Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, January 18, 2023 (part 3 of 13)

Page 223 ends

C-28

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
(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)
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have been replaced by residential developments, such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 BF 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.
- 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 26 26
20b 056
194301001
2416 6TH ST No - 0.86 1.08 1-story sheet metal HVAC shop (Walter Mork Co., Inc.)

0.45 BF 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-
No MU/MUR 1 24.4 0 0 11 11

Page 220 of 1385 ends

Page 224 ends

C-29

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
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)
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 (1.03 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 AU 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
23b 061
261102503
915 COLUSA AVE No - 0.17 0.07 Andronico's parking lot 0.23 AU 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 AU 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
No LDR/R-1 1 6 0 0 2 2

Page 221 of 1385 ends

Page 225 ends

C-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
(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)
24a 063
298601200
1129 KEITH AVE Yes - - - 4 contiguous vacant lots by same owner, different from adjacent
owners

0.12 AE 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 AE 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 AE 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 AE 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 BE 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
25b 063
314000700
39 THE CRESCENT Yes - - - Vacant lot, owned by adjacent lot 39

THE CRESCENT

0.35 BE 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 S 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)
Yes LDR/R-1H 1 6 0 0 1 1

Page 222 of 1385 ends

Page 226 ends

C-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
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners)
26b 063
316001402
20 BAY TREE LN Yes - - - Vacant Lot, different owners from adj lots

0.98 S 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
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
Yes NC/C-NS 1 50 39 0 0 39

Page 223 of 1385 ends

Page 227 ends

C-32

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 0 0 192 192
33a 055
188500102
2362 BANCROFT WAY No - 0.56 0.05 Parking lot 0.27 AZ 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 AZ 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.
- 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 59 0 59
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
35 057
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
Yes BC/C-U 2 150 71 0 0 71

Page 224 of 1385 ends

Page 228 ends

C-33

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
(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)
36 058
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
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)
Yes HDR/R-4 2 75 0 0 30 30
37a 058
223202100
W PARNASSUS CT Yes - - - Vacant lot, owned by 5 W PARNASSUS CT sold in 9/2020,
gentle slope

0.19 Q 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
37b 058
223202000
W PARNASSUS CT Yes - - - Vacant lot, owned by 5 W PARNASSUS CT sold in 9/2020,
gentle slope

0.21 Q 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
38a 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
38b 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
39 061
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
40 063
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
Yes LDR/R-1H 2 6 0 0 1 1

Page 225 of 1385 ends

Page 229 ends

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)
41a 056
195901704
2114 5TH ST No - - - Parking lot 0.13 AX 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.
- 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 3 3
41b 056
195901705
2116 5TH ST No - - 0.74 Parking lot 0.28 AX 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
42 056
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
43 056
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
44a 060
240502100
1275 SAN PABLO AVE No - - - 1-story garage or storage facility 0.06 AC 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
No M/C-W 2 135 0 0 7 7

Page 226 of 1385 ends

Page 230 ends

C-35

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
(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)
44b 060
240502000
871 HILLSIDE AVE No - 0.11 - 1-story auto-related office and parking lot (smog shop)

0.29 AC Meets Criteria 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.11)
- 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)
No AC/C-W 2 135 0 40 0 40
45a 058
212701200
1730 SAN PABLO AVE No - 0.79 1.21 1-story commercial (building materials store); adjacent to parking
lot

0.07 AD 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
45b 058
212701101
1726 SAN PABLO AVE No - 0.88 0.06 Parking lot for building materials store

0.14 AD 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
45c 058
212700901
1724 SAN PABLO AVE No 76 0.4 0.43 1-story retail (Cafe Leila, accessories shop) and parking lot

0.26 AD 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-
No BC/C-W 2 135 0 34 0 34

Page 227 of 1385 ends

Page 231 ends

C-36

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
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)
46a 053
166101900
1043 HEINZ AVE No 99 0.17 0.02 Large parking lot and single family house

0.2 AG 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
46b 053
166101801
2840 SAN PABLO AVE No - - 0.05 Parking lot 0.26 AG 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
47a 060
240401801
1399 SAN PABLO AVE No - 0.04 0.19 Chevron Gas Station 0.21 AH 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
47b 060
240402000
1337 SAN PABLO AVE No - 0.67 0.72 Autobody shop and parking lot 0.22 AH 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
No BC/C-W 2 135 0 0 29 29

Page 228 of 1385 ends

Page 232 ends

C-37

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)
48a 053
166101400
2830 SAN PABLO AVE No 63 1.48 1.52 1- story commercial 0.15 AL 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-
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)
No BC/C-W 2 135 0 0 20 20
48b 053
166101501
2832 SAN PABLO AVE No - - 24.08 1- story commercial 0.31 AL 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
49a 057
208901201
1011 UNIVERSITY AVE No 78 - - 2-story standalone vacant commercial building (former
Premier Cru wine store).

0.24 N 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
49b 057
208901500
1925 9TH ST No - - - Public land, parking lot behind Bauman College

0.15 N 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.

No HDR/R-3 2 40 0 0 6 6

Page 229 of 1385 ends

Page 233 ends

C-38

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)
50 056
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
51 056
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
52 057
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
53 056
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
54 056
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 ,
No BC/C-W 2 135 59 0 0 59

Page 230 of 1385 ends

Page 234 ends

C-39

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
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)
55 056
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
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)
No BC/C-W 2 135 61 0 0 61
56 056
197800802
2040 SAN PABLO AVE 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 (ZP2021-
0046), and 2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), 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
57a 057
207300400
1375 UNIVERSITY AVE No - 0.8 0.76 1-story retail, (Copy World print shop)

0.23 L 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
57b 057
207302100
1384 BERKELEY WAY No - - 0.09 Parking lot 0.12 L 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
58 057
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)
No BC/C-U 2 150 52 0 0 52

Page 231 of 1385 ends

Page 235 ends

C-40

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 (0.65)
- 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)
59 056
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)
- 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)
No BC/C-U 2 150 70 0 0 70
60 060
245506401
2095 ROSE ST 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
61 053
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
62 055
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
63 052
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
No MDR/C-AC 2 210 98 0 0 98

Page 232 of 1385 ends

Page 236 ends

C-41

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
2147 San Pablo (PLN2022-0020), make
development feasible.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for
- Parcel size is between 0.35 and 10 acres (0.47 acres) 64 057
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
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)

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)
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)

Yes DT/C-DMU
Core
2 320 130 0 0 130
65a 055
189302000
BANCROFT WAY No - 0.3 - Parking lot, downtown 0.14 AS Meets Criteria 1, 2b, 2d, 2e, 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
- 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
65b 055
189301600
2301 SHATTUCK AVE No - - 0.3 1-story commercial (Mechanics Bank)

0.22 AS 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
66 060
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
67 055
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
68 052
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

Page 233 of 1385 ends

Page 237 ends

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
69 055
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
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for
moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
Yes BC/C-AC 3 210 0 48 0 48
70a 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
70b 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
71a 058
217500400
1720 SHATTUCK AVE No 74 0.31 1.18 1-story office + small parking lot (real estate agency)

0.05 AP 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
71b 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 AP 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
No BC/C-C 3 125 0 0 8 8

Page 234 of 1385 ends

Page 238 ends

C-43

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
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)
72 056
200302500
1556 UNIVERSITY AVE No - 2.18 2.57 Parking lot 0.17 Meets Criteria 1, 2d, 2e - Vacant and/or parking lots
- 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)
Yes BC/C-U 3 146 0 0 25 25
73a 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)
- Lot consolidation potential (common owners)
No BC/C-U 3 149 0 0 19 19
73b 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
74 052
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
75 055
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)
Yes BC/C-C 3 125 0 37 0 37

Page 235 of 1385 ends

Page 239 ends

C-44

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 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)
76a 057
205901200
1933 MARTIN LUTHER

KING JR WAY
No - 0.64 0.77 1-story dry cleaners, downtown 0.1 A Meets Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f - 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) 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)
Yes DT/C-DMU
Buff
3 150 0 0 15 15
76b 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 A 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
77a 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 F 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
77b 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 F 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)
Yes DT/C-DMU
Buff
3 150 0 17 0 17

Page 236 of 1385 ends

Page 240 ends

C-45

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.
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for
moderate or above moderate income (above
moderate)
No DT/C-DMU
Buff
3 150 0 0 10 10
79 057
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
80 055
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
81 055
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
82a 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

0.07 M 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
Yes DT/C-DMU
Core
3 320 0 0 23 23

Page 237 of 1385 ends

Page 241 ends

C-46

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
adjacent property (057
202300300); in between two multi-
story mixed-use buildings
(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)
82b 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)
– half block from Downtown
Berkeley BART Station, downtown;
same owner as adjacent property
(057 202300200); in between two
multi-story mixed-use buildings

0.09 M 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
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)
No DT/C-DMU
Core
3 320 0 0 28 28
83 057
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
84 057
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
85 057
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
86 057
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),

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
Yes DT/C-DMU
Core
3 320 0 41 0 41

Page 238 of 1385 ends

Page 242 ends

C-47

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
Excellent Transit (73); opportunity
zone, downtown
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)
87 057
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
Paradise”, Transit Score of 73 (out
of 100) “Excellent”

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-
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
Oute
3 229 0 0 22 22
88 055
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 (ZP2020-0069) and 2317 Channing
(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
89 057
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
90 055
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.

Yes HDR/C-
DMU Corr
3 150 0 0 13 13

Page 239 of 1385 ends

Page 243 ends

C-48

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
(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 HDR/C-
DMU Corr
3 150 0 31 0 31
92a 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 G 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
92b 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 G 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
93 057
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
94 055
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

Page 240 of 1385 ends

Page 244 ends

C-49

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
96 057
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
accessed from Berkeley Way,
Walker’s Paradise (99), Excellent
Transit (72), downtown

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)
- 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)
Yes DT/C-DMU
Oute
3 225 0 45 0 45
97 057
205300801
2029 UNIVERSITY AVE
STE 201
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
98 057
202501900
2058 UNIVERSITY AVE 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
99 064
423600400
3048 ASHBY AVE 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
Yes NC/C-N 3 50 0 0 15 15

Page 241 of 1385 ends

Page 245 ends

C-50

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
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)
100 057
202301601
2109 MILVIA ST # A 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
101 055
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
102 055
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
103 055
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
104a 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 AO 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
No BC/C-U 3 150 0 0 12 12

Page 242 of 1385 ends

Page 246 ends

C-51

0.11 AO 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.
- 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 16 16
105 057
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
106 056
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
107 056
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
108 060
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
No BC/C-W 3 135 0 0 8 8

Page 243 of 1385 ends

Page 247 ends

C-52

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
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
109 053
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
- Existing FAR is less than 1.50 (0.94)
- Improvement-to-Land Ratio less than 2.0 (0.44)
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 11 11
110a 060
239503100
1513 SAN PABLO AVE No - - 1.34 1-story autobody shop 0.05 P 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
110b 060
239503301
1507 SAN PABLO AVE No 70 1.94 0.87 Vacant 1-story storefront for sale 0.15 P 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
111 060
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

Page 244 of 1385 ends

Page 248 ends

C-53

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
113 053
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
114 060
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
115 056
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
116 053
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
117 057
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

Page 245 of 1385 ends

Page 249 ends

C-54

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
119 057
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
- Parcel size is between 0.5 and 10 acres unless for
moderate or above moderate income (moderate)
Yes BC/C-W 3 135 0 36 0 36
120 057
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
121 056
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
122 056
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
123 057
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
124 057
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.

No MU/MUR 3 24.4 0 0 3 3

Page 246 of 1385 ends

Page 250 ends

C-55

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 MU/MUR 3 24.4 0 0 4 4
127 058
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
128 058
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
129 057
209300300
914 HEARST AVE Yes - - - Vacant lot used by 914 Hearst as garden

0.12 AT 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
130b 060
249301000
1330 SUMMIT RD Yes - - - Vacant lot, different property owner from adjacent parcels

0.14 AT 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
131 062
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

Page 247 of 1385 ends

Page 251 ends

C-56

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
133 060
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
134 063
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
135 063
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)
No LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1
138 063
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
139 060
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
Yes LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1

Page 248 of 1385 ends

Page 252 ends

C-57

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
143 063
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
144 063
299302300
1248 GRIZZLY PEAK
BLVD
Yes - - - Vacant lot, different owners from adj lots, bought in 2014

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
147 060
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
148 061
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
149 060
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
Yes LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1

Page 249 of 1385 ends

Page 253 ends

C-58

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)
150 058
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
151 060
247801503
1436 CAMPUS DR 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)
No LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1
152 060
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
153 063
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
154 063
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
155 063
314008700
17256 N TRETHEWAY RD Yes - - - Vacant lot sold as part of 1040 Overlook Rd in 2021 to investor

Page 250 of 1385 ends

Page 254 ends

C-59

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
159 062
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
160 060
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
161 061
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
162 062
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
163 063
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
164 060
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
Yes LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1

Page 251 of 1385 ends

Page 255 ends

C-60

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
168 060
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
- 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
169 060
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
170 063
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
171 061
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
172 063
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
173 058
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
Yes LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1

Page 252 of 1385 ends

Page 256 ends

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)
176 063
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
177 063
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
- 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
178 063
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
179 063
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
180 063
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
181 064
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
182 063
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
183 063
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

Page 253 of 1385 ends

Page 257 ends

C-62

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
185 063
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)
No LDR/R-1H 3 6 0 0 1 1
187 063
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
188 062
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
189 062
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
190 063
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
191 061
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
192 059
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
No MDR/R-2 3 20 0 0 1 1

Page 254 of 1385 ends

Page 258 ends

C-63

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
196 055
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
197 057
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
198 057
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
199 053
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
200 053
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
Yes MDR/R-2A 3 25 0 0 2 2

Page 255 of 1385 ends

Page 259 ends

C-64

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
202 055
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
203 058
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
204 057
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
205 057
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
206 055
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
207 055
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

Page 256 of 1385 ends

Page 260 ends

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
208 055
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
209 055
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)
- 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)
Yes HDR/R-S 3 200 0 0 17 17
210 055
187201100
2613 CHANNING WAY 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 income (above
moderate)
Yes RMU/R-
SMU
3 200 0 0 33 33
211 053
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), 2920 Shattuck
(PLN2022-0016), 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
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.

Page 257 of 1385 ends

Page 261 ends

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

Page 258 of 1385 ends

Page 262 ends

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%

Page 259 of 1385 ends

Page 263 ends

APN Address Units
Entitl
ed
Zone Lot (SF) Type Base
Density
Density
with
Bonus
(DUA)
Density
Bonus
(%)
053 163502400 815 FOLGER 1 MU-LI 2,752 MU 15.8 15.8 0%
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 182202100 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%

Page 260 of 1385 ends

Page 264 ends

APN Address Units
Entitl
ed
Zone Lot (SF) Type Base
Density
Density
with
Bonus
(DUA)
Density
Bonus
(%)
055 188302700 2328 Channing 20 R-S 6,750 MF 129.1 129.1

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

Page 261 of 1385 ends

Page 265 ends

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

Page 262 of 1385 ends

Page 266 ends

D-1

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.

Page 263 of 1385 ends

Page 267 ends

D-2

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 into 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 initiatives 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

Page 264 of 1385 ends

Page 268 ends

D-3

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

Page 265 of 1385 ends

Page 269 ends

D-4

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.

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.

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.

Page 266 of 1385 ends

Page 270 ends

D-5

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.

Page 267 of 1385 ends

Page 271 ends

D-6

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.

Page 268 of 1385 ends

Page 272 ends

D-7

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.

Page 269 of 1385 ends

Page 273 ends

D-8

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
Achieved1 - 589 22 29 640
Conservation/Retention
Objective 354 - - - 354
Achieved 354 - - - 354
Source: City of Berkeley, 2015-2020 Annual Progress Reports

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.

T
ABLE D-3: CITY OF BERKELEY HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION , 2015-2 023 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

Page 270 of 1385 ends

Page 274 ends

D-9

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.

T
ABLE 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.

Page 271 of 1385 ends

Page 275 ends

D-10

• 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.

Page 272 of 1385 ends

Page 276 ends

APPENDIX E
Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing

CONTENTS
E1 Introduction and Overview of AB 686 ............................................................................. 1 E1.1 Analysis Requirements ...................................................................................................... 2 E1.2 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................... 2 E2 Sites Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 4 E2.1 Northeast Berkeley ............................................................................................................. 6 E2.2 West Berkeley ....................................................................................................................... 6 E2.3 Central Berkeley ................................................................................................................... 6 E2.4 South Berkeley ...................................................................................................................... 7 E2.5 Southeast Berkeley .............................................................................................................. 7 E2.6 Integration and Segregation .......................................................................................... 12 E2.7 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas .............................................................. 18 E2.8 Access to Opportunities .................................................................................................. 19 E2.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................... 23 E3 Conclusions and Actions ...................................................................................................... 27 E3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ................................................................ 27 E3.2 Integration and Segregation .......................................................................................... 27 E3.3 Access to Opportunities .................................................................................................. 28 E3.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................... 28 E4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ................................................................................. 29 E4.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ................................................................ 29 E4.2 Integration and Segregation .......................................................................................... 36 E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas .............................................................. 67 E4.4 Access to Opportunities .................................................................................................. 80 E4.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................ 113 E4.6 Other Relevant Factors ................................................................................................. 155

Page 273 of 1385 ends

Page 277 ends

1 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 1 and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. 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.3 In addition, AB 686:
• Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their progr ams 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 Bi ll 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.

1 While California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do es 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. 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. 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.

Page 274 of 1385 ends

Page 278 ends

2 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 REQUIRE MENTS
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. 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 INFORMATI ON
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.
5 Because of the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by the

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). 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. This

Page 275 of 1385 ends

Page 279 ends

3 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 ABA G 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 affecte d 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,

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.

Northwest Berkeley,
4 th 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.

Page 276 of 1385 ends

Page 280 ends

4 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, parti cularly 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:

Page 277 of 1385 ends

Page 281 ends

5 • Northeast Berkeley: Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Live Oak, Northbrae, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Upper North Berkeley neighborhoods
o Predominantly R-1, Single Family Residential
o R-2, Restricted Two-family Residential
o R-2A, Restricted Multiple-family Residential
o Few C -SO (Solano Avenue Commercial), C -NS (North Shattuck Co mmercial), R-3 (Multiple-family Residential) zones
• West Berkeley: 4th Street, Berkeley Marina (no sites), Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley neighborhoods
o 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)
o Few R-3 (Multiple-family residential), R-4 (Multi-family residential) zones • Central Berkeley: Central Berkeley, Northside, North Berkeley, Westbrae neighborhoods o Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R- 2 (Restricted Two-family Residential), R-2A (Restricted Multiple-family residential)
o R-1A, Limited Two-family residential
o R-3, Multiple-family residential
o R-4, Multi-family residential
• South Berkeley: South Berkeley neighborhood
o Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Restricted Two -family residential), R-2A (Limited Two-family Residential)
o R-3, Multiple-family Residential
o R-4, Multi-family Residential
• Southeast Berkeley: Claremont, Elmwood District, Le Conte, Lorin, Panoramic Hill, Southside neighborhoods
o Predominantly R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Restricted Two -family residential), R-2A (Limited Two-family Residential)
o R-3, Multiple-family Residential
o R-4, Multi-family Residential
o R-S, Residential High Density Subarea
o 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 E2.6 Integration and Segregation,
• Section E2.7 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas, • Section E2.8 Access to Opportunities, and
• Section E2.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs.

Page 278 of 1385 ends

Page 282 ends

6 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 mo derate 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 populatio n 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

Page 279 of 1385 ends

Page 283 ends

7 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 Be rkeley 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 categoriz ations 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 th is 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 increas e housing opportunities in the area and units, specifically lower i ncome 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 a bove 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

Page 280 of 1385 ends

Page 284 ends

8 (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.

Page 281 of 1385 ends

Page 285 ends

9 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)

Page 282 of 1385 ends

Page 286 ends

10 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.

Page 283 of 1385 ends

Page 287 ends

11 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.

Page 284 of 1385 ends

Page 288 ends

12 E2.6 INTEGRATION AND SEGR EGATION
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 compos ition 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 small er 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%

Page 285 of 1385 ends

Page 289 ends

13 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.

Page 286 of 1385 ends

Page 290 ends

14 Table E-3 : Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Pers ons with Disabilities Disabled Population
(Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units 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 b e 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

Page 287 of 1385 ends

Page 291 ends

15 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 Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units 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.

Page 288 of 1385 ends

Page 292 ends

16 Table E-5 : Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Children in Female -Headed Households Children in Female-
Headed HHs (Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
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. Approx imately 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

Page 289 of 1385 ends

Page 293 ends

17 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 Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units 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.

Page 290 of 1385 ends

Page 294 ends

18 E2.7 RACIALLY OR ETHNICAL LY CONCENTRATED AREA S
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.

Page 291 of 1385 ends

Page 295 ends

19 E2.8 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNIT IES
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 household s 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 pr ojects 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 Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units 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%

Page 292 of 1385 ends

Page 296 ends

20 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.

Page 293 of 1385 ends

Page 297 ends

21 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 21 st 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 40 th percentile or below (best scores), compared to lower income u nits ( 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 topogra phically flat than in the northeastern and eastern portions of the city.

Page 294 of 1385 ends

Page 298 ends

22 Table E-9 : Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile Score (Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
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.

Page 295 of 1385 ends

Page 299 ends

23 E2.9 DISPROPORTIONATE HOU SING 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%

Page 296 of 1385 ends

Page 300 ends

24 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 (7 0.9 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 wher e 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
(Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
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%

Page 297 of 1385 ends

Page 301 ends

25 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.

Page 298 of 1385 ends

Page 302 ends

26 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 Displace ment 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%

Page 299 of 1385 ends

Page 303 ends

27 E3 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTI ONS
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 SEGR EGATION
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.

Page 300 of 1385 ends

Page 304 ends

28 E3.3 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNIT IES
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 co nditions 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 50
th 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.

Page 301 of 1385 ends

Page 305 ends

29 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 ill egal 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

Page 302 of 1385 ends

Page 306 ends

30 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.
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:

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.

Page 303 of 1385 ends

Page 307 ends

31 • 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). Des pite 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.

Page 304 of 1385 ends

Page 308 ends

32 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%
Source: Alameda County AFFH Data Packet (HUD, 2020), 2022.

Page 305 of 1385 ends

Page 309 ends

33 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), a nd Oak
land (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

Page 306 of 1385 ends

Page 310 ends

34 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 AI, 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:
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 L eandro, 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.

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

7 Rocha, Marjorie A., Executive Director, ECHO Housing. 2022. Personal communication with Alameda County Collaborative.

March 15.

Page 307 of 1385 ends

Page 311 ends

35 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, Span ish, 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:
o Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
o 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

Page 308 of 1385 ends

Page 312 ends

36 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 SEGR EGATION
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.
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).
9 To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, A BAG 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.

Dissimilarity Index. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are di stributed across the geographic units, such as tracts within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 denoting no segregation and 1

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. 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.

Page 309 of 1385 ends

Page 313 ends

37 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 l ess 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.

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 la rger Asian/API and Black/African American populations. Nearly

Page 310 of 1385 ends

Page 314 ends

38 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 populati on 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.

Page 311 of 1385 ends

Page 315 ends

39 Figure E -17: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), 2018), 2022.

Page 312 of 1385 ends

Page 316 ends

40 Figure E -18: Regional Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population by Tract (2010)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, U.S. Census), 2022.

Page 313 of 1385 ends

Page 317 ends

41 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 per cent 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 2 000, 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

Page 314 of 1385 ends

Page 318 ends

42 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.

Page 315 of 1385 ends

Page 319 ends

43 Figure E -20: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2010)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI, 2010), 2022.

Figure E -21: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI, 2018), 2022.

Page 316 of 1385 ends

Page 320 ends

44 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 noninsitutionalized population.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 AC S (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.

Page 317 of 1385 ends

Page 321 ends

45 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, n early 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 n ot 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 populatio n 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.

Page 318 of 1385 ends

Page 322 ends

46 Figure E-23: Regional Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

Page 319 of 1385 ends

Page 323 ends

47 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. Cogni tive 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.

Page 320 of 1385 ends

Page 324 ends

48 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/La tino 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 – Berkele y (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%

Page 321 of 1385 ends

Page 325 ends

49 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 = No t 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 disabil ities 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 Hawa iian/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.

Page 322 of 1385 ends

Page 326 ends

50 Figure E -26: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)

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).

Page 323 of 1385 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 18, 2023

Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023