they are confronting. The harsh boxes, despite being “broken up”, are harsh. * Needs landscaping (native plants) * Looks a little sparse in landscaping and trees. * Massive and massively long (almost entire block); bigger and taller than older buildings in neighborhood. Ugly blank wall (garage) and small front yards on Jones.. 3. Would you like to provide any additional ## 12 1080 Jones St. - Townhomes Along 10th St. <
> *(Same development information as table on pg. 14)* 1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? ☐ Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form ☐ Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) ☐ Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk ☐ Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet ☐ Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings ☐ Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas ☐ Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents ☐ Other. Please Specify _____________________________________________ 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? ☐ Massing ☐ Height ☐ Balconies/Terraces ☐ Lot Coverage ☐ Stepbacks ☐ Placement ☐ Yard Space ☐ Other. Please Specify _____________________________________________ 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area 55 *explanation or feedback?* * A crowded row as compared to structures on the west side of the street. No “relief” sidewalk area trees will help shield the brutal effect. * All over the country, houses sit empty because they are bought in large part by hedge funds and the very wealthy while the pretense continues that this new housing will benefit anyone except the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area, not only house by house. Did you know a great percentage of new housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins: https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on the first page. * See comment for the San Pablo side of building * Dwarfs buildings across the street. 205 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 * I know that you’re trying to control the responses here to solicit information on your first phase of “massing” work, but the success of any given massing is SO tied up with the materials, details, colors, and other factors, that these check-box responses really can’t provide useful, dimensional, contextual feedback. * Another Ikea box for yuppies. * The style need to keep with existing homes in the community. * Bunching the driveways/parking is helpful. Otherwise see comment on previous part of number 12 * Good use of space * This is a beautifully executed project. I love how most of the block was redeveloped to create more housing. * A well-done project, overall. * Since this is the end, I’d like to add a couple of additional comments: For a city that claims to be environmentally progressive, none of the new buildings have enough actual green stuff, as in trees and other plants. And if the standard is compatibility, none of the new structures are compatible with the original 1 and 2 story homes in West Berkeley. Thank you for this opportunity to give input. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F5.3 RENTER SURVEY ## OVERVIEW In order to collect feedback directly from renters, a flyer was handed out to people, requesting they fill out a four minute survey on renting in Berkeley. The survey received 195 views and 59 individuals filled out the survey. The results are included below. **Figure F-26 Renter Survey Results** What neighborhood of Berkeley do you live in? 59 out of 60 answered | | | | :--- | :--- | | South Berkeley | 16 resp. 27.1% | | <
> | | | Central Berkeley | 10 resp. 16.9% | | <
> | | | Southside | 9 resp. 15.3% | | <
> | | | North Berkeley | 7 resp. 11.9% | | <
> | | | Southwest Berkeley | 7 resp. 11.9% | | <
> | | | Northside | 3 resp. 5.1% | | <
> | | | 4th Street | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | Claremont | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | Elmwood District | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | Lorin | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | University of California Berkeley | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | Upper North Berkeley | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | | Westbrae | 1 resp. 1.7% | | <
> | | City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 What are the top 3 strategies that the City should consider or maintain to protect tenants and prevent displacement? 59 out of 60 answered <
> Other: * Upzone neighborhoods across the city * Focus on creating more rental units at all levels of income. Encourage new construction * 1. Increase funding for Section 8 Vouchers and 2. Include resources for low income renters and home buyers * Build more transit oriented multifamily housing * More affordable housing * Streamline approval for market-rate housing projects * Returning the land back to natives * Same as H (affordable housing opportunities for artists) expanded to local teachers as well * Encourage the development of more affordable housing. * Allow much more housing to be built, and make approvals quick and predictable with by-right ministerial review * Stop flipping w programs such as land trust 208 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **What tenant programs are working well in the City of Berkeley?** * Berkeley Tenants' Union * I don't know any * I have no idea * Not sure what are available * None * Rent Board, HHCS, BHA (mostly) * "Rent Control Just Cause eviction law tenant financial assistance programs" * I don't know of any. * None. The BMR program is a fat mess that's constantly abused by the landlord. They made us live with roaches, tried to charge us $180 for water(city pays this) and jack our rent up over a hundred dollars every year. * I haven't used any. Rent transparency is useful via the city website. * I'm not aware of specific tenant programs. * No idea * i dont know of any * rent board * Rent board * Shelter Plus Care * Rent Control * I'm not sure what this question is asking. Examples would be nice. Do you mean things like rent control? * Shelter + Care * none * For me absolutely nothing! * I've lived in and rented in Berkeley for 6 years, and I can honestly say I have no idea about any tenant programs besides rent control. I don't feel like rent control is succeeding in the goal of making renting more affordable—there are just too many people who need to live here and not enough housing. Perhaps rent control is preventing abuses like super high and sudden rent increases? I'm not sure * Rent control, I guess * rent control * Project Base Vouchers * Berkeley Rent Board - Moni Law * I don't know * Not aware of any * I appreciate rent control because it allows me to continue to live here. * I do not know of any of the tenant programs and thus cannot comment on their efficacy * Just Cause Eviction * I don't know of any, that will help people from becoming homeless. * Rent stabilization * I don't engage with any * Rent control * I don't know any of them * I don't know what are them * None that I know of * I am not sure * I am unsure * rent control * Shelter Plus Care * Tenants Together, Rent Board (to degree its understaffing allows it) * It's difficult for me to express judgments about specific tenant programs (which were designed to protect low-income tenants like me), because I recognize a failure of the overall system. Ironically, Berkeley's system discourages investment in and development of affordable housing >> producing economic conditions that are leading to the displacement of longstanding population of renters (people I love). The situation is becoming tragic. * Rent control * Rent control, security deposit interest * Berkeley Housing Board * NONE. For example, the City has no enforcement teeth and refuses to enforce cases of toxic mold, which drove me out of my rent control department of 30 years to a place where my rent quadrupled and where I am starving to death literally. if I want to know what is happening to support tenants in the city of Berkeley, I go to the Berkeley Tenants Union website. Increasingly the mayor and the City Council are obviously apathetic and hostile to the needs and plight of disabled renters like me who are falling more and more behind. Berkeley needs a better rent control and expanded rent control to address the housing crisis faced by low income folks, homeless folks, and students. Also, as an immunocompromised person, when we interact with City of Berkeley officials, it is mandatory that they wear high-quality masks. They won't. The City has no provision to protect immunocompromised tenants from landlords who take advantage of this and terrorize us by refusing to mask up, by workers, etc. WE NEED PROTECTION AND ACCOMMODATIONS PUT INTO LAW NOW TO PROTECT IMMUNOCOMPROMISED TENANTS LIKE ME. * Berkeley's Rent Board and it's policies is what enables us to live in the city we love. * Rent Stabilization * Rent protection, but my apartment doesn't qualify for it. * The program that makes the landlord do inspections. * Berkeley Rent Board, as far as I know. * rent board, rent control * Baclt * I haven't accessed any specific tenant programs but the snail mail communication has always been helpful (e.g., notifications about lawful rent increases). It would be great if you could sign up for e-communication but I understand that the letters are tied to the units, not to individuals. * Hud vouchers, land trust coops, housing first programs, rent control * Housing Trust Fund, Housing Retention monies APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT What are the top 3 strategies that the City should consider to facilitate the construction of affordable housing? 59 out of 60 answered Policies to promote long-term / permanent affordable rental housing | 43 resp. 72.9% --- | --- <
> | Expand resources to preserve existing affordable housing | 29 resp. 49.2% <
> | Reduce governmental barriers to residential construction | 28 resp. 47.5% <
> | Create social housing provided and managed by the City or a nonprofit | 25 resp. 42.4% <
> | Policies to promote long-term / permanent affordable ownership housing | 25 resp. 42.4% <
> | Policies to promote the production of on-site, mixed-income rental housing | 25 resp. 42.4% <
> | Other | 2 resp. 3.4% <
> | Other * Do not monetize public property for private gain * Stop caving in to developers and Cal! City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 What is your affiliation to Berkeley? 59 out of 60 answered Berkeley resident | 51 resp. 86.4% <
> Work in Berkeley | 21 resp. 35.6% <
> UC Berkeley student | 12 resp. 20.3% <
> Berkeley business owner | 5 resp. 8.5% <
> Other | 0 resp. 0% <
> What is your age? 59 out of 60 answered 25-34 | 16 resp. 27.1% <
> 65 and older | 12 resp. 20.3% <
> 55-64 | 10 resp. 16.9% <
> 35-44 | 9 resp. 15.3% <
> 18-24 | 8 resp. 13.6% <
> 45-54 | 4 resp. 6.8% <
> Under 18 | 0 resp. 0% <
> **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT How do you identify? 59 out of 60 answered White or Caucasian 42 resp. 71.2% <
> Hispanic or Latino/a/x 7 resp. 11.9% <
> Asian or Pacific Islander 6 resp. 10.2% <
> Black or African American 5 resp. 8.5% <
> Other Race 3 resp. 5.1% <
> Multiracial or Biracial 2 resp. 3.4% <
> Do you have a disability? (e.g. hearing, sight, physical, mental) 59 out of 60 answered Yes 16 resp. 27.1% <
> No 43 resp. 72.9% <
> 213 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 What is your annual income? 59 out of 60 answered $100,000-$149,999 | 10 resp. 16.9% -- | -- <
> | $35,000-$49,999 | 9 resp. 15.3% <
> | $50,000-$74,999 | 8 resp. 13.6% <
> | $10,000-$14,999 | 7 resp. 11.9% <
> | $15,000-$24,999 | 7 resp. 11.9% <
> | $75,000-$99,999 | 7 resp. 11.9% <
> | Less than $10,000 | 6 resp. 10.2% <
> | $150,000-$199,999 | 2 resp. 3.4% <
> | $25,000-$34,999 | 2 resp. 3.4% <
> | $200,000 or more | 1 resp. 1.7% <
> | **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Do you work in a housing-related field? If so, in which area? 59 out of 60 answered | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | No | 49 resp. | 83.1% | | <
> | | | | Other community-based or service organization | 4 resp. | 6.8% | | <
> | | | | Housing Advocacy | 3 resp. | 5.1% | | <
> | | | | Homeless Services | 2 resp. | 3.4% | | <
> | | | | Affordable Housing Development | 1 resp. | 1.7% | | <
> | | | | Independent Living Services | 0 resp. | 0% | | <
> | | | | Market Rate Housing Development | 0 resp. | 0% | | <
> | | | | Public Housing Authority | 0 resp. | 0% | | <
> | | | | Other | 3 resp. | 5.1% | | <
> | | | Other * Construction * Evaluation for social services and programs, including non-profit community development corporations * City commissions-it is work but don't know if you consider it such. 215 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> **Would you be interested in participating in a small group Zoom meeting to discuss your housing experience?** We are seeking 10 participants and the meeting will be held on **Wednesday, May 25th at 12pm** and will last for 90 minutes. Participants will receive a $20 gift card to Berkeley Bowl after the meeting. 59 out of 60 answered Yes 32 resp. 54.2% No 27 resp. 45.8% APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F6 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS The City of Berkeley held stakeholder interviews between the Fall of 2021 and the Spring of 2022 with individuals and groups that have insight into or a critical stake in local housing. The goal was to establish a baseline understanding of the community’s housing needs, historical and current housing production, housing constraints, housing opportunity sites, and goals, priorities, and desired outcomes for the updated Housing Element. The interviewees also provided guidance for future community outreach and engagement. This report briefly summarizes key themes and insights shared during the interviews. ## F6.1 OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED Interviewees included representatives from housing advocacy groups, community organizations, organizations representing special needs, market-rate housing developers, affordable housing developers, and real estate professionals. * **Housing Advocacy:** Housing advocacy groups advance housing justice by organizing, building coalitions, providing resources, and empowering communities. While housing advocacy organizations can cover many topics, those interviewed specifically focused on the three Ps: Preservation, production, and (tenant) protection. * **Community Organizations:** Community organizations aim to serve the community's needs, with housing being a primary concern. Members work with other organizations, local government, and individuals to address housing insecurity and homelessness. These organizations advocate for and support their members, which often represent specific populations such as Latinx or African American members. * **Organizations Representing Special Needs:** These organizations offer support services tailored to the needs of the groups they serve, including seniors, disabled, and homeless. In addition to providing assistance in securing housing, these organizations often offer a safe space to go and a wide array of other community resources, such as meals and transportation. * **Institutional Representatives:** Both UC Berkeley and the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) are involved in housing planning and development that impact the needs of Berkeley’s workforce and significant University population. * **Market-Rate Housing Developers:** Market-rate developers build housing and mixed-use projects to meet market demand -- to be rented or sold without income restrictions. * **Affordable Housing Developers:** Affordable housing developers build and preserve housing for low-income and special needs populations. These organizations create affordable housing that are deed-restricted for households who meet certain income criteria. * **Real Estate Professionals:** Real estate professionals include brokers, property managers, and leasing agents. Working with both residents and property owners, they are knowledgeable about the housing needs, real estate market, and demands of the local community. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # INTERVIEW THEMES ## GENERAL COMMENTS Berkeley stakeholders highlighted the following as examples of housing success in the City: * **Diversity of housing options and amenities.** Berkeley provides a variety of housing options and local amenities. Amenities identified include: street trees, good schools, mixed-use corridors, and a sense of identity. * **Proximity of housing to campus.** Students, faculty, and staff are generally able to live in the city and close to campus. * **Tenant-landlord relations.** The Ellis Act is not an issue and tenants abide by lease terms. ## HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Stakeholders also identified the following housing developments as successes: ### Specific Projects * **Maudelle Miller Shirek Community** affordable housing development near the Ashby BART station. * **Harper Crossing** affordable housing development for middle- and low-income seniors, located close to the Ashby BART station. * **Berkeley Way** affordable housing development, including a homeless shelter and on-site supportive services. Additionally, this project’s use of funds from the City’s Housing Funding Trust Fund was highlighted as a success. ### General Development Successes * **Development along Shattuck.** Participants identified recent increase in multi-family and denser housing throughout the city, but particularly downtown along Shattuck. * **Transit-oriented development projects near BART.** Participants highlighted the plan for housing near both the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations, and in particular efforts to provide affordable housing near these sites. * **Market rate development projects.** The success of for-profit development and the contributions to both the Housing Trust Fund and the provision of inclusionary housing. * **Non-profit development projects.** The nonprofit sector’s ability to work with limited sites. ## CITY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES ### General * Provision of a broad mix of programs, including both housing and complementary programs demonstrate and support City priorities of creating more affordable housing, protecting tenants, preserving existing housing stock, and making it easier and more affordable for residents to stay in the city. * Successful communication and leadership from the Mayor and City Council. ### Tenant support and services * City’s support of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). * Rent control allowing residents to stay in their homes and is the most well-known form of support amongst renters. * Rent subsidies. ### Affordable housing policies and funding * Effort to get a policy passed for residents to stay in the city and not lose “naturally occurring affordable housing” (term for housing in the market that is still available for low income) * Passage of Measure O (2018) to fund housing for low-, very-low, median-, and middle-income individuals and working families. * Funding for limited equity coops. ### University relations * Negotiations with the University of California to keep rents down and ensure that it does not continue to increase enrollment without providing additional housing. ### Housing for people with disabilities * Efforts to keep residents in their homes via the loan program for disabled property owners to upgrade their homes and ensure continued home access. APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT *CONCERNS WITH HOUSING IN BERKELEY* Homelessness * Serious concern about people who are sleeping outside and on the streets - there is a need for better support of support services by the County and City. * Service providers and nonprofits lack of capacity and resources. Lack of Housing (especially Affordable Housing) * There is a general lack of supply across the whole city. * Too few affordable housing units available. Wait lists are too long and it is not meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income residents. * Lack of housing diversity when it comes to affordable and subsidized housing. There is a need for more Section 8 housing. * Unbalanced provision of market rate housing as compared to affordable housing. * ADU's are market rate rentals, and should not be considered affordable. * You have to have preservation of existing housing alongside production of new housing to ensure there is enough, affordable housing. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing * Making sure that a city is affirmatively doing fair housing. Need a strong needs analysis that will support policies to address the needs and robust community engagement process in that work. * Need to include disability, low-income people in these efforts. Lack of Affordable Ownership Units * Non-profit affordable housing is all rental; little opportunity for ownership and building equity. * Need a plan that distributes affordable housing across the whole city. Lack of Family Housing Options * There's not enough affordable housing provided for families - most new developments appear to target young professionals and students. * Section 8 family housing in close proximity to green space, recreation centers, and outdoor activities is needed. * Lack of housing options for families. Many families are priced out of homes and there aren't enough apartments large enough or affordable enough for families. * Berkeley has a "Missing Middle" problem and is especially lacking affordable missing middle housing. Lack of Accessible Housing * Would be helpful if everyone applied principles of universal design to ensure that housing benefits and is accessible to the widest possible range of people. * There should be incentives to make ADUs (and all types of housing units) accessible. * Low-income, disabled housing needs are not being met. There is a need for subsidized housing for the disabled. * Need more affordable and accessible housing for the growing older adult population. * Accessible housing that allows communities to age in place should is not provided to the Black community. * Disconnect between housing developers and the needs (both affordability and accessibility) for the disabled -- particularly for affordable, low-income housing (both nonprofit and for profit) * There are too many constraints making it difficult for non-profits to make housing more accessible. For example, non-profits needs permissions from owners/managers before it can start work (e.g., adding ramp or handrail). Parking Need for People with Disabilities * People with disabilities need their cars because of their disability, so the increasingly common calls for less parking raise concerns. Unhealthy Homes * It is challenging to find an acceptable home to live in, making finding housing a taxing process. * Mold is increasingly a problem, as homes age – sometimes it exacerbates disabilities. Need mold abatement (and avoidance) strategies. Vacant Homes & Buildings * The City should penalize owners of housing units that sit vacant for too long. * There are many vacant buildings and storefronts along major arterials - there is an opportunity to reimagine these spaces as housing units. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Displacement and Loss of Diversity * Housing unit production is not keeping pace with the significant increase of jobs in the Bay Area. * Berkeley residents are getting priced out of homes by Silicon Valley tech employees, out-of-state investors, and corporations, leading to gentrification and cost of living increases. * Fears of changing neighborhoods. * Lack of transparency around who is buying homes. * Need for a tax on foreign investors. * Lack of affordable housing options is forcing people to move out of the area (often only to commute into the city for work and to maintain social ties) and contributing to a lack of resident diversity. * Racial inequality in housing. Low income and communities of color are often displaced and have a more difficult time finding housing in Berkeley or staying in Berkeley. There is a need for a right to return policy to maintain ethnic and economic diversity in the City. * There needs to be a Right to Return policy, specifically so renters pushed out due to gentrification have the option to return. Employer-Assisted Housing * Concern over whether teach housing as it is currently proposed in the city is the right policy. Teachers should be given agency to decide if they want to live in Berkeley and how they want to live. Lack of Live/Work Opportunities * Would like to see more, affordable live/work opportunities, particularly geared towards artists. Lack of Funding for Housing * The 20% affordable requirement and option to pay into the Housing Trust Fund is not enough. Safety for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Transit Users * Walking and biking should be made safer through bike lanes, street lights, and other accommodations. RHNA and Housing Element Site Inventory * When the city identifies a site for affordable development, they should do so across the city in high resourced neighborhoods and real sites. * The City should also consider if a site could realistically be developed within 8 years. There is a shell game of identifying sites and not building anything. If supported by adequate zoning, then that would influence how competitive sites would be for LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credits). If it is out of the area and not conducive to Tax Credits, then it should not be a site. Tenant Protections * Would like to see the restriction of owner move-ins and Ellis Act evictions. * Rent-controlled tenants may feel too precarious to report landlords, there should be anonymized or automatic quality inspections. * There needs to eb stronger rent regulations in general. MARKET TRENDS Retail and Office Markets are Declining * Government constraints and the cost of tenant improvements make it hard for small businesses to survive. * Declining uses, like single-story retail on arterials * Retail is in decline – there are many brand-new buildings with vacant retail. We should convert retail into residential or live/work, allowing for more flexible uses of the spaces. * Offices are also in decline. Not likely to have a lot of new office construction. Making conversions of upper floor office space to housing easier and less expensive should be considered. Institutional Impacts on the Local Housing Market * Churches with parking lots are an opportunity, especially if parking requirements for the new housing can be reduced. * UC Berkeley housing more students on campus, which frees up housing for other residents and reduces issues related to move-in and move-out (which is a pain point for the community) * Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) is building staff/faculty housing (workforce housing) 220 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT *BARRIERS AND CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION* Hazard Mitigation * Don’t reduce permitted housing in hazard zones. Focus on hazard mitigation. Historical and Landmark Sites * Historical and landmark sites (local, state, and federal) create challenges, e.g., usually not possible to put a second story on top Site Constraints * Small sites * Best parcels are in retail, but most have existing tenants. Hard enough to get one to sell, let alone more than one. Permitted Uses and Zoning * R1 and R2, especially along the corridors, should be rezoned * Bring back the 1970s zoning - Berkeley was downzoned. Any block with a building over 10 units should be rezoned to allow the same density. * Height limits should be increased well beyond 35' - especially in areas near campus. * Look at zoning. COVID and downfall of retail, and a lot of industries have moved. City could facilitate conversion of the industrial space to housing units by providing incentives. * Not a lot of large of opportunity sites in Berkeley under the current zoning. * The City should consider building on a per bed basis for student housing. Permitted Densities and Heights * Land use laws and ordinances that prevent development density and height * Need to be able to develop in excess of 100 units - ideal is 150 units. This is mostly mid-rise (5-8 stories) * Height is the biggest constraint * The density bonus allows for greater flexibility with building higher; however, if a building goes above 8 stories, the construction type changes and costs increase, creating additional barriers. * Lack of political will to relax development standards. Housing is very expensive to build. * The City should encourage greater density along major arterial streets. Development Standards * Open space as calculated in some neighborhoods is a bit high Use Specific Plans with a Master EIR * Recommend using Specific Plans with Master EIR so as to streamline approach to design the project Entitlement and Permitting Delays * Design review and the permitting process takes too long * More predictability is always better for developers * Cost continues to go up due to the amount of time to get entitled Lack of Funding for Affordable Housing * Lack of funding * Need for a local match to be available. Measure O was helpful, but three years later, most of the funding is committed to projects online or coming online. No new money needed for new projects. * Need subsidies and/or density bonuses for market-rate student housing. The market economics do not work. Need incentives for building student housing by private market. * Use of housing choice vouchers is hard for owners due to onerous processes, such as the HQS inspection. Workforce Housing Funding * Institutions have land but no funding (for what is subsidized housing). Successful projects depend on local bond to provide financing. Community Resistance * Lack of consensus about housing amongst leadership with some in support of housing and other opposing density. * City has 33 committees; there is only one that is pro-business, so a lot of resistance from a lot of fronts. * Community organization pushback to development makes it difficult to build anything. Some housing projects downsized because of pressure. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) * CBAs are a black box process - there needs to be more certainty, predictability. City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 *BEST HOUSING TYPES AND LOCATIONS* Key Locations * Close to transit, amenities, schools, restaurants, cultural resources - developers interested in four block proximity. On-site Services * Affordable housing with on-site services, such as social workers or medical support, to better serve tenants with special housing needs. Tiny Houses and ADUs * Tiny houses and ADUs will be some help in terms of increasing the amount of available housing and allowing for increased density in single-family neighborhoods. * Would be helpful if there were incentives to make ADUs (and all types of housing units) accessible BART Stations * BART housing at Ashby and North Berkeley is a huge opportunity for the neighborhoods they're in, but are facing pushback from residents who want to maintain their single-family home neighborhoods. Corridors * Shattuck * San Pablo * Sacramento * Telegraph * College * Solano Downtown * Downtown area still provides different opportunities * Some of the best sites are anywhere within 5-6 blocks of downtown Berkeley. * The 12 blocks south of Campus (Bancroft, College, Dana, Dwight) could be a great opportunity to build higher, but is currently limited to four stories right now. Higher Density in Residential Neighborhoods * Density and height are increasing in neighborhoods, but there is a need to focus on retaining scale. 2-3 story, 4-6 unit seems to have worked. When you get much bigger than that, it gets more impersonal & out of scale. South Berkeley * There is a general need for development in South Berkeley. * South Berkeley Senior Center. The site is currently two stories with lots of activities for seniors; it could be developed to have more housing above it. West Berkeley * There is a general need for development in West Berkeley * Industrial sites in West Berkeley. If designed correctly, people are willing to live in industrial area. Ground Floor Housing * Security and privacy concerns * Want to keep it active use * Can also be an opportunity - there's a lot of commercial vacancy right now. Consider using ground floor spaces for affordable housing for artists who would be better able to activate the space via live/work designations. Site Amenities Needed * Bike storage APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ## Recommended Channels for Outreach * Email – top preference although noted students don’t read email actively * City emails/City website (although can be overwhelming with all competing city initiatives/meetings) * Text/phone calls – varying individual preferences * Existing organizational listservs * Inconsistent / unreliable use of social media * Through school district (day care the great equalizer) * Door knocking/ on the ground * School-based partnerships - send information home to families, set up referral channels between community-based organizations and counselors, etc. * Community bulletin boards * South Berkeley Senior Center bulletin board (outside now because of Covid) * Bulletin board outside City Hall ## For the disabled population * The more the modes of communication the better * Communication in large print * Mail * Email * Keep in mind that for deaf residents closed caption is not perfect – some automated systems don’t translate perfectly; English is second language for those born deaf; need sign interpreter. * YouTube videos (including ASL) work well * Center for Independent Living (CIL) could help distribute info about the planning process (and via its partners) ## For the homeless population * Improved engagement with the homeless population * Can distribute information/surveys at resource centers like Women’s Drop in Center ## For students & renters * More education on what renter rights are ## Locations for Potential In-Person Meetings * Local institutions, such as churches and other faith-based locations, parks, libraries, fire stations, elementary schools, the university * Senior centers and recreation centers * Nonprofits, like the Ed Roberts Center City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F7 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS In the Spring of 2022, four community outreach events were conducted at community gathering locations, including local businesses, farmers' markets, and recreation events to receive input on housing. Interactive poster boards, flyers, QR codes linking to online surveys, and other informational items were provided to interested participants. A total of 14 hours were spent engaging with the public at these events and 55 written public comments were collected. Figure F-27 Housing Element Update Community Outreach Locations <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT # F7.1 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY FARMERS' MARKET - FEBRUARY 26, 2022 Figure F-28 Downtown Berkeley Farmers' Market Board Results <
> <
> **What We Heard** "I grew up in Berkeley but now with my husband and 2 year old live in a agrage and see ourselves leaving the area soon..." "More rent funds for crisis so one bad day doesn't mean homelessness." "Expand rent protections!!" "Maximize density" "Stop gentrification" "Permits to build takes way too long." "No NIMBYism - "historical community" is another way of saying NIMBY." "Protect rights to sun and solar" "UC Berkeley needs to build more housing for students on their own land." "Affordable housing for students." "More Group Living Accommodations for international students + students in general." "...They really need to have better oversight on their [developer] intentions. They take advantage of the City of Berkeley." "Artist co-worker housing - safe and affordable." 225 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 <
> <
> ### What We Heard "The amount of housing isn't the problem - it's the type of housing we're getting. Unaffordable housing." "N Berkeley BART project - design structure in a way that stair steps or has levels so that the height is less dramatic and still keep less than 5 stories high." "Solve problem of people on streets in tents. Tents are not housing." "More affordable senior housing that is around more amenities (w/in house services)." "Rent protection and caps on commercial properties please." "Please put community needs in empty storefronts (clinics, childcare, bathrooms) and imrove quality of life and walkable cities." "Need public housing transation tax and tax speculation." "Vacancy tax - tax if you have more than 5 units." "More low income in hills." 226 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT <
> <
> Figure F-29 Downtown Berkeley Farmers' Market Photos <
> <
> <
> <
> 227 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F7.2 BERKELEY BOWL RENTER OUTREACH - APRIL 25, 2022 Figure F-30 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach Board Results <
> <
> ### What We Heard "More housing." "Don't be like E-'ville (the sun never hits the sidewalk and nobody walks anyway). The big ones are ok (on Shattuck and University)." "Neighborhood preference for Affordable Housing Lotteries." "Everyone should have affordable hosuing --> social housing." 228 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-31** Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach Photos <
> <
> <
> <
> # F7.3 ROSES IN BLOOM YOUTH OUTREACH - MAY 14, 2022 Figure F-32 Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach Board Results <
> <
> ## What We Heard "Fund pilot projects - co-housing, shared units, bedroom rentals, matching ADUs with renters." "stop building buildings all over Berkeley." "Increase transit with increased density." "Incentivize (or assist) owners of rental properties to keep their properties in excellent conditions." "Low cost." "This should be a state and county focus and not a city focus." "Senior housing for those who acn pay market rate independent and assisted living." "More handicap friendly." "More homebuyers programs." **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-33** Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach Photos <
> <
> <
> <
> 231 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F7.4 POPPIN' THURSDAY ALL AGES SKATE PARTY YOUTH OUTREACH Figure F-34 Poppin' Thursday All Ages Skate Party Youth Outreach Board Results <
> <
> <
> | GOALS | OBJECTIVES | TOP 3 | COMMENTS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Housing Production | Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs. New housing should be developed to expand housing opportunities and choices in Berkeley to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient. | | | | Housing Preservation & Improvement | Existing housing should be maintained and improved. The City promotes energy efficiency and electrification improvements in new and existing residential buildings in order to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged. | | | | Housing Affordability | Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need. | | | | Special Needs Housing & Homelessness Prevention | Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes. | | | | Governmental Constraints | Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing. | | | | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley. | | | **What We Heard** “Opposed to housing structures exceeding 4 stories. I propose more sites but not higher than 4 stories.” “Need Section 8 housing because affordable housing isn’t affordable.” “Top concern: Pushing out people of color.” 232 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-35 Poppin' Thursday All Ages Skate Party Youth Outreach Photos** <
> <
> <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Figure F-36 Graphs showing the breakdown of responses to the questions on each board. Events Farmers' Market Berkeley Bowl Roses in Bloom Poppin' Thursday <
> Events Berkeley Bowl Roses in Bloom Poppin' Thursday <
> 234 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Events Roses in Bloom Poppin’ Thursday <
> <
> City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031 # F7.5 HARVEST FESTIVAL OUTREACH **Figure F-37 Harvest Festival Outreach Board Results** <
> <
> <
> 236 **APPENDIX F** OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT **Figure F-38** Harvest Festival Outreach Photos <
> <
> <
> # F7.6 SPROUL PLAZA SOUTHSIDE OUTREACH Figure F-39 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach Board Results <
> <
> <
> APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Figure F-40 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach Photos <
> <
> <
> 239 <
> --- ## Conservation — General Plan Environmental Management Element (October 2026) - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/06%29%20Environmental%20Management%20Element_October%202026.pdf - Pages: 24 - Covers: conservation, noise # ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT <
> ## INTRODUCTION The Environmental Management Element establishes policies for the management and conservation of the city’s natural resources and the protection of the community from hazards, pollution, and excessive noise. Related policies are included in the Transportation, Disaster Preparedness and Safety, and Open Space and Recreation Elements. The City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, each adopted in 1992, are incorporated by reference into this Element. The Environmental Management Element fulfills State requirements for the conservation and noise elements. Chapter IV "Environmental Quality" in Conditions, Trends and Issues: A Background Report for Updating the General Plan provided a detailed description of the city's natural resources and environmental policies and programs, which include the: Source Reduction and Recycling Element Household Hazardous Waste Elemen Recycling Policy Ordinance (Measure G) Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance Energy Crises Intervention Program Hazardous Material Area Plan and Hazardous Waste Importation Act Noise Ordinance Nuclear Free Berkeley Act The City has also adopted: The Joint Watershed Goals Statement with the cities of Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond The City of Berkeley Resource Conservation and Global Warming Abatement Plan, which identifies actions necessary to achieve a 15% reduction in emissions by the year 2010 (a 129,000-metric-ton reduction) The Valdez Principles The Green Business Program The Environmental Economy Program The Green Building Initiative # POLICY BACKGROUND Although Berkeley consists largely of urbanized, developed land, it does offer a great variety and abundance of natural resources and open space areas in the form of lush landscaping and urban vegetation, waterfront habitat along the shoreline, and wooded areas in the hills. The city also boasts a network of urban creeks descending from the hills to San Francisco Bay. Due to its long- established urbanized character, Berkeley has no active timber harvesting, mineral extraction, or fish and game industries. Agriculture in Berkeley is limited to personal and community gardens. Some fishing for personal use takes place at the Berkeley Marina, but commercial fishing operations are limited to recreational fishing charter boats. ## Solid and Hazardous Wastes Berkeley has a long history of concern for the environment, and in particular an interest in and commitment to reducing the amount of materials entering the solid waste stream. In compliance with State law, Berkeley adopted a 64% waste diversion goal through a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) prepared pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act. Although the City's goal of 64% exceeds the State-mandated 50% goal, Berkeley is currently diverting about 43% of its waste stream. Some of Berkeley's solid waste programs are privately operated, entirely independent of the public sector; some are privately owned but supported in one way or another by government; and some are conducted entirely by government entities. Solid and hazardous waste programs include: Curbside Residential Recycling Commercial Recycling Organic Materials Collection Certified Unified Program Regulation of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Oil Recycling Program Asbestos Abatement Program Recycling Market Development Zone Polystyrene and Styrofoam ban Community Conservation Centers’ Drop-Off and Buyback Program Construction/Demolition Materials Recycling Transfer Station Operation and Recycling Used Motor Oil Recycling Annual Neighborhood Cleanup Illegal Dumping Collection and Bulky Goods Collection Coolants and Oils Recycling Organic Materials Collection Street Tree Wood Waste Recycling Program # Energy The Berkeley community has also long been concerned about and involved with energy issues. In keeping with its progressive tradition, the City’s efforts in planning and implementing energy conservation measures were among the first in the nation. Although recent energy usage figures show the community’s overall usage has declined in recent years, the long-term success of the City’s energy programs will ultimately depend upon the community’s ability to change its behavior patterns. # Green Building Buildings consume 40% of the world’s total energy and materials, 25% of the wood harvested, and 17% of the potable water. "Green" building practices can reduce these environmental and human health problems. A green building is sited, designed, constructed, and operated to enhance the well-being of its occupants, and to minimize the negative impacts on the community and the natural environment. In recent years, Berkeley has developed a Green Building Initiative, which seeks to make building green the "business as usual" choice for new construction and major remodel projects in Berkeley. # Streets, Sewers, and Essential Infrastructure In recent years, there has also been growing concern about the state of Berkeley’s essential infrastructure because of years of deferred maintenance, and the impact of that infrastructure on the environment. The City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program totals $137 million in funding for capital improvements for 2002 to 2006, many of which are infrastructure improvements. The improvement of the City’s sewer system accounts for $39 million of the Capital Improvement Program budget, streets account for $25 million, and parks and waterfront improvements account for $16 million. A continued commitment to upgrading and maintaining the City’s essential infrastructure will be essential to the health and vitality of the community and the environment for current and future generations. Figure 19 shows in dark lines the portions of Berkeley’s sewer system that have been upgraded. *Figure 19 – Sewer System Improvements* <
> ### Creeks and Watercourses The City of Berkeley contains five principal creeks: Derby, Potter, Strawberry, Schoolhouse, and Codornices, all of which flow west from the Berkeley Hills into San Francisco Bay. In addition, eight other creeks are at least partially within the City limits. Prior to urbanization, Berkeley's creek system provided a rich riparian habitat for aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life. The natural watercourses minimized erosion, handled floodwaters, contributed to groundwater reserves and moderated temperature extremes. Most of the creeks in the flatlands are contained within underground drain culverts, a notable exception being Codornices Creek. In hillier areas, the creeks remain largely aboveground except under streets. In recent years, there has been a movement to "daylight" these underground creeks to once again flow aboveground. As a first effort, a 200-foot stretch of Strawberry Creek was opened in the City's Strawberry Creek Park. More recent examples are the block of Codornices Creek between Eighth and Ninth Streets, and Blackberry Creek in the Thousand Oaks School Park. Figure 20 illustrates the general location and condition of each of the city’s major creeks. In 1989, the City of Berkeley passed Ordinance No. 5961, entitled Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses. The purposes of the ordinance are to regulate any future culverting of or construction in open creeks, to encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of natural waterways, and to promote responsible management of watersheds. Among the provisions of the ordinance are prohibitions against obstructing or interfering with watercourses; required setbacks for new construction; and requirements for obtaining of permits for construction of walls, drains, and bulkheads. *Figure 20 – Berkeley Creeks* <
> ### Trees and the Urban Forest The City has an extensive public street tree program. The Parks and Waterfront Department maintains 30,000 street trees and 5,000 trees in the City's parks. Under the City's Tree Planting Program, the City plants up to 600 trees for city residents at no cost to the resident other than an agreement by the resident to water the tree. Most of the city's street trees are typically located in a three- to four-foot-wide grassy planting strip alongside the sidewalk. The City is currently on a five-year pruning cycle designed to ensure that every tree is pruned at least once every five years. Herbaceous and shrub vegetation is planted along with street trees in medians along many of the city's major roadways. An inventory of Berkeley's street trees in the late 1980s found the following tree species to be most abundant in Berkeley: Sycamore, London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) Plum, Purple Leaf (Prunus cerasifera) Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua) Camphor (Cinnamomum camphora) Elm, Chinese (Ulmus parvifolia) Cherry, Oriental (Prunus serrulata) Pittosporum, Victorian Box (Pittosporum undulatum)] Ash, Shamel (Fraxinus uhdei) Elm, English (Ulmus procera) Ash, Modesto (Fraxinus velutina glabra) Most of the above-listed species are not native to the Berkeley area, but do well in the Mediterranean-type climate and have characteristics suitable for street trees. In 1990, the City of Berkeley adopted a Tree Policy. The goal of the Tree Policy is to care for and maintain the trees growing in the parkways and parks in the city. The Policy sets forth specific guidance on tree species criteria and tree selection, planting methods, consideration of views, agreement with neighboring property owners regarding continued watering, tree replacement, emergency tree work, and tree protection and care. # Air Quality In contrast to some areas of the Bay Area Air Basin, air quality in Berkeley generally meets clean air standards on most days. Air quality concerns that do occur in Berkeley are more related to air contaminants for which there are no established safe standards. These contaminants include airborne carcinogens and nuisance sources, such as odors or dust. While the meteorology is generally favorable for minimizing air pollution, the Berkeley area is a source region for air quality problems in downwind communities. This impact is exacerbated by the frequent traffic congestion in Berkeley. Consequently, emission reductions in Berkeley will have a limited local benefit, but will be an important contributor to attaining/maintaining clean air standards in the region. Transportation is the major contributor to regional air pollution. Stationary sources (e.g., smokestack industries) were once important sources of both regional pollution as well as a local nuisance. Their role in the pollution picture--regionally and locally--has been substantially reduced in recent years by pollution control programs of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Any further progress in air quality improvement now focuses heavily on the automobile. # Noise Major noise sources in Berkeley include cars, trucks, buses, trains, industrial plant equipment noise, and activities associated with neighborhoods and schools (lawn mowing and leaf blowing, children playing, etc.). The most important difference between transportation and non-transportation noise sources is that the City can generally exercise control on the level and duration of noise at the property line of a non-transportation source of noise. Cities adopt noise exposure standards for noise levels generated from mobile sources, such as trucks, trains, or planes, and then make permitting decisions for land uses regarding their sensitivity in areas with excessive noise. Cities play a role in enforcing the requirement in the State Vehicle Code regarding properly operating mufflers, and may also set speed limits or weight restrictions on streets. In general terms, a city’s actions are primarily proactive with respect to stationary noise sources versus reactive for those mobile sources beyond city control. Figure 21, Noise Contours, shows the general noise levels throughout the city. The contour lines represent average Day-Night levels (LDN). *Figure 21 – Noise Contours Map* <
> Noise measurements taken at many locations throughout the city have shown that overall noise levels have remained fairly constant in Berkeley over the last 20 years. Figure 21 depicts the general level of noise that can be expected on any given day. Comprehensive noise measurements were taken throughout the city in 1973 and 1995. Small decreases in noise levels have occurred along much of San Pablo Avenue and along portions of Ashby Avenue since 1973. Some increases in noise levels have been observed along a number of roadways, including portions of Sixth Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Milvia Street, Shattuck Avenue, Oxford Street, Claremont Avenue, Grizzly Peak Boulevard, Gilman Street, Hopkins Street, Delaware Street, Hearst Avenue, and Dwight Way. These changes are consistent with the recent citywide traffic counts which show that although traffic has increased on some streets, actual traffic volume and traffic speeds have lowered on other streets, which would result in a reduction in noise levels. However, a closer comparison of the two studies shows that the recorded differences may instead be due to slight differences in how the measurements were taken or the particular conditions on the day the measurements were taken. Noise sources related to heavy manufacturing, located mainly in industrialized West Berkeley, were once a more dominant contributor to the noise environment. In the past, noise-related land use conflicts between West Berkeley and other more residential sectors of the city were at a minimum, given the distance between these areas. More recently, however, increased residential and commercial uses in West Berkeley have begun to threaten industrial uses, in part through a changing perception of environmental standards as they relate to the manufacturing process. The presumption in the past in most industrially zoned areas was that noise generated by an industrial use was an acceptable part of the manufacturing context. The Concept Plan for West Berkeley was adopted in 1991 and included policies to address these types of noise conflicts in order to maintain the historic mix of land uses in an environmentally responsible manner. The City’s Noise Ordinance sets limits for permissible noise levels during the day and night according to the zoning of the area. The Noise Ordinance does not recognize residents living in non-residential zones, such as in West Berkeley. In addition, if ambient noise (the general level of noise in the area) exceeds the standard, that ambient noise level becomes the allowable noise level. Enforcement of the Berkeley Noise Ordinance (Chapter 13.40 of the Municipal Code) is often related to commercial or industrial mechanical equipment that is sited near residential uses. # ELEMENT OBJECTIVES The policies and actions of the Environmental Management Element are intended to make Berkeley a more environmentally sustainable community by achieving the following eight objectives: 1. Promote development and coordination of local and regional environmental management programs and facilitate community participation in environmental protection and conservation. 2. Reduce solid and hazardous wastes and minimize risk from hazardous materials. 3. Reduce emissions and improve air quality. 4. Conserve water, improve water quality, and facilitate creek restoration. 5. Protect, maintain, and enhance the urban forest (including street and park trees) and natural habitat areas. 6. Support and promote a local food system based upon sustainable regional agriculture to assure access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods. 7. Reduce nonrenewable energy consumption and unnecessary glare from inappropriate lighting. 8. Protect the community from excessive noise levels. # POLICIES AND ACTIONS ## Environmental Management Programs **Policy EM-1 City of Berkeley Leadership** Maintain Berkeley's position as a leader in the adoption and implementation of environmental management programs. Actions: A. Consider environmental and social costs in all decision-making and budget decisions. B. Ensure full disclosure of information about environmental consequences of City decisions. C. Continue to develop and use scientifically based environmental management principles to inform decisions regarding economic, social, and physical planning. D. Coordinate City regulatory and educational functions to facilitate environmental management goals. E. Adopt a comprehensive Environmental Leadership policy to integrate environmental policies and communicate the City's Environmental Leadership Mission to the public. **Policy EM-2 Sustainable Berkeley** Maintain Berkeley's position as a leader in the creation and implementation of sustainable community practices and programs. Actions: A. Ensure that City activities are accomplished in a coordinated way, governed by our overarching goal of sustainability. B. Align City mission statements, budgeting, and operations with sustainability goals. Consider sustainability criteria in City policy, City purchasing, municipal operations, and program decisions. C. Consider establishing a coordinating body to spearhead and accelerate organizational and community implementation of sustainable practices and to ensure integration of environmental, economic, and social policies and programs. D. Report progress on sustainability goals regularly as part of the General Plan Annual Review. Conduct a Sustainability Assessment using the activity to set targets to meet goals and monitor future action. E. Obtain certification as a sustainable municipal operation. F. Promote the adoption of sustainable activities by the public, businesses, and organizations. **Policy EM-3 Regional Coordination** Promote the City's environmental management and sustainability policies and programs and encourage other cities in the region to establish similar or better policies and programs. Actions: A. Coordinate Berkeley's sustainability and environmental management programs with other, related programs in the region. B. Support regional efforts to create economic incentives to encourage environmental management and sustainability by cities, businesses, and households. C. Support public-private environmental management and sustainability partnerships with the scientific, environmental, educational, and business communities to develop sustainable applications for public and private use and to implement educational programs for households, public agencies, and businesses. **Policy EM-4 Green Building Certification** Develop a green building certification program. Actions: When developing the program consider: A. Requiring City-owned buildings, buildings developed by private developers on City-owned and controlled land, and projects that include City financial assistance to be Green Building certified. B. Encouraging all private buildings to be Green Building certified. C. Developing a green design assistance program. D. The minimization of greenhouse gases produced by new buildings especially as related to space heating efficiencies. **Policy EM-5 "Green" Buildings** Promote and encourage compliance with "green" building standards. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-33.) Actions: A. Encourage, and where appropriate require, new construction and major remodel projects to be sited, designed, constructed, and operated to enhance the well-being of their occupants, and to minimize present and future impacts on the community and the natural environment. (Also see Policy EM-39.) B. Encourage landscaping for water and energy efficiency. (Also see Policy EM-26.) C. Encourage buildings to incorporate renewable energy and energy- and water-efficient technologies. (Also see Policies EM-38 and EM-39.) D. Encourage use of recycled-content construction materials. (Also see Policy EM-6.) E. Encourage efforts to improve indoor air quality and to provide a comfortable and healthy environment. F. Encourage reduction of construction and demolition waste. (Also see Policy EM-6.) G. Encourage construction of durable buildings. H. Establish a green design assistance and green building certification program. **Policy EM-6 Nuclear Free Berkeley** Continue to enforce the provisions of the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act. The City shall not invest in or contract with entities that are engaged in Nuclear Weapons work, except under the limited circumstances outlined in the Act. The City shall provide timely notice of proposals to waive the Nuclear Free Act, so that citizens are assured the opportunity to comment on any proposed waiver of the Nuclear Free Act. It shall therefore be City of Berkeley policy that the City supports First Amendment actions to defend the Berkeley Nuclear Free Act. ### Solid and Hazardous Waste and Regulations **Policy EM-7 Reduced Wastes** Continue to reduce solid and hazardous wastes. Actions: A. Achieve a 64% diversion of waste from landfills. B. Manage wastes locally to the greatest extent feasible to minimize the export of wastes and pollution to other communities. C. Encourage the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the University of California to minimize to the greatest extent feasible the storage of radioactive and other toxic wastes in Berkeley. D. Encourage reduction in the use of toxic materials. E. Encourage reuse, recycling, and composting. F. Facilitate battery and used oil recycling. G. Support programs and incentives to reduce the manufacture and use of materials which are non-recyclable or hazardous to people and the environment. H. Develop education and promotion programs to increase recycling by occupants of multi-family buildings. I. Through legislation and other means, reduce the use of plastic by eliminating multiple layers in packaging and encourage reusable shipping containers such as collapsible pallets and refillable bottles for bulk liquids. J. Encourage reusable bags and packaging such as reusable bottles, whether glass or plastic. K. Link collection of plastic to mandated recycled content in plastic packaging. L. Advocate at the state level for higher disposal fees for products that are designed for single use and for products that do not incorporate any post-consumer recycled content. **Policy EM-8 Building Reuse and Construction Waste** Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of buildings whenever appropriate and feasible in order to reduce waste, conserve resources and energy, and reduce construction costs. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-6.) Actions: A. Encourage the reuse of demolition materials and recycling of construction scraps. B. Expand the existing yard-waste recycling program to include restaurant and institutional food waste. **Policy EM-9 Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations** Ensure convenient access for Berkeley citizens to transfer stations, recycling, composting, and collection of household hazardous waste products. Action: A. Seek to identify a site for and develop a Berkeley hazardous waste drop-off facility, or develop a citywide pickup program. **Policy EM-10 Materials Recovery and Remanufacturing** Support and encourage serial materials recovery and remanufacturing industries. (Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-7.) Action: A. Consider zoning changes to facilitate relocation and establishment of recovery and remanufacturing industries. **Policy EM-11 Biodegradable Materials and Green Chemistry** Support efforts to phase out the use of long-lived synthetic compounds, such as pesticides and vehicle anti-freeze, and certain naturally occurring substances which do not biodegrade. Encourage efforts to change manufacturing processes to use biodegradable materials, recycle manufactured products, reuse by-products, and use "green" products. Actions: A. Encourage citywide efforts to phase out or minimize the use of synthetic fertilizers, hazardous household wastes, toxic cleaning agents, herbicides, and pesticides. B. Require City departments to use nontoxic materials whenever possible. C. Encourage retailers to stock nontoxic alternatives to hazardous products. **Policy EM-12 Education** Work with other State and local agencies to educate business owners and residents regarding safe use, recycling, and disposal of toxic materials; reducing hazardous household wastes; and substitutes for these substances. Actions: A. Implement business operator education and hazardous materials minimization programs to avoid accidental releases of hazardous materials. B. Conduct periodic training exercises for the identification, containment, decontamination, and disposal of hazardous materials. **Policy EM-13 Hazardous Materials Disclosure** Continue to require the disclosure of hazardous materials usage and encourage businesses using such materials to prepare and implement a plan to reduce the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous wastes. **Policy EM-14 Hazardous Material Regulation** Control and regulate the use, storage and transportation of toxic, explosive, and other hazardous and extremely hazardous material to prevent unauthorized and accidental discharges. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-14.) Actions: A. Regularly inspect businesses using, storing, transporting, or generating hazardous materials or wastes to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. B. Require facility operators to write and implement contingency plans in preparation for emergency situations and accidental releases. Additionally, require facilities to train their employees on how to activate the contingency plans. **Policy EM-15 Environmental Investigation** When reviewing applications for new development in areas historically used for industrial uses, require environmental investigation as necessary to ensure that soils, groundwater, and buildings affected by hazardous material releases from prior land uses would not have the potential to affect the environment or the health and safety of future property owners, users, or construction workers. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-15.) **Policy EM-16 Risk Reduction** Work with owners of vulnerable structures with significant quantities of hazardous material to mitigate potential risks. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-13.) **Policy EM-17 Warning Systems** Establish a way to warn residents of a release of toxic material or other health hazard, such as sirens and/or radio broadcasts. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policies S-1 and S-9.) # Air Quality **Policy EM-18 Regional Air Quality Action** Continue working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and other regional agencies to: 1. Improve air quality through pollution prevention methods. 2. Ensure enforcement of air emission standards. 3. Reduce local and regional traffic (the single largest source of air pollution in the city) and promote public transit. 4. Promote regional air pollution prevention plans for business and industry. 5. Promote strategies to reduce particulate pollution from residential fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. 6. Locate parking appropriately and provide adequate signage to reduce unnecessary "circling" and searching for parking. **Policy EM-19 15% Emission Reduction: Global Warming Plan** Make efforts to reduce local emissions by 15% by the year 2010. (Also see Transportation Policy T-19.) Action: A. Continue to support and implement local emission reduction programs, such as the City of Berkeley Employee Fleet Bicycle Program, the Police Bicycle Program, and the actions recommended in the City of Berkeley Resource Conservation and Global Warming Abatement Plan. **Policy EM-20 City of Berkeley Fleet** The City should exceed Federal and State standards for all City fleet vehicles and use all means practical to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. (Also see Transportation Policy T-11.) Actions: A. Through attrition, eliminate all heavy-duty, diesel-fueled vehicles. B. All vehicle acquisitions should be of a size and fuel-type (including bicycles, ultra-light vehicles, electric vehicles and/or hybrid vehicles, and premium-efficiency conventional vehicles) that are appropriate for the tasks and have the least amount of emissions. C. Continue to convert fleet vehicles to natural gas, electricity, and other alternative fuels. Substitute bicycles for energy-powered vehicles whenever possible. **Policy EM-21 Alternative Fuels** Work with the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, and other agencies to establish natural gas fueling and electric vehicle recharging stations accessible to the public. **Policy EM-22 Public Awareness** Increase public awareness of air quality problems, rules, and solutions through use of City publications and networks. Action: A. Work on a local and regional level to improve air quality for Berkeley residents and the region. # Water Quality and Creeks **Policy EM-23 Water Quality in Creeks and San Francisco Bay** Take action to improve water quality in creeks and San Francisco Bay. Actions: A. Work with the East Bay Municipal District (EBMUD) to ensure that wastewater discharges comply with the requirements of EBMUD’s Wastewater Control Ordinance No. 311 to manage wastewater treatment discharges to protect San Francisco Bay. B. To minimize storm sewer pollution of San Francisco Bay, maintain an effective street sweeping and cleaning program. C. Identify and eliminate cross connections between the sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. D. Restore a healthy freshwater supply to creeks and the Bay by eliminating conditions that pollute rainwater, and by reducing impervious surfaces and encouraging use of swales, cisterns, and other devices that increase infiltration of water and replenishment of underground water supplies that nourish creeks. E. Increase public awareness of the value of promoting healthy watersheds and aquifers. Use mailings and similar methods to educate residents, particularly creek-side property owners, about how they can protect and improve water quality, lessen erosion, and improve habitat and creek restoration projects. Support education campaigns to eliminate dumping of paint, chemicals, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. F. Encourage the maintenance and restoration of creeks and wetlands and appropriate planting to cleanse soil, water, and air of toxins. **Policy EM-24 Sewers and Storm Sewers** Protect and improve water quality by improving the citywide sewer system. Actions: A. Adequately fund sewer system improvements necessary to maintain water quality in natural areas and reduce public health hazards. B. Identify and eliminate illegal roof-leader and other illegal connections to the sewer system. C. Establish a program for the identification and remediation of faulty laterals on private property. Consider requiring inspection and repair as a condition of property transfer. D. Identify alternative funding sources for essential infrastructure improvements such as grants, public-private partnerships, and special benefit districts. E. Ensure that new development pays its fair share of improvements to the storm sewerage system necessary to accommodate increased flows from the development. F. Coordinate storm sewer improvements with creek restoration projects. **Policy EM-25 Groundwater** Protect local groundwater by promoting enforcement of state water quality laws that ensure non-degradation and beneficial use of groundwater. **Policy EM-26 Water Conservation** Promote water conservation through City programs and requirements. Actions: A. Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping and low-flow irrigation systems. B. Consider participation in the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s East Bay-shore Recycled Water Project to make recycled water available for irrigation and other non-potable uses. **Policy EM-27 Creeks and Watershed Management** Whenever feasible, daylight creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migrations. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-28 and Land Use Policy LU-20.) Actions: A. Seek funding sources to acquire and preserve land within creek corridors for restoration or day-lighting. B. Establish, where appropriate or feasible, pedestrian and bicycle paths along creek-side greenways to connect neighborhoods and commercial areas. C. Encourage day-lighting of creeks on public lands as well as along creeks that are substantially open and accessible to the public. D. Restrict development on or adjacent to existing open creeks. When creeks are culverted, restrict construction over creeks and encourage design solutions that respect or emphasize the existence of the creek under the site. E. Ensure that creek day-lighting proposals include appropriate landscaping, allow for adequate access, and carefully consider the urban context, the impact on existing recreational spaces, and the economic impact on the property and nearby properties. F. Work in cooperation with adjoining jurisdictions to jointly undertake creek and wetland restoration projects, to improve water quality and wildlife habitat, to allow people to enjoy creeks as part of urban open space, and to create creek-side transportation corridors for pedestrians and bicycles, as described in the 1995 Joint Watershed Goals Statement. G. Regulate new development within 30 feet of an exposed streambed as required by the Creeks Ordinance and minimize impacts on water quality and ensure proper handling of stormwater runoff by requiring a careful review of any public or private development or improvement project proposed in water sensitive areas. H. Consider amending the Creek Ordinance to restrict parking and driveways on tops of culverts and within 30 feet of creeks. I. Consider replacing culverts under streets with open bridging when feasible. # Habitat and the Urban Forest **Policy EM-28 Natural Habitat** Restore and protect valuable, significant, or unique natural habitat areas. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-9.) Actions: A. Restore the natural habitat and improve water quality in the Aquatic Park lagoon. B. Where appropriate, balance increased use of open space and public lands with enhancement of natural habitat. C. Preserve and enhance coastal and riparian areas and water flows necessary to support natural habitat and wildlife. **Policy EM-29 Street and Park Trees** Maintain, enhance, and preserve street and park trees to improve the environment and provide habitat. Actions: A. Develop a street and park tree management plan to create a vibrant and well maintained tree population throughout the city. Wherever possible, tree replacement should emphasize native tree and plant species and maintain, to the extent feasible, street tree canopies over the street. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-9.) B. Prioritize South and West Berkeley for additional street tree planting. C. Ensure that new development preserves existing trees, wherever feasible, and adds trees in the public right-of-way, where appropriate. D. Maintain standards to ensure parking lot tree canopy coverage. E. Maintain programs to ensure the timely removal and replacement of unhealthy or inappropriate street or park trees. F. Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees on public and private property whenever feasible. G. Discourage the filling of planter strips with concrete. **Policy EM-30 Native Plants** Use native tree and plant species to enhance ecological richness. Action: A. Where appropriate, use native landscaping in new and replacement plantings, and remove non-native plants to create ecological corridors for wildlife habitation. **Policy EM-31 Landscaping** Encourage drought-resistant, rodent-resistant, and fire-resistant plants to reduce water use, prevent erosion of soils, improve habitat, lessen fire danger, and minimize degradation of resources. **Policy EM-32 Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination** Encourage efforts by neighboring jurisdictions and agencies, such as the East Bay Regional Park District, the University of California at Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to restore historic coastal grasslands and native trees in the hill area to provide natural habitat and reduce fire danger in the area. **Policy EM-33 Citizen Efforts** Encourage citizen efforts to restore ecological resources and open space areas, such as pathways and stairways. Action: A. Work with citizens and businesses to maintain clean streets, sidewalks, and building exteriors. # Local Food Systems **Policy EM-34 Local Food Systems** Increase access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods for the people of Berkeley by supporting efforts to build more complete and sustainable local food production and distribution systems. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-8.) Actions: A. Encourage efforts by the Berkeley Unified School District, the University of California, and other institutions to provide training and instruction in food and plant production. B. Support community outreach and education to strengthen organic sustainable food systems in the city and the region. C. Promote the purchase of food from local producers for schools, senior centers, after-school programs, food provision programs, and other social programs. Encourage the donation of fresh produce from community gardens to local food programs. D. Continue to make the City’s composted waste available to community and school gardens. E. Promote seed distribution, lead testing, and composting programs for community gardens. F. Provide sites for local farmers’ markets and community gardens. G. Encourage buildings that incorporate rooftop gardens that may be used for gardening. H. Encourage neighborhood initiatives to grow native and fruit-bearing trees. ## Energy and Lighting **Policy EM-35 Energy-Efficient Design** Promote high-efficiency design and technologies that provide cost-effective methods to conserve energy and use renewable energy sources. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-33.) Action: A. Promote statewide code revisions necessary to enable the use of new methods and materials to conserve resources and prevent pollution. **Policy EM-36 Energy Conservation** Continue to implement energy conservation requirements for residential and commercial buildings at the time of sale and at time of major improvements. Actions: A. Encourage patterns of development, building designs, and construction methods that are energy-efficient and reduce pollution. B. Encourage the use of lighting that is energy-efficient and non-intrusive. **Policy EM-37 Partnerships** Support public-private organizations established to implement energy conservation practices within the community. **Policy EM-38 Alternative Sources** Support efforts to produce energy through local alternative sources. Actions: A. Consider establishing a program of incentives to encourage conversion of residential, commercial, and/or institutional buildings to local alternative energy sources. B. Consider establishing a subsidy program to enable low-income households to benefit from conservation and alternative power programs. **Policy EM-39 Business Energy Conservation** Encourage all businesses to implement energy conservation plans. **Policy EM-40 Market Support** Support the market for energy-efficient technologies and services. **Policy EM-41 Fossil Fuel** Encourage and support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuel and other finite, nonrenewable resources. Actions: A. Wherever feasible, purchase low-emission, fuel-efficient vehicles and phase out use of diesel-fuel vehicles. B. Encourage actions that provide access by proximity, such as locating housing closer to transportation, commercial services, and job centers. (Also see Transportation Policy T-16, Housing Policy H-16, and Land Use Policy LU-23.) C. Encourage use of "bio-diesel" fuel as an alternative to fossil fuel. **Policy EM-42 Outdoor and Street Lighting** Outdoor lighting should be chosen to avoid glare and provide an attractive nighttime environment with "fully shielded" fixtures to limit light rays emitted above the horizontal plane. # Noise **Policy EM-43 Noise Reduction** Reduce significant noise levels and minimize new sources of noise. Actions: A. Increase enforcement of the Noise Ordinance to reduce noise impacts. B. Consider improvements to the Noise Ordinance to improve the City’s ability to reduce noise impacts. C. Promote increased public awareness concerning the negative effects of excessive noise on humans. **Policy EM-44 Noise Prevention and Elimination** Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible and by preventing significant future degradation of the acoustic environment. Actions: A. Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. B. Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State, and Federal noise levels by appropriate City departments. C. Coordinate with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) to provide information on and enforcement of occupational noise requirements within the City of Berkeley. D. Support Federal and State legislation to lower allowable noise level on all motor vehicles. **Policy EM-45 Traffic Noise** Work with local and regional agencies to reduce local and regional traffic, which is the single largest source of unacceptable noise in the city. Actions: A. Encourage neighborhood traffic calming strategies that cause motorists to slow down and decrease noise levels in all residential areas. (Also see Transportation Policy T-20.) B. Through the taxi permit process, restrict taxis and shuttles from honking in neighborhoods. C. Minimize potential transportation noise through proper design of street circulation, coordination of routing, and other traffic control measures. D. Promote and encourage new vehicle technologies to reduce transportation noise levels. E. Construct a noise barrier for Aquatic Park. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-8.) F. Enforce muffler laws. G. Work with AC Transit to reduce bus noise. (Also see Transportation Policy T-2.) H. Establish noise emission limits on City public works projects and vehicles, such as refuse collection trucks, and work with other large institutions in the city, such as BUSD, to reduce vehicle noise emissions. **Policy EM-46 Noise Mitigation** Require operational limitations and all feasible noise buffering for new uses that generate significant noise impacts near residential, institutional, or recreational uses. Actions: A. Promote use of noise insulation materials in new construction and major rehabilitation. B. Mitigate significant noise impacts on parks and public open space, whenever feasible. (Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-12.) **Policy EM-47 Land Use Compatibility** Ensure that noise-sensitive uses, including, but not limited to, residences, child-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, are protected from detrimental noise levels. Action: A. Noise-sensitive development proposals should be reviewed with respect to the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines below. If the noise level is within the "normally acceptable" level, noise exposure would be acceptable for the intended land use. Development may occur without requiring an evaluation of the noise environment unless the use could generate noise impacts on adjacent uses. If the noise level is within the "conditionally acceptable" level, noise exposure would be conditionally acceptable; a specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise environment and the project characteristics to determine whether noise insulation or protection features are required. Such noise insulation features may include measures to protect noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas (e.g., at residences, schools, or parks) or may include building sound insulation treatments such as sound-rated windows to protect interior spaces in sensitive receptors. If the noise level is within the "normally unacceptable" level, analysis and mitigation are required. Development should generally not be undertaken unless adequate noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce the exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels. If the noise level is within the "clearly unacceptable" level, new construction or development should not be undertaken unless all feasible noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels. --- ## Open Space — General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/08_Open%20Space%20and%20Recreation%20Element-FINAL.pdf - Pages: 11 - Covers: open_space # OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT ## INTRODUCTION The Open Space and Recreation Element establishes a policy framework and action program for the maintenance, improvement, and expansion of Berkeley’s open space and recreational facilities. The Element addresses open spaces, including parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, swim centers, public gardens, the Berkeley Marina, public paths and stairways, landscaped medians, and sidewalks. (Creeks and trees are addressed more specifically in the Environmental Management Element.) Maps at the end of this Element show the city’s current open space and recreational facilities, and neighborhood proximity to open space and recreational opportunities. <
> The provisions of this Element are closely related to those of the Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Management, and Disaster Preparedness and Safety Elements. The Element is informed by the following sources: * Berkeley Master Plan, 1977 * The LMA Pathway Evaluation Report, 1993 * Draft Aquatic Park Master Plan, 1990 * Berkeley Waterfront Plan Amendment to the City’s Master Plan and Berkeley Waterfront Specific Plan, 1986 * The Playing Fields Study, 1998 * Current planning efforts underway for the Berkeley Marina ## POLICY BACKGROUND Few of Berkeley’s public assets are as highly treasured and as heavily used as the City’s open spaces. Berkeley’s open spaces include public parks and recreational facilities, the Marina, public plazas, sidewalks, public paths and stairways, landscaped medians, the University of California campus, UC Botanical Gardens, Strawberry Canyon Recreation Facilities, the Ecological Study Area, the Berkeley Unified School District grounds, community gardens, creeks and other water features, and some privately owned outdoor spaces, such as plazas. Berkeley’s parks and other open spaces serve as places of recreation and beauty, as community gathering places, as centers of ecological learning (e.g., Shorebird Nature Center and Strawberry Creek), and as reflections of our culture and history (e.g., the Ohlone Mural and the Rose Garden). The community also benefits from nearby regional parks owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District such as Tilden Regional Park and Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, located on the eastern border of the city. A third regional park, Eastshore State Park, currently in the planning stages, promises to be a spectacular addition to the city’s open space lands. Berkeley’s Parks and Waterfront Department maintains the City’s open space through its Forestry, Landscape Maintenance, and Marina operations. It is the mission of the Department to enhance the beauty and quality of life throughout Berkeley by providing safe, attractive, and well-maintained landscape areas, urban forests, recreational resources, and Marina and waterfront environments using ecologically sound practices, and to involve and engage the community in the implementation of this mission. ### The Growing Parkland Supply Since 1977, the City has made significant increases in the amount and type of open space available to Berkeley citizens. Berkeley has more than doubled its total parks acreage, from 110 to 230 total acres since 1977. As a result, the community achieved its 1977 Master Plan goal of two park acres per 1,000 people, more than double the acres-to-persons ratio of 1977. With the addition of the new Harrison Park, and the inclusion of the Bay Trail, Eastshore State Park, and Tilden Regional Park, the acres of parkland available to city residents increases to over 10 acres per 1,000 residents. If the 198-acre Claremont Canyon Regional Reserve is added, the figure increases to over 12 acres per 1,000 residents. The maps at the end of this Element show the location of the city’s existing park and recreational resources and indicate a neighborhood’s relative proximity to them. <
> | Parkland Added Since 1977 | | | :--- | :--- | | **Park** | **Acreage** | | Bateman Park | 0.37 | | Cedar - Rose Park | 4.94 | | Cesar Chavez Park | 90.00 | | Grizzly Peak Park | 0.23 | | George Florence Park | 0.51 | | Halcyon Commons | 0.58 | | King School Park | 1.72 | | Ohlone Park | 9.80 | | Presentation Park | 0.17 | | Solano-Peralta Park | 0.12 | | Strawberry Creek Park | 3.70 | | Thousand Oaks School Park | 2.60 | | Harrison Park | 5.52 | | Total added since 1977 | 120.26 | The Berkeley community, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Waterfront Commission, Adopt-a-Park groups, and the citywide Berkeley Partners for Parks play key roles in maintaining and enhancing the City’s parks and open spaces. In 1974, the citizens of Berkeley passed Measure Y, a five-year property tax override to acquire, develop, and renovate parks.[^p2-1] Measure Y funded acquisition of over 19 acres of new parkland and enabled the City to develop new recreational facilities on property owned by the Berkeley Unified School District in neighborhoods that were underserved by park facilities. Under the original agreement, the City and the School District agreed to share maintenance responsibilities for several renovated School District recreational facilities. Currently the City is responsible for the maintenance of Thousand Oaks School Park and Martin Luther King Jr. School Park and the district is responsible for maintenance at the Le Conte School, John Muir School, Washington School, Malcolm X School, and Rosa Parks School facilities. Many of the School District properties have been recently renovated, but historically the District has not been able to satisfactorily maintain these public facilities. [^p2-1]: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 7.08 *et seq.* In 1986, the citizens of Berkeley passed Measure L, ensuring that all existing City open space would be preserved for open space use.[^p3-2] Also in 1986 the citizens of Berkeley passed Measure Q, establishing the waterfront as an area primarily for recreation and providing public access to the waterfront.[^p3-3] Berkeley residents were instrumental in the subsequent acquisition of 170 acres on the Berkeley waterfront for the future Eastshore State Park, the recent reorganization of the City’s Parks and Waterfront Department, the acquisition of the Santa Fe right-of-way in 1978, and the acquisition of the “Hearst Strip” and its development into Ohlone Park. ### Challenge #1: Parkland and Facility Maintenance The price of possessing such an extensive and diverse open space system is the cost of maintaining it. The greatest challenge facing the community over the next 20 years will be to secure adequate funding to care for existing open space resources. The City of Berkeley currently maintains 52 parks and associated buildings, parking lots, and play areas, 21 turf medians, 75 developed paths, 40 undeveloped paths, and 1,000 slips at the Berkeley Marina that together total over 300 acres of land. The rising cost of maintaining the City’s open space resources is due to several factors, including: A. Each new park or park improvement, such as a play structure, adds to the cost of maintaining the overall parks system. B. Children’s play areas, tot lots and recreation opportunities for middle and high-school-age young people throughout the city need to be developed, improved, or replaced. C. Many of the playgrounds, ball fields, park equipment and grounds are beyond their expected useful life and require repair or replacement. D. Several new federal mandates establishing playground safety and ADA accessibility standards require facilities to be rehabilitated. E. Designated historically significant parks, such as the Berkeley Rose Garden and Civic Center Park, require significant restoration work. F. Maturing street trees and park landscaping require an ongoing cycle of removal and replacement. The Parks and Waterfront Forestry Unit plants more than 500 new or replacement trees each year. G. The City’s restriction against the use of herbicides, pesticides, and gas-powered leaf blowers requires labor-intensive techniques to maintain parks and street medians. The City’s primary revenue source for maintenance of parks and open space is the Parks Tax. In 2000, the voters of Berkeley approved an increase in the Parks Tax to help cover the cost of maintaining the growing supply of parkland in Berkeley. By 2002, the Parks Tax is expected to generate over $7.2 million annually. However, it is expected that these funds will be needed primarily for maintenance of planned and existing park facilities and will not be sufficient to cover building maintenance, lighting improvements, major capital improvements, or property acquisition. The Parks Tax is used for all City parks and street median maintenance and some capital improvements in parks (including some which are in the Marina Enterprise Zone, resulting in some overlap between the two funds). The Marina Enterprise Fund is used for all areas within the Marina Enterprise Zone, including for parks, open space, and street median maintenance in that zone. General funds supplement capital improvement projects in City parks and at the Marina. Maintaining the Marina and waterfront infrastructure is crucial to the continued successful operation of these facilities. The nature of the capital improvement work at the Marina consists of both ongoing, routine maintenance such as replacement of pilings, roadways, restrooms, etc., and large-scale improvements such as dock replacement and dredging. Though the Marina Enterprise Fund generated [^p3-2]: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 6.42 et seq. [^p3-3]: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 11.56 et seq. approximately $3 million in 2000, only about $325,000 per year is available from the Fund for capital improvements to replace an aging infrastructure. The Marina Fund has historically been balanced by deferring capital improvement expenditures. The General Fund does not usually provide funding toward the capital needs of the Marina. The City is currently finalizing a Draft Marina Plan that establishes improvement priorities for the Berkeley Marina. ### Challenge #2: Responding to the Changing Needs of the Community In addition to the challenge of maintaining the growing supply of parkland, the community also faces the challenge of adapting or increasing its park and open space resources to meet changing needs and priorities. For example, due to Title 9; to the increasing participation of girls in organized sports, and to mushrooming youth participation in soccer, softball, field hockey, and lacrosse; the demand for youth playing fields has greatly increased. Responding in part to these conditions, the City Council approved development of new playing fields at the Harrison Street site in West Berkeley in 1999. Improving and expanding access to existing park facilities has also been identified as a major issue. Access to many of the City’s largest park areas, such as Aquatic Park and the Waterfront, is often difficult for pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, and transit riders. Some parks and recreational facilities are not adequately accessible to the disabled. Recent improvements include improved pathways and signs directing people to and through Aquatic Park; disabled access improvements at a number of City facilities; the I-80 overcrossing (a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from Aquatic Park to the waterfront); and the recently reconstructed, fully accessible F and G docks at the Berkeley Marina. Active volunteer community groups are also working to rehabilitate and improve the historic pathway system in the hills, which would improve access to parks for hill residents and serve as a recreational pathway system, encourage walking rather than driving, and provide emergency evacuation routes. There is also a growing demand for additional community gardening sites. There are currently 17 community gardens in Berkeley. The City owns five of the sites, the Berkeley Unified School District owns four, the University of California owns two, and the rest are owned by a variety of nonprofits and private organizations. In summary, a number of needed open space and recreation facilities improvements have been identified: A. The supply of playing fields for youth sports needs to be improved and expanded. B. Children’s play areas, tot lots, and recreation opportunities for middle-school and high-school age young people throughout the city need to be developed, improved, or replaced. C. The City’s recreation centers are suffering from deferred maintenance and are in need of improvements. D. Skateboard parks. E. Aquatic Park improvements are necessary to reduce freeway noise, improve access, improve water quality, and address safety concerns. F. Several open space and recreation facilities, including certain facilities for the disabled (e.g., Therapy Pool), need access improvements. G. The historic public pathway network throughout Berkeley needs repair and rehabilitation. H. Additional space is desired for community gardens, farmers markets, and cultural events. I. There have been calls for changes to park facilities and enforcement of park rules to discourage the homeless from using City parks as a place to sleep, cook meals, and bathe. ### Challenge #3: Funding the Community’s Open Space and Recreational Priorities Since adoption of the 1977 Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, funding for open space maintenance and improvement has become less dependable. In 1978, the voters of California passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes and resulted in dramatic decreases in park funding. Since the passage of Proposition 13, Berkeley has attempted to fund park improvements and park expansion through a variety of different funding mechanisms that combine local, State, and Federal funding sources. Although the City has been able to make significant improvements to the overall park system with this patchwork of funding sources, funding for routine park maintenance and timely capital improvements to existing parks has often been inadequate. Most State and regional and Federal funding sources are not available for maintenance of existing parks. Thus, although the City has been able to increase the supply of parkland through these sources, the increasing parkland supply, the loss of a dependable funding source for routine maintenance, and increasingly high usage by youth sports have often resulted in increasing maintenance costs and deferred maintenance. Ongoing maintenance of existing parks is funded from the Parks Tax (which replaced the City’s Landscape Assessment District in 1997). This tax generates revenues through a property tax based on a rate approved by Berkeley voters. These funds are used almost exclusively for ongoing maintenance of City’s parks, street medians, and street trees. To increase this maintenance funding source will require either an increase in the Parks Tax, which must be approved by the Berkeley voters, or an increase in General Fund expenditures, which will require a corresponding decrease in General Fund expenditures in some other services. Due to the limited local funding for park maintenance and expansion, Federal and State grants and State or local bond measures are essential funding sources. Measure AA, a State bond administered by EBRPD, provided $3.1 million in funding to the City for improvements in its parks during the 1990s. The last of the Measure AA funding was expended by 2000. The Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) refund, which was issued in 1994, enabled a $1.5 million one-time funding for park improvements in the 1990s but is now fully committed. The State Gas Tax Fund provides money for roadway landscaping and irrigation improvements. The State Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Program (EEMP) grants fund highway development mitigation projects. Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money funds park improvements. In March 2000, the voters of California approved a new State Park Bond (Proposition 12), which will provide $1.3 million for local park improvements as well as the opportunity for Berkeley to compete for additional grants for park improvements. **Policy Background Conclusions** Given the physical, social, and financial changes that have occurred since 1977, the General Plan Open Space and Recreation policies focus the community’s future efforts toward: A. Maintaining existing park and open space resources, and identifying and securing additional financial resources for open space maintenance and capital improvements. B. Identifying and funding improvements and enhancements to existing parks that will address the changing needs of the community or enhance the ability of existing parks to meet the community’s open space needs. C. Providing new parks or facilities for those segments of the community that are currently underserved, and identifying and securing additional financial resources for open space expansion. D. Supporting and encouraging citizen involvement in the planning and maintenance of the city’s open space resources. # ELEMENT OBJECTIVES The policies and actions of the Open Space and Recreation Element are intended to achieve the following three objectives: 1. Preserve, maintain, and repair the city’s existing open space and recreational resources and facilities. 2. Expand open space and recreational resources to meet the evolving open space and recreational needs of all segments of this community through land acquisitions and improvements. 3. Increase funding for parkland, recreational facilities, and open space maintenance, improvement, and expansion. ## POLICIES AND ACTIONS ### PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR **Policy OS-1 Preservation** Existing open space and parks shall be maintained and preserved for public park and open space use. *Measure L, passed by the Berkeley voters in 1986, requires a vote of the people to use or to develop a public open space or park for any purpose other than public park or open space, unless a State of Emergency has been declared.* Action: A. Consider revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to include open space zoning districts for all designated open space areas in the city. **Policy OS-2 Maintenance, Repair, and Enhancements** Within the context of open space resource allocations, give highest priority to maintaining and improving the City’s existing network of open space and recreation facilities. *The City’s extensive open space network requires ongoing maintenance. Due to funding constraints, required maintenance has often been deferred, which results in higher maintenance and replacement costs. Maintenance of existing resources consists of; ongoing maintenance (upkeep), restoration of resources (repair), and improvements to maximize or improve utilization of existing facilities (improvements).* Actions: A. Repair recreation centers and swim centers. B. Continue to repair or replace unsafe or inaccessible play equipment. C. Restore the network of public paths and historic street features, such as gateways, lighting, and stairways. D. Improve access for the disabled to park and open space facilities. E. Regularly resurface basketball and tennis courts. F. Regularly maintain and restore park landscaping. G. Where appropriate, add lights to existing sports fields and improve drainage, where necessary. H. When available and financially feasible, acquire small amounts of property adjacent to existing public facilities to improve their utility. I. Improve enforcement of park use rules and regulations. J. Establish a plan for maintaining the existing infrastructure at the Berkeley Marina, including maintenance and replacement of docks, piers, bulkheads, dry dock storage areas, restrooms, and utility systems (water, sewage, electricity etc.), and dredging to maintain adequate marina water depth. K. Establish a funding plan that prioritizes repair and maintenance of existing open space and recreational facilities. **Policy OS-3 Volunteerism** Encourage community involvement and volunteerism in park and open space maintenance and improvement as a means to leverage local funds and improve park and open space. *Community involvement in the creation and maintenance of our parks is an important component of this Open Space and Recreation Element. Berkeley’s level of neighborhood park activism is high and continues to grow.* Actions: A. Continue to encourage and support the Parks and Open Space Mini Grant Program and the Adopt a Park Program. B. Continue to encourage public-private partnerships to develop and maintain public playing fields and other open spaces and recreational facilities. **Policy OS-4 Working with Other Agencies** Work with the Berkeley Unified School District, the University of California, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the East Bay Regional Park District to improve, preserve, maintain, and renovate their open space and recreation facilities. Actions: A. Work with the University of California to identify and pursue opportunities for active-use (playing fields and courts) recreation space serving University students, particularly those students who are Berkeley residents in densely developed neighborhoods near the UC campus. B. Work with the Berkeley Unified School District to: 1. Uphold the District’s responsibilities with respect to maintaining jointly administered open space facilities such as the Measure Y parks. 2. Identify ways to expand community use of the District’s recreational facilities. 3. Repair or replace the warm water pool. 4. Investigate the feasibility of developing an additional on-campus swimming pool for use by students at Berkeley High and the general public. C. Work with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to increase opportunities for recreational use of District facilities. EXPANSION OF OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES **Policy OS-5 Community Participation** Encourage community involvement in every aspect of park and open space acquisition, design, and construction. (*Also see the Citizen Participation Element and Land Use Policy LU-5.*) **Policy OS-6 New Open Space and Recreational Resources** Create new open space and recreational resources throughout Berkeley. Actions: A. Identify and prioritize open space expansion opportunities in neighborhoods that are underserved or not easily accessible to existing park and recreational facilities. B. Convene a community planning process to determine the final use of the remaining 14 blocks of City-owned land on the Santa Fe Right-of-Way. The community planning process shall consider public open space use (i.e., neighborhood parks, community gardens, and/or bicycle and pedestrian paths) as the highest priority use for the remaining vacant land and new affordable housing development as the next highest priority use. C. Develop joint-use agreements with other agencies such as the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and regional open space agencies to increase public access to public lands. D. Increase the supply of playing fields for youth sports. E. Establish spaces for art, music, and cultural activities. (*Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-11, Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-34, and Land Use Policy LU-19.*) **Policy OS-7 Serving Disadvantaged Populations** Within the context of open space resource allocations for new or expanded facilities, give high priority to providing additional facilities for populations that are disadvantaged or underserved. Actions: A. Ensure that park planning processes consider the needs of low-income residents and residents with limited English. B. Ensure that park facilities and recreational activities are available at low costs to low-income residents and accessible by public transportation. C. Ensure that new open space, recreational, or cultural uses are compatible with the other vital community priorities for disadvantaged populations in Berkeley. **Policy OS-8 Community Gardens** Encourage and support community gardens as important open space resources that build communities and provide a local food source. (*Also see Environmental Management Policy EM-34.*) Actions: A. Encourage neighborhood groups to organize, design, and manage community gardens particularly where space is available that is not suitable for housing, parks, pathways, or recreation facilities. Ensure that garden plots are allocated according to a fair and equitable formula. B. Require all publicly subsidized community gardens to maintain regular “open to the public” hours. C. Include community gardens in the planning for the Santa Fe Right-of-Way. D. Pursue community gardens in high-density areas with little private open space suitable for gardening. E. Increase support for community gardens through partnerships with other government agencies, particularly the Berkeley Unified School District, neighborhood groups, businesses, and civic and gardening organizations. F. Support school-based gardens and the involvement of youth in growing and preparing their own food. **Policy OS-9 Aquatic Park** Make Aquatic Park more accessible and usable as a neighborhood park. *(Also see Environmental Management Policies EM-28 and EM-45.)* Actions: A. Install an effective and attractive noise and visual freeway barrier with landscaping for Aquatic Park. B. Remove the I-80 Potter Street on-ramp from Aquatic Park. *(Also see Transportation Policy T-29.)* C. Provide new safe pedestrian and bicycle railroad crossings, particularly at the southern end of the site, for improved access and circulation from nearby neighborhoods to Aquatic Park. D. Improve the bicycle path around the park. E. Encourage lessees of City buildings in the park to serve local youth. F. Explore opportunities to expand the park. **Policy OS-10 Access Improvements** Improve transit, bicycle, disabled, and pedestrian access to and between open space and recreation facilities, including regional facilities such as the Berkeley Marina, University of California open space, East Bay Regional Park District lands, the Eastshore State Park, and recreational facilities in other cities. *(Also see Transportation Policies T-29, T-42, T-47, and T-50.)* Actions: A. Develop and maintain a citywide pedestrian and bicycle network that links open space and recreation facilities with bicycle and walking paths along tree-lined streets, publicly owned pathways, creeks, and other greenways. B. Maintain opportunities to eventually complete a Codornices Creek Greenway from the Bay to the hills. C. Increase shuttle and weekend transit service and weekend street closures to improve access to recreational and open space. D. Continue to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the waterfront and Berkeley Marina. E. Attempt to establish a network of bicycle lanes and paths, physically separated from automobile traffic, to provide safe bicycle access especially for children to all schools, recreation sites, and city open spaces. **Policy OS-11 Public Spaces** Encourage innovative use of public plazas, sidewalks, and temporary street closures as open space or for recreational or cultural events. *(Also see Land Use Policy LU-20.)* Action: A. Design and improve public streets, parking lots, and plazas to provide public spaces for street fairs, festivals and other gatherings. **Policy OS-12 Adjacent Uses** Ensure that land adjacent to parks is sensitively developed so that shade on the park is minimized, safe access is maintained, and views are not significantly reduced. *(Also see Land Use Policy LU-28 and Urban Design and Preservation Policies UD-31 and UD-32.)* **Policy OS-13 Waterfront Open Space and Recreational Facilities** Implement the 1986 Waterfront Plan policies to establish the waterfront as an area primarily for recreational, open space, and environmental uses, with preservation and enhancement of beaches, marshes, and other natural habitats. *(Also see Land Use Policies LU-43 and LU-44.)* Actions: A. Work collaboratively with the East Bay Regional Park District, Albany, Emeryville, and Oakland to plan and complete the new Eastshore State Park as part of a continuous East Bay shoreline open space and recreational area. B. Assure that new development along the shoreline recognizes its unique location, considers sensitive natural resources, and maintains adequate shoreline access and views. C. Maintain Cesar Chavez Park as a City-owned park. D. Complete the Berkeley portion of the Bay Trail and connections to Cesar Chavez Park and links to the Berkeley Marina. **Policy OS-14 Regional Open Space** Coordinate with regional open space agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District, neighboring cities, and private sector and nonprofit institutions to maintain, improve, and expand the region’s open space network. INCREASED FUNDING **Policy OS-15 Funding for Maintenance** Pursue innovative sources of local funding for open space and recreational facility maintenance and capital improvements. *Local funding for renovation and maintenance of existing facilities is limited. With the exception of the Marina, ongoing maintenance of existing parks is funded from the Parks Tax (which replaced the City’s Landscape Assessment District in 1997). This tax generates revenues through a property tax based on a rate approved by Berkeley voters. These funds are used almost exclusively for ongoing maintenance of parks, street medians, and urban forest; therefore, funds for open space capital improvements or acquisition are limited.* Actions: A. Pursue donated funds and local corporate contributions. B. Ensure that new development provides for the open space and recreational facility needs of the future users of the development. C. Ensure that all proposals to add new parkland or expand facilities are accompanied by a realistic funding plan for maintenance and ongoing capital improvements. D. Consider voter-approved special bond or tax measures for parkland acquisition and maintenance. E. Pursue all available sources of local funding for Marina improvements and maintenance including berthing fees, ground leases, and funds generated by local nonprofits. F. Consider a range of public/private financing strategies for Marina maintenance and improvements. Strategies could include studying the feasibility of new, appropriately scaled, water-related, revenue-generating uses, or a City-owned commercial venue, sited so that it will not compromise public access or environmentally sensitive areas. G. Review existing fees for programs and services and where appropriate, raise fees to be compatible with those of other jurisdictions. H. To help ensure adequate funds for capital improvements at the Marina, the City should maintain a Marina capital reserve fund and whenever possible set funds aside each year for future improvements to Marina capital projects. Expenditures from the committed reserve should be made in consultation with the Waterfront Commission. **Policy OS-16 Outside Funding Sources** Actively pursue State and Federal funding and grant opportunities. Action: A. Pursue all available sources of outside funding for Marina improvements and maintenance including Department of Boating and Waterways loans and grants, State Park Bond funds, State Water Bond funds, and grants from organizations such as the Regional Water Quality Board and the Coastal Conservancy. --- ## Safety — General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element (October 2026) - Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/04%29%20Disaster%20Preparedness%20and%20Safety%20Element_October%202026.pdf - Pages: 31 - Covers: safety # DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY ELEMENT ## INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element is to reduce the risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation from natural and man-made hazards and disasters. Earthquakes, fires, landslides, floods, and hazardous materials releases are the primary hazards confronting the Berkeley community and are therefore the focus of this Element[^p1-1]. However, implementation of policies and <
> actions included in this Element will make Berkeley more resistant to all kinds of hazards and disasters that may occur in Berkeley. The Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element provides the policy framework to support the City’s mitigation, emergency preparedness, disaster response, and future recovery efforts. To maximize its effectiveness, the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element is intended to complement and support the other General Plan Elements and City documents such as the Multi- Hazard Functional Plan for Emergency Operations. Integrating safety as a consideration into all City decisions will ensure a safer and more sustainability community. For example, the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element supports Land Use Element goals for neighborhood protection, Urban Design and Preservation Element goals for the protection of architecturally and historically significant buildings, and Housing Element goals for preserving and maintaining housing stock and increasing residential disaster preparedness. ## POLICY BACKGROUND Berkeley, like other Bay Area cities, faces a wide range of hazards ranging from natural hazards, such as earthquakes and fires, to man-made hazards such as the handling and transport of hazardous materials. The City must strive to understand the risks that these hazards pose and [^p1-1]: Hazardous Materials are addressed in the Environmental Management Element devise strategies that attain a reasonable degree of safety for the community. Although threats cannot be eliminated, their level of damage can be minimized through individual and community preparedness, individual and community action to reduce or eliminate long-term risks (mitigation efforts), and sound development practices. In 2004, the City adopted its first Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is part of the Disaster, Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan. The City updated the Disaster Mitigation Plan in 2014 and renamed it the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). On 12/16/2014, the City Council adopted the LHMP (by reference) into the General Plan. Given that the community is largely urbanized and densely populated, the challenge for Berkeley is to improve the safety of the existing built environment through a variety of systematic, ongoing, and incremental actions. These actions to reduce risk should be based on sound analysis of hazardous conditions and should include economically realistic interventions and incentives. Berkeley’s fire, police, and health departments are first responders in the event of any natural and/or man-made disasters. In order to prepare for a disastrous event, coordination with other agencies is critical. The ability of the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, and the City of Berkeley to prepare for, and respond to, a major disaster in a coordinated manner is essential to the health and safety of the Berkeley community. Coordination with neighboring jurisdictions is also critical. Wildfires can ignite in neighboring jurisdictions and spread quickly into Berkeley. Hazardous material spills or explosions in adjacent cities can affect Berkeley residents. Other municipalities, public and private utilities and transportation systems, hospitals, and special districts provide vital resident-serving services that are highly vulnerable to earthquakes and other hazards. This regional interdependence of medical, transportation, communications, emergency response, and other systems necessitates active coordination and a consistent level of mitigation and preparedness. Lastly, but most importantly, the community must be prepared if the City to reduce the risks associated with a major disaster. Neighborhood and business groups need to be trained on how to prepare for and respond to a major disaster. If the citizens of Berkeley are prepared, the risk to life and property from a major disaster will be significantly reduced. A major focus of the City’s mitigation efforts must be the preparation and training of the community to help itself. In recent years, the Berkeley community has made major accomplishments toward risk reduction in Berkeley. In 1992, the Berkeley community approved Measures G and A, which provided funds for the seismic retrofitting of all City fire stations and public schools, the creation of an emergency operations center, and improvements to the water system. Measure S was approved in 1996 and provided funds for seismic retrofit of the Central Library and the Civic Center Building (City Hall). The seismically reinforced Ronald Tsukamoto Public Safety Building, housing Police and Fire administrative staff, opened in 2000. Other public buildings remain to be seismically retrofitted, however. Also in 1992 the Berkeley City Council established the Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program that provides two types of financial incentives to homeowners to retrofit their homes. The City will waive up to one-third of the transfer tax on a home sale, if the funds are used for seismic upgrades of the property. Between fiscal year 1992/93 and fiscal year 1997/98, approximately $3,589,400 in property transfer tax for approximately 7,641 properties was waived under the Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program. The City will waive permit fees for seismic retrofitting of non-strengthened homes and unreinforced masonry structures. Between 1992 and 1999, approximately $1,079,000 in permit fees was waived for 4,100 permits under the Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program. These incentives are credited with giving Berkeley one of the highest residential retrofit rates in the state. The Seismic Technical Advisory Group (STAG) was approved by City Council on March 14, 1995 to advise on seismic safety matters and assist in the development of a comprehensive seismic hazard mitigation strategy for the City of Berkeley. The panel was originally made up of three professors from the University of California at Berkeley; two earthquake-engineering experts, Professor Vitelmo Bertero and Professor James Kelly; and a seismic safety public policy expert, Professor Mary Comerio. L. Thomas Tobin, former Executive Director of the California Seismic Safety Commission, replaced Professor Comerio upon her departure. Professor Kelly recently resigned in April of 2002. Overall, the Seismic Technical Advisory Group has provided review for the seismic improvements to many City buildings, including the MLK Civic Center Building and the Public Safety Building. Currently, the Group is reviewing the seismic upgrades of other public buildings and providing guidance for the Soft Story Assessment Project. The Seismic Technical Advisory Group's varied expertise makes them a unique asset to Berkeley in the development of a comprehensive approach to addressing the significant risk the community faces from earthquake hazards. In September 1996, the Berkeley City Council adopted the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan for Emergency Operations. Coordinated and prepared by the City's Office of Emergency Services, this comprehensive citywide Plan outlines the critical functions and responsibilities of City departments and agencies in responding to an emergency. The Multi-Hazard Functional Plan identifies the potential extent of damage that would be inflicted by a disaster to emergency services buildings (e.g., hospitals), utilities, and transportation systems. An Emergency Management Organization defined in the Plan consists of a formal structure detailing the functions and responsibilities of each department in an emergency situation. The Fire Department's fire and rescue operations would continue to carry out the same functions (including fire fighting, rescue operations, hazardous materials management, and emergency medical treatment and triage) as in non-emergency periods. However, additional functions necessary in emergency periods are also spelled out. For example, the Fire Department would be responsible for all fire suppression and rescue operations, but would coordinate with the Office of Emergency Services (OES), Police Department, and Department of Public Works in alerting and warning the general public of dangers and in providing mass casualty treatment and transportation. In 1998, the City of Berkeley won the Western States Seismic Safety Council’s award for Overall Excellence in Hazard Mitigation, the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Award for Retrofit Incentive Programs, and recognition as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 1998 Project Impact Model Community of the Year. In 1999, FEMA designated the City of Berkeley as a Project Impact community. This initiative commits the City to creating, in partnership with the private sector, a risk-based, cost-effective, multi-hazard, community-supported long-term strategy to provide a heightened level of protection from natural hazards. The cornerstone of this commitment involves an aggressive public education effort aimed at strengthening and inspiring community mitigation actions. In 2004, the City adopted its first Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is part of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan. The City updated the Disaster Mitigation Plan in 2014 and renamed it the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). On 12/16/14, the City Council adopted the LHMP (by reference) into the General Plan. The LHMP has since been updated in 2019 (Reso. 69,237-NS (Exh A), 2019) and in 2025 (City Council Resolution 71,697) superseding previously adopted plans. The LHMP will continue to be updated periodically, as required by State ad Federal regulations. In recent years, the City has been working to improve its website as a source of disaster preparedness and planning information for citizens. The site includes extensive information and checklists designed for citizen use. From the website, citizens can access other websites with important information. Some of the most useful information, as of the date of this publication, is available to the public at the following World Wide Web addresses: 1. City of Berkeley website 2. City of Berkeley website disaster preparedness checklist for use by Berkeley citizens 3. Community Preparedness website 4. Association of Bay Area Governments website providing detailed information and maps 5. Seismology Laboratory at the University of California 6. U.S. Geological Survey In addition to the website, the City is able to provide up to the minute emergency information and evacuation information on radio KCBS (740AM), KGO (810AM), and Berkeley’s WNZV (1610AM). ## Hazards and Vulnerabilities The Berkeley community is faced with several major potential hazards and associated vulnerabilities. The following sections of this Element identify the major hazards confronting the | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | General Plan | S-4 | Disaster Prepardness and Safety Element | | UPDATED: October 1,2026 | | | community, and those aspects or areas of the community that are most vulnerable to those hazards. # Seismic and Geological Hazards Berkeley and the Bay Area are situated in a seismically active area. A system of parallel faults, including the Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, San Andreas, and numerous other faults, exists in the area and poses a potential threat to the community. On October 14, 1999, the United States Geological Survey’s Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities issued the following information assessing the likelihood of large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1990, the Working Group focused on the San Andreas, the Hayward, and the Rodgers Creek faults. Using information on the slip rates of each fault, the date of previous large events, and assumptions about fault geometry, the report concluded that the chance of one or more large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area in 30 years was approximately 67%. | 30-year Probabilities of One or More Magnitude 6.7 Earthquakes on San Francisco Bay Area Faults | | | :--- | :--- | | **Earthquake Fault** | **Percent Chance of Occurrence** | | Hayward/Rodgers Creek | 32% | | San Andreas | 21% | | Calaveras | 18% | | San Gregorio | 10% | | Concord/Green Valley | 6% | | Greenville | 6% | | Mt. Diablo | 4% | | **Hayward Fault Probabilities** | | | Southern Hayward | 17% | | Northern Hayward | 16% | | Rodgers Creek | 20% | The new report assesses the odds of a magnitude 6.7 or higher over the next 30 years as 70% in the San Francisco Bay Area, with an uncertainty of 10%. Although these results are very similar to the 1990 study, the Working Group believes that the new numbers are more robust and reliable. This high probability of a damaging earthquake is extremely sobering. The risk of a damaging earthquake encompasses the entire San Francisco Bay Area. While the previous studies concentrated on the San Andreas and Hayward fault systems, this report makes it clear that the hazard extends beyond the Peninsula and the East Bay. This is particularly relevant for the rapidly growing regions of Contra Costa, Alameda, Solano, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Napa counties. In addition to computing a regional probability, the Working Group has computed fault-specific and segment- specific probabilities[^p6-2]. [^p6-2]: For the most recent available information on seismic hazards available to the public, readers are encouraged to review information provided by the Seismology Laboratory at the University of California and the U.S. Geological Survey. (See website information above) *Figure 11 – Active Earthquake Faults in the San Francisco Bay Region* <
> General Plan S-7 Disaster Prepardness and Safety Element UPDATED: October 1,2026 *Figure 12 – Ground Shaking Intensity* <
> **Seismic Hazard Areas** **Expected Ground Shaking Intensity** (Magnitude 7.3 Earthquake on Hayward Fault) | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Very Violent | | Hayward Fault (approximate location) | | | Violent | | Liquefaction Zone | | | Very Strong | | | Source: ABAG,1998; City of Berkeley, 1999; Baseline Environmental Consulting, 1999. These numbers are similar to the 1990 numbers, which yielded 23% for the Southern Hayward, 28% for the Northern Hayward, and 22% for the Rodgers Creek fault. However, many people will be surprised that these are lower estimates. Several changes in the 1999 methodology explain the difference. First, the new report accounted for more variations in fault rupture. For example, the 1990 report estimated probabilities for the rupture of the Rodgers Creek fault, the Northern Hayward and the southern Hayward as individual segments. The 1999 report accounts for the possibility that these individual segments may rupture together and cause larger earthquakes. By allowing for the occurrence of larger earthquakes, the computed probabilities decrease since the larger events are less frequent. Second, the new report includes the effects of the "stress shadow" of the 1906 earthquake. That is, it accounts for interactions between the faults. In the case of the 1906 earthquake, the movement of the San Andreas acted to reduce the stress on the Hayward fault. Third, the new models account for the fact that the Hayward fault "creeps". Through this seismic movement, some of the strain accumulation is released. Finally, new studies have shown that the 1868 earthquake was larger than previously thought, both in terms of the length of the rupture and the amount of slip. A larger rupture results in a larger strain release and contributes to lowering the probability. The most significant physical characteristics of a major earthquake in Berkeley will be earthquake- induced ground shaking, which can lead to surface fault rupture, ground failure, and fire. Ground shaking is the vibration that radiates from the earthquake fault. Because it can damage or collapse buildings and other structures, it is the most serious and direct hazard produced by an earthquake. The impact of ground shaking on a building or structure is a function of the nature of the underlying soil; the structural characteristics of the building and the quality of workmanship and materials; the location and magnitude of the event; and the duration and character of the ground motion. Figure 12 shows the approximate location and intensity of ground shaking that might be expected in a magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the Hayward fault. Earthquake-induced ground failure includes liquefaction, settlement, fault rupture, lateral spreading, and landslides. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to shaking on water- saturated granular soils. The potential for liquefaction in Berkeley exists primarily to the west of the railroad tracks in low-lying areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Settlement is the vertical consolidation of loose soils and alluvium caused by ground shaking or liquefaction. The ground surface can range from a drop of a few inches to several feet, and may occur many miles from the epicenter. Along the Berkeley waterfront the potential for settlement exists due to underlying weak bay mud fill typical of the area. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open face such as a stream bank or the open sides of fill embankments. In Berkeley, locations most likely to be affected are areas with improperly engineered fill; steep, unstable banks; and areas near the waterfront underlain by soft bay mud soil deposits. In a major earthquake, Berkeley can expect lurch cracking to result in extensive rippling and fracturing of pavement and curbs, and damage to sewer, gas, and water lines. Seismic activity can also trigger landslides, primarily in the hill areas, which can result in significant property damage, injury, and loss of life. Fire often accompanies earthquake damage. Fire following an earthquake is a particular concern because of the likelihood of numerous simultaneous ignitions, broken mains, and demands on fire personnel. Ruptured or disrupted gas service lines and mains, power lines, water heaters, wood, gas or electric stoves, and other gas or electrical appliances and equipment cause most earthquake-induced fires. As demonstrated in the San Francisco Marina District in 1989 and in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, modern cities are vulnerable to devastation from multiple fires, which, coupled with road blockages and damage to the water delivery system, can greatly exacerbate the initial damage from the seismic forces. Figure 13 shows the approximate location of areas vulnerable to a combination of hazards caused by a major earthquake. *Figure 13 – Multiple Earthquake-Related Hazards* <
> The combination of earthquake-induced ground shaking, potential lateral spreading, fault rupture and fire is of particular concern in the residential hill areas of Berkeley east of the Hayward Fault line. In these areas, many homes are on steep slopes, and access to many of these areas is difficult for emergency vehicles due to narrow, winding roads, some of which are cul-de-sacs. The eastern edge of the city is heavily wooded, which provides fuel for earthquake-induced fire. These areas are entirely residential and do not have easy access to any City emergency services. If the northern Hayward Fault were to rupture, many of the roads leading from the City’s emergency service facilities (police and fire stations) to these residential areas could be made impassible and the areas would then be isolated. There is currently only one fire station east of the Hayward Fault and it is not capable of servicing this whole area without assistance in the event of a major disaster. Other hazards initiated by ground shaking include hazardous material releases and inundation due to reservoir failure. Problems can be exacerbated further and emergency response hindered due to the loss of critical facilities, and disruption of transportation and communication links. ## Seismic and Geological Vulnerabilities In the event of an earthquake, people may be killed by the failure of buildings, transportation structures, or utilities, or by associated hazards such as fire, hazardous material releases, and possible inundation due to dam failure or flooding. **Hazardous Buildings** - Buildings constructed before building codes were in effect, and buildings built to earlier building codes, are the most likely to suffer serious damage. As illustrated by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, even newer buildings are vulnerable where poor construction, workmanship, and/or maintenance are present. The Association of Bay Area Governments estimates that 13,372 units in Berkeley will be uninhabitable after a major earthquake, resulting in a total shelter population of 8,530. Commercial buildings, utilities, and public roads will be destroyed or disabled. Local businesses will be disrupted and potentially permanently altered. Many businesses may not be able to recover financially from the physical damage and the loss of sales revenue during the recovery period. In a disaster, the most vulnerable buildings include: unreinforced masonry (URM), concrete frames, tilt- up buildings built before the mid-1970s, and buildings with soft stories. Additionally, buildings with termite damage, dry rot, poor construction quality or other structural conditions can further exacerbate seismic vulnerability, even if the structure was properly designed. In 1986, Senate Bill 547 required cities to create an inventory of URMs and to develop a mitigation program. In 1989 the city compiled an inventory of URM buildings. Then in 1991, the City adopted an ordinance mandating that URM buildings built before 1956 (except for residential buildings with fewer than five units) be posted immediately with a warning and seismically retrofitted to certain "performance standards" by deadlines based on the risk category assigned each building. The six risk categories are based upon use and occupancy load. Buildings with the highest occupancy such as theaters, or structures housing essential services, are assigned to the highest risk categories and had the shortest deadlines for retrofit. Smaller buildings and buildings with lesser hazards, such as brick parapets, are assigned to the lower categories. A total of 727 properties containing potentially hazardous URM buildings were originally placed on the list. Of those, 230 properties remain on the URM list with deadlines for all except category VI having now passed. Starting in FY 2001, the City has targeted bringing the remaining buildings into compliance, with the higher-use buildings as a priority. Buildings with "soft" stories (open or irregular structural designs that lack lateral strength), structures made from non-ductile concrete, and buildings improperly anchored to their foundations are highly susceptible to damage. Residential uses are threatened particularly by soft story conditions because of parking below multi-unit buildings and by homes built on cripple walls and those not anchored to their foundations. Non-ductile concrete buildings are common in Berkeley’s commercial and industrial areas. Utilities - Water, gas, storm, and wastewater mains and pipes, electrical systems, and telecommunications are vulnerable to damage. Especially at risk are systems that have non-ductile pipes, or systems located in areas subject to ground failure. Overhead power lines may fall as a result of severe ground shaking, blocking streets for emergency access and evacuation, creating safety hazards, causing fires, and further complicating communication and emergency response. Transportation - Public roads on vulnerable soils such as Interstate 880, which is constructed on landfill; streets in the hills built on historic landslide areas; as well as overpasses, bridges, and railway and port facilities are highly vulnerable to earthquake-induced ground shaking. ## Fire Hazards and Vulnerabilities The City of Berkeley faces an ongoing threat from urban and wildland fire. Susceptibility to fire is heightened due to Berkeley’s dense development pattern, characterized by older structures including high rise buildings, multi-storied residential units, and a variety of warehouse, manufacturing, and commercial properties. Berkeley also faces a significant wildland fire danger along its hillsides where the wildland and residential areas interface. Wildland fires can result from both human activity and natural causes. Once ignited, these fires can be difficult to contain. The risk of fire is most common during the dry months of May through October, and can become extreme when the warm, dry Diablo winds blow out of the northeast. When the winds blow strongly, fires occurring in the densely vegetated hill areas are extremely difficult to control. A wildfire can move with breathtaking speed, down from the ridge in 30 minutes, expanding to one square mile in one hour, and then consuming hundreds of residences in a day. In the Berkeley and Oakland Hills there have been 14 wildland fires since 1923, which collectively have burned 9,000 acres and destroyed more than 3,500 structures. On September 17th, 1923, a fire started in Wildcat Canyon, just over the ridge from Berkeley. It was a warm day, with a strong northeast wind, which blew the flames up over the ridge into northeast Berkeley. Firefighters were able to do little to slow the fire as flying embers spread it rapidly from block to block. By the time the winds finally changed in the late afternoon, the fire had burned all the way to the northern edge of the University campus and as far west as Shattuck Avenue. Several thousand people were homeless, and 584 homes were destroyed. Had the winds not shifted, the fire could have burned to the Bay. *Figure 14 – Hazardous Hill Area, Fire Station Locations and Evacuations Routes* <
> Legend: | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes (also includes all streets in Fire Hazard Area) | ✳ Fire Station | | | | ✜ Hospital | | | Hill Fire Hazard Area | ◮ Public School | | | | ▲ Senior Center | | | | ★ Recreation Center | Because of increased development and vegetation growth in the hills, the fire threat continually increases. Abundant dead brush and vegetation, and non-fire-resistant building materials, fueled the 1991 firestorm, which ignited in the Oakland Hills. The combination of fuel, drought, hot and dry weather, wind conditions, poor accessibility, and insufficient water pressure in some areas proved devastating. The fire destroyed 62 homes in Berkeley and more than 3,000 homes in General Plan | S-14 | Disaster Prepardness and Safety Element UPDATED: October 1,2026 Oakland, consuming one house every 11 seconds in the first three hours. Twenty-five people lost their lives in the fire. In the aftermath of the 1991 Fire, the City established the Hill Hazardous Fire Area District. The purpose of the District was to expand inspection programs, reduce excess vegetation, and educate residents about the special needs for vegetation management and fire prevention for people living in the urban/wildland interface. Hazardous fire area inspections are conducted annually by fire companies, between May and September. Vegetation removal programs, including the chipper and debris box programs, continue with funding provided by a surcharge on the refuse bills for residents in the hill area. In 1997, the City Council-approved assessment district in the Berkeley hills area ended; however, the danger from a wildfire has not. The continued commitment of the residents to a fire-safe area is critical. Figure 14 shows the location of the Hill Hazardous Fire Area and the Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes established in the General Plan Transportation Element. (Also see Transportation Policy T-28.) All streets in the Fire Hazard Area are considered to be evacuation routes, as are the public paths that make up Berkeley’s pathway network system (see Figure 6, Transportation Element). Efforts are currently underway to construct a new fire station for the hill areas east of the Hayward fault. The objective of the current efforts is to develop a facility that will be able to respond to major disasters in these neighborhoods. The location of the residential hill areas adjacent to regional parklands poses two additional fire prevention challenges. First and foremost, these parklands are heavily wooded providing ample fuel for a major wildland fire that can easily move into the Berkeley neighborhoods. Second, these areas are managed by the East Bay Regional Park District and serviced by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). Therefore coordination between the City of Berkeley and the adjacent jurisdiction is essential. Major issues that must be addressed are: 1) the benefits and implications of establishing and maintaining a firebreak between the wildland areas and the residential areas of Berkeley, and 2) joint response plans to fires in the area. To fight fires effectively, adequate water pressure, supply, and delivery must be available. While water pressure is generally adequate throughout the city, fire-fighting capability can be hampered by supply and pressure limitations in particular water pressure zones. Moreover, an earthquake can easily sever water lines in the area. Several areas in the East Bay Hills can produce flame fronts that cannot be controlled with water from hydrants, fire truck hoses, or helicopter buckets, or with retardant drops from air tankers, until the winds die down in the late afternoon. Compounding this threat is the fact that evacuation can be difficult, slow, and dangerous due to winding and narrow roadways in the hills. A secondary hazard is the potential for massive land sliding on fire-burned hillsides when heavy rains follow firestorms. Extreme heat from firestorms can create an impermeable soil layer beneath the surface. When heavy rains fall on denuded slopes, soil saturation occurs rapidly and the danger of landslides in susceptible areas is great, posing a risk to life, structures, and infrastructure. In conclusion, areas of the city that are most vulnerable to fire hazards are: **Hillside Residential Areas Near and Adjacent to Wildland Areas** - There are approximately 750 residences in vulnerable hillside areas in Berkeley. **Structures Built with Combustible Materials** - The presence of wood siding, shake roofs, and other combustible materials heightens the vulnerability of residences and structures in the hills area. **Areas of Heavy or Unmanaged Vegetation** - Dense vegetation increases the danger to people and structures from fire. The fuel load is particularly high in the Berkeley hills. **Circulation and Utilities** - As demonstrated in the 1991 firestorm, narrow winding roads can become inaccessible and unusable for evacuation or for emergency equipment and personnel. Aboveground utility poles can exacerbate problems. **The Water Delivery System** - In an emergency the age of the existing water supply system may cause the system to be unreliable. ### Landslide Hazards and Vulnerabilities In Berkeley, the potential for landslide from seismic activity or heavy rain is high in the hill areas and along remnant stream banks in some parks and neighborhoods. Landslide-prone areas include several large residential areas below Grizzly Peak Boulevard, south of Marin Avenue and east of The Alameda. Geologists estimate that 45 to 65 percent of the landslide-susceptible areas will experience large, coherent movement in a major earthquake. The range of movement depends upon whether slopes are wet or dry when ground shaking occurs. Movement could range from a few inches to 20 feet. Efforts to minimize landslide potential occur as part of the development review process and can involve grading, soil strengthening, structural engineering components, and landscape methods (all of which are subject to City inspection services). Most of the Berkeley hillside development, however, predates current best practices and codes and therefore remains vulnerable to the threat of landslides. Landslides due to slope failure are most frequent in high rainfall periods. The probability is greater in steeply sloped areas, although landslides may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less. Slope steepness and nature of underlying soils are the most important factors affecting the landslide hazard. However, factors such as the surface and subsurface drainage patterns, improper grading, alteration of drainage patterns, and removal of vegetation can also increase landslide hazards. Areas of the community that are vulnerable to landslide hazards include hundreds of homes, roads, sidewalks, underground utilities (water, wastewater, etc), and aboveground utilities (electricity, telecommunications) that are situated on historic landslide areas. Several collector streets that are critical for emergency access and evacuation are located in areas historically susceptible to landslides - including sections of Arlington, Marin, Spruce, Euclid, Shasta, La Loma, and Keith. ## Flood Hazards and Vulnerabilities The flood potential in Berkeley is a relatively mild threat in comparison to seismic, landslide, and fire risks. Flooding events may occur as flash floods, local storm drain blockages, or tidally influenced events. Seismically induced reservoir failure and inundation is unlikely, but such an event should be considered. There exists some potential for wave damage along the Berkeley waterfront, but tsunami waves (triggered by earthquakes, underwater landslides, or volcanic eruptions) have historically resulted in little damage around San Francisco Bay. Figure 15 shows the approximate location of flood hazards in Berkeley. Areas of the city vulnerable to flood hazards include: **Strawberry Creek** - Flowing from the hills through the University campus, Strawberry Creek poses a flood hazard for the area immediately west of Oxford Street, as well as to parts of the campus. The North Fork of Strawberry Creek in particular, which captures a significant amount of urban runoff, is subject to flash flood conditions in periods of intense rainfall. A number of creeks in Berkeley have significantly flooded in recent years. **Tidal Basin Areas** - The Tidal Basin Areas west of Third Street between Codornices Creek and Gilman Street, and Aquatic Park between University Avenue and Ashby Avenue, are potentially vulnerable to flooding and tsunami. **Summit and Berryman Reservoirs** - Properties below major water reservoirs in the hills may be subject to flooding in the event of an earthquake-induced rupture of the reservoir. Reservoir inundation is caused by structural failure, possibly from an earthquake or rain overflow. Inundation could affect those areas downhill, or west, of the Berryman and Summit Reservoirs. The Summit Reservoir, located on the Berkeley/Kensington border, would affect areas along Berkeley's border between Grizzly Peak Boulevard and The Alameda. The Berryman Reservoir, adjacent to Codornices Park, could potentially inundate a large portion of the city, including neighborhoods near Hopkins and Cedar Streets and in West Berkeley, particularly at Aquatic Park and other areas east of the I-80 freeway. *Figure 15 – Flood and Tsunami Prone Areas* <
> Figure 16 shows the approximate areas of the city that could be vulnerable to inundation from a reservoir failure. The 37-million-gallon Summit Reservoir may be vulnerable to inundation if a seismic event exceeded magnitude 7.5 on the Hayward Fault, or 8.5 on the San Andreas Fault. The Summit Reservoir was evaluated for seismic stability in 1985 and reviewed again in 1992[^p18-3]. The evaluation found that the embankments would remain stable in a 7.5 event on the Hayward fault or a [^p18-3]: Analysis was reviewed and approved by the California Division of Safety of Dams, which has jurisdiction over the facility magnitude 8.5 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Therefore flooding due to catastrophic failure is considered unlikely. Nonetheless, the inundation area is mapped for notice and evacuation purposes. The possibility of inundation from the Berryman Reservoir is short-term as EBMUD has an approved project underway for replacement of the reservoir with one 4.6-million-gallon steel tank or two smaller tanks depending on the geotechnical conditions encountered once the reservoir is drained. EBMUD plans to drain the Berryman reservoir in June 2002. ### Figure 16 – Reservoir Inundation Hazards <
> # ELEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The policies and actions of the Disaster Preparation and Safety Element are intended to achieve the following six objectives: 2. Establish and maintain an effective emergency response program that anticipates the potential for disasters, maintains continuity of life-support functions during an emergency, and institutes community-based disaster response planning, involving businesses, non-governmental organizations, and neighborhoods. 3. Improve and develop City mitigation programs to reduce risks to people and property from natural and man-made hazards to socially and economically acceptable levels. 4. Plan for and regulate the uses of land to minimize exposure to hazards from either natural or human-related causes and to contribute to a "disaster-resistant" community. 5. Reduce the potential for loss of life, injury, and economic damage resulting from earthquakes and associated hazards. 6. Reduce the potential for loss of life, injury, and economic damage resulting from urban and wildland fire. 7. Reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage in areas subject to flooding. # POLICIES AND ACTIONS ## Emergency Preparedness and Response **Policy S-1 Response Planning** Ensure that the City’s emergency response plans are current and incorporate the latest information on hazards, vulnerability, and resources. (Also see Transportation Policy T-28.) Actions: A. Test, maintain, and revise the City’s disaster response plan(s) consistent with the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and establish clear coordination of roles and expectations with the County Office of Emergency Services, the University of California, the Berkeley Unified School District, neighboring jurisdictions, and other agencies. B. Designate and publicize evacuation routes, shelter locations, and emergency service locations (hospitals, fire stations, etc.) within the city and sub region. Include existing city pathways and other pedestrian right-of-ways in the published designated evacuation route map. Prioritize undergrounding of utilities for designated routes to make them more reliable. C. Designate and publicize emergency access routes with the city and sub region. Prioritize undergrounding of utilities to enhance reliability of emergency access routes and minimize conflagration hazards from fallen power lines. D. City departments shall conduct an appropriate level of staff training addressing emergency readiness, evacuation routes, first aid, staging areas and procedures, continuity of services, and response and recovery operations and including CERT training for all City employees. E. Establish facilities and provide equipment that may be used by citizens during the first days immediately after a major disaster until such time as City services become available. F. Prepare an annual report in consultation with the Fire Safety Commission and other relevant Commissions and Boards on the state of preparedness in Berkeley. G. Conduct coordinated planning and training between local and regional police, fire, and public health agencies in preparation for natural and man-made disasters, and ensure that the City’s disaster response communication technologies are compatible with regional agency communication technologies. **Policy S-2 Neighborhood Preparation and Education** Continue to provide education, emergency preparedness training, and supplies to the community at the neighborhood level to support neighborhood- and community-based disaster response planning. Actions: A. Enhance the Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) program to provide disaster preparedness training to the community at the neighborhood level. Work with the Berkeley Unified School District to develop and implement a CERT curriculum. B. Work with neighborhood associations and other community groups to organize disaster preparedness and other training activities on a block-by-block basis. C. Map existing neighborhood disaster preparedness groups and seek to fill gaps with new or extended groups. Establish central locations within each neighborhood for aid and information exchanges. D. Continue to enforce restrictions on illegal window bars. E. Explore implementation of a siren system, combined with reverse calling and other methods as a way to warn neighborhoods about problems. **Policy S-3 Public Information** Publicize disaster preparedness efforts (such as CERT) and expand public awareness of specific hazards and risks by making available all relevant information including mapping and reports on various hazards, information on vulnerability and risk reduction techniques, evacuation routes, and emergency services, and information on financial and technical assistance resources. Actions: A. Continue to provide emergency preparedness and planning information to citizens through libraries, the City website, radio, and other locations. B. Explore possible programs that would enable, encourage, or require landlords, property managers, and realtors to provide information to new tenants and new homeowners about emergency preparedness, evacuation routes, and home safety. **Policy S-4 Special Needs Communities** Continue to work with the social service community to ensure the safety of special needs populations. Actions: A. Encourage partnerships between public safety, public health, and community services providers to develop and implement community safety and community service programs. B. Work closely with area hospitals to encourage hospital preparation and coordinate disaster recovery plans. **Policy S-5 The City’s Role in Leadership and Coordination** Ensure that the City provides leadership and coordination of the private sector, public institutions, and other public bodies in emergency preparedness. Actions: A. Promote information sharing and seek to coordinate and implement collaborative mitigation and response planning and information gathering efforts with neighboring cities, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the East Bay Regional Park District, other agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses and industries, educational institutions, and residents. B. Promote information sharing and seek to coordinate and implement collaborative mitigation and response planning and information gathering efforts. **Policy S-6 Damage Assessment** Establish and maintain a rapid damage assessment capability. Action: A. Formulate and adopt damage assessment protocols, and train appropriate inspection and other personnel to implement these protocols. **Policy S-7 Emergency Water Supply** Protect life and property in the event of an earthquake by evaluating alternate drinking water and fire-fighting water supply in the event of failure of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water supply. **Policy S-8 Continuity of Operations** Provide for the continuation of City government and services following a major disaster. Action: A. Establish plans including such aspects as emergency supplies sufficient to carry out assigned disaster responsibilities. **Policy S-9 Pre-Event Planning** Establish pre-event planning for post-disaster recovery as an integral element of the emergency preparedness programs of the City Council and each of the City departments. Actions: A. Establish a framework and process for recovery planning that specifies roles, priorities, and responsibilities of various departments within the City organization, and that outlines a structure and process for policy-making involving elected officials and appointed advisory committee(s). B. Prepare a basic Recovery Plan that outlines the major issues and tasks that are likely to be the key elements of community recovery. Examine issues such as debris removal, provision of shelter, interim housing, restoration of services, interim business resumption facilities, protection of historic resources, standards for replacement of non-conforming structures and uses, and restoring neighborhood and community character. C. Integrate recovery planning as an element of the Community-Based Disaster Response Plan. Identify possible roles for community organizations, business representatives, and neighborhoods in the recovery process. # Mitigation **Policy S-10 Sustaining Mitigation Initiatives** Improve public awareness and establish new public/private partnerships to implement mitigation initiatives in the community and region through programs such as Project Impact. Actions: A. Analyze and evaluate the benefits of formulating City plans and programs for short-term and long-term mitigation. B. Perform appropriate seismic analysis based on current and future use for all city-owned facilities and structures. C. Request and encourage neighboring cities, other agencies, non-profit organizations, neighborhood and citizen groups, business organizations, and the University of California also to formulate and implement complementary mitigation action plans. ### Policy S-11 Historic Structures Encourage and support the long-term protection of historic or architecturally significant structures to preserve neighborhood and community character. (Also see Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-7.) Actions: A. Create incentives for owners of historic or architecturally significant structures to undertake mitigation to levels that will minimize the likelihood of demolition and maximize the ability to repair or avoid damage in the event of a natural disaster. B. Consistent with public safety and acceptable risk determinations, seek all feasible means to avoid demolition of historic or architecturally significant structures following a disaster by pursuing repair, rehabilitation, and preservation of structures, facades, or other features. ### Policy S-12 Utility and Transportation Systems Improve the disaster-resistance of utility and transportation systems to increase public safety and to minimize damage and service disruption following a disaster. Actions: A. Support and encourage efforts undertaken by Caltrans, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Pacific Gas & Electric, telephone and telecommunications companies, Amtrak, the Union Pacific Railroad, AC Transit, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit System to plan for and finance seismic retrofit and other disaster-resistance measures. B. Work closely with the utility companies to facilitate undergrounding of utilities. C. Urge the Public Utilities Commission, utilities, and oil companies to strengthen, relocate, or otherwise safeguard natural gas and other pipelines where they extend through areas of high liquefaction potential, cross potentially active faults, or traverse potential landslide areas, or areas that may settle differentially during an earthquake. # Disaster-Resistant Land Use Planning **Policy S-13 Hazards Identification** Identify, avoid and minimize natural and human-caused hazards in the development of property and the regulation of land use. Actions: A. Maintain and make publicly available up-to-date hazard maps identifying areas subject to heightened risk from potential seismic hazards (including fault rupture, ground failure, ground shaking, and liquefaction), and fire, flood, landslide, and other hazards, such as toxic contamination and radioactive release. B. Improve the understanding of identified hazards and mitigation needs via area-specific studies such as microzonation studies. **Policy S-14 Land Use Regulation** Require appropriate mitigation in new development, in redevelopment/reuse, or in other applications. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-4, LU-6, and LU-7.) Actions: A. When appropriate utilize the environmental review process to ensure avoidance of hazards and/or adequate mitigation of hazard-induced risk. B. Require soil investigation and/or geotechnical reports in conjunction with development/redevelopment on sites within designated hazard zones such as areas with high potential for soil erosion, landslide, fault rupture, liquefaction and other soil-related constraints. C. Place structural design conditions on new development to ensure that recommendations of the geotechnical/soils investigations are implemented. D. Encourage owners to evaluate their buildings’ vulnerability to earthquake hazards, fire, landslides, and floods and to take appropriate action to minimize the risk. E. Develop criteria for disaster-resistant land use regulations to ensure that new construction reduces rather than increases risk of all kinds. **Policy S-15 Construction Standards** Maintain construction standards that minimize risks to human lives and property from environmental and human-caused hazards for both new and existing buildings. Actions: A. Periodically update and adopt the California Building Standards Code with local amendments to incorporate the latest knowledge and design standards to protect people and property against known fire, flood, landslide, and seismic risks in both structural and non-structural building and site components. B. Ensure proper design and construction of hazard-resistant structures through careful plan review/approval and thorough and consistent construction inspection. **Policy S-16 Residential Density in the Hills** Consider changes to the existing residential zoning in high-risk, residential areas, such as the Hill Hazardous Fire Area, to reduce the vulnerability of these areas to future disasters. (See the Hill Hazardous Fire Area map on page S-10.) Actions: A. Consider zoning amendments to prevent future development, including the prohibition of new second units, in these areas or sites in these areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural disaster. (Also see Housing Policy H-17.) B. Consider fire safety, evacuation, and emergency vehicle access when reviewing secondary unit or other proposals to add residential units in these areas. ## Seismic Hazards **Policy S-17 Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program** Maintain existing programs such as the Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program to facilitate retrofit of potentially hazardous structures. Action: A. Expand public awareness of the program and take other actions to publicize and improve the effectiveness of the program. **Policy S-18 Public Information** Establish public information programs to inform the public about seismic hazards and the potential hazards from vulnerable buildings. **Policy S-19 Risk Analysis** Understand and track changes in seismic risk utilizing the best available information and tools. Actions: B. Make maximum use of new available information to update maps that depict seismic hazards. C. Encourage building owners (including public sector agencies and local jurisdictions) to install instruments to record earthquake shaking in conjunction with the State’s Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. Policy S-20 Mitigation of Potentially Hazardous Buildings Pursue all feasible methods, programs, and financing to mitigate potentially hazardous buildings. Actions: A. Implement an effective Un-Reinforced Masonry (URM) Program to retrofit all remaining non-complying buildings. Work with owners of potentially hazardous buildings to obtain structural analyses of their buildings and to undertake corrective mitigation measures to improve seismic resistance or to remove the buildings and replace them with safer buildings. B. Create a program similar to the URM Program to reduce risks to people and property for all potentially hazardous buildings in Berkeley, with a priority on multi-family soft-story buildings. C. Consider requiring disclosure of potential hazards to occupants and residents of potentially hazardous buildings, along with mitigation and safety information and technical assistance. D. Investigate and adopt financial, procedural, and land use incentives and provide technical assistance for owners of potentially hazardous structures, such as soft-story buildings, to facilitate retrofit. E. Investigate and adopt retrofit guidelines and building codes that address structural and nonstructural mitigation to facilitate the retrofit of all types of existing buildings. F. Consider the formulation and adoption of a retrofit standard for single-family homes. G. Evaluate the ability of essential public facilities to maintain structural integrity and remain operational in the event of a strong earthquake. Those facilities unable to remain operational should be modified to bring them into conformance. Emergency guidelines shall be developed for buildings for which structural (and/or non-structural) modification and provision of back-up utility services are not feasible. H. Establish a prioritized program for seismic retrofit of the remaining unreinforced public structures. # Fire Hazards Policy S-21 Fire Preventive Design Standards Develop and enforce construction and design standards that ensure new structures incorporate appropriate fire prevention features and meet current fire safety standards. Actions: A. Strengthen performance review and code enforcement programs. B. Promote the installation of built-in fire extinguishing systems and early warning fire alarm systems. C. Maintain City standards for minimum width and vertical clearance, and ensure that new driveways and roadways meet minimum standards of the Uniform Fire Code or subsequent standards adopted by the City. D. Provide adequate water for fire suppression for new development in accordance with City standards for minimum volume and duration of flow. E. Establish criteria for the installation of gas shutoff valves in new and existing construction, to reduce the risk of post-earthquake fires. **Policy S-22 Fire Fighting Infrastructure** Reduce fire hazard risks in existing developed areas. Actions: A. Develop proposals to make developed areas more accessible to emergency vehicles and reliable for evacuation. Consider restricting on-street parking, increasing parking fines in hazardous areas, and/or undergrounding overhead utilities. Require that all private access roads be maintained by a responsible party to ensure safe and expedient passage by the Fire Department at any time, and require approval of all locking devices by the Fire Department. Ensure that all public pathways are maintained to provide safe and accessible pedestrian evacuation routes from the hill areas. (Also see Transportation Policies T-28 and T-52.) B. Evaluate existing access to water supplies for fire suppression. Identify, prioritize, and implement capital improvements and acquire equipment to improve the supply and reliability of water for fire suppression. Continue to improve the water supply for firefighting to assure peak load water supply capabilities. Continue to work with EBMUD to coordinate water supply improvements. Develop aboveground (transportable) water delivery systems. C. Provide properly staffed and equipped fire stations and engine companies. Monitor response time from initial call to arrival and pursue a response time goal of four minutes from the nearest station to all parts of the city. Construct a new hill area fire station that has wildland firefighting equipment and ability. **Policy S-23 Property Maintenance** Reduce fire hazard risks in existing developed areas by ensuring that private property is maintained to minimize vulnerability to fire hazards. Actions: A. Continue and expand existing vegetation management programs. B. Property owners shall be responsible for maintaining their structures at a reasonable degree of fire and life safety to standards identified in adopted codes and ordinances. C. Promote smoke detector installation in existing structures. Require the installation of smoke detectors as a condition of granting a permit for any work on existing residential and commercial buildings and as a condition for the transfer of property. D. Promote fire extinguisher installation in existing structures, particularly in kitchens, garages, and workshops. E. Require bracing of water heaters and gas appliances and the anchoring of houses to foundations to reduce fire ignitions following earthquakes. **Policy S-24 Mutual Aid** Continue to fulfill legal obligations and support mutual aid efforts to coordinate fire suppression within Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Oakland, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the State of California to prevent and suppress major wildland and urban fire destruction. Actions: A. Work with inter-agency partners and residents in vulnerable areas to investigate and implement actions to improve fire safety, using organized outreach activities and councils such as the Hills Emergency Forum and the Diablo Fire Safe Council. B. Establish close coordination with the California Department of Forestry to minimize the risk of wildland fire in the hill areas. **Policy S-25 Fire Safety Education** Use Fire Department personnel to plan and conduct effective fire safety and prevention programs. Actions: A. Provide fire safety presentations and programs to local schools, community groups, and neighborhoods. B. Provide fire safety classes for high-occupancy institutional land uses, and commercial and industrial occupancies. C. Develop and implement a program to improve public awareness and disseminate appropriate warnings during times of high fire danger. # Flood Hazards **Policy S-26 Flood Hazards Mitigation** Reduce existing flood hazards in Berkeley. Actions: A. Conduct periodic evaluation of reservoir safety and undertake actions necessary to mitigate the potential for dam failure. B. Continue to rehabilitate the City’s storm drain system to reduce local flooding caused by inadequate storm drainage. C. Continue and significantly strengthen programs promoting storm drain maintenance by public and private sectors. D. Continue to work with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to complete the planned seismic improvements to the Berryman Reservoir. **Policy S-27 New Development** Use development review to ensure that new development does not contribute to an increase in flood potential. Actions: A. Regulate development in the Waterfront flood-prone areas consistent with the Berkeley Waterfront Specific Plan. B. Ensure that new development conforms to requirements and guidelines of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). C. Require new development to provide for appropriate levels of on-site detention and/or retention of storm water. D. Regulate development within 30 feet of an exposed streambed as required by the Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses (Creeks) Ordinance. (Also see Environmental Management Policy EM-27.) **Policy S-28 Flood Insurance** Reduce the cost of flood insurance to property owners in the city. Actions: A. Identify, prioritize, and implement activities necessary to qualify for a high Community Rating System (CRS) evaluation under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). B. Update and revise flood maps for the city. C. Incorporate FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into City plans and procedures for managing flood hazards.