Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

51 Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status covers: the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.

Regional Trends. The composition of household types in Alameda County is comparable to the Bay Area.

In both jurisdictions, approximately half of households are married couple families and a quarter are single-person households (Figure E-28). The County has a slightly higher concentration of female-headed family households compared to the Bay Area (11 percent vs. 10 percent, respectively). Both jurisdictions are comprised of nine percent other non -family households and five percent male- headed family households. Berkeley has a significantly larger proportion of single- person households (34 percent) and other non-family households (20 percent). This trend is likely due to the large percentage of students living in the City. Students and young adults are more likely to live alone or in non- family households. 10 According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 8.5 percent of the total population Countywide is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to 29 percent in Berkeley. Similarly, 8.5 percent of the Alameda County population and 24.8 percent of the Berkeley population is aged 18 to 24.

Figure E -28: Household Type Composition – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2019)

10 A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.

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

As shown in Table E-23, Alameda County and the Bay Area have comparable proportions of households with and without children. Approximately 34 percent of households in the County and 32 percent of households in the Bay area have one or more children under the age of 18. Consistent with the household trends described above, Berkeley has a substantially smaller proportion of households with children. Only

19.7 percent of Berkeley households have one or more children. The Census considers 18 to 34-year-olds young adults. Adults aged 34 and older are more likely to be married and/or have children. Only a quarter of the Alameda population is aged 18 to 34 compared to 43.2 percent of the Berkeley population.

Additionally, 40.6 percent of the County population and 30 percent of the Berkeley population is aged 35 to 64.

Table E- 23: Households by Presence of Children – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2019) Household Type Berkeley Alameda County Bay Area
With one or more children under 18 19.7% 33.6% 32.0%
With no children 80.3% 66.4% 68.0%
Total Households 45,352 577,177 2,731,434
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.

Figure E-29 shows the percent of children living in married couple households by tract for the region.

Tracts with higher percentages of children living in married couple households are scattered throughout the region; however, they are most concentrated in the inland areas of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Tracts with larger populations of children living in married couple households are also distributed throughout San Francisco and some Marin County jurisdictions. Tracts with fewer children living in married couple households are more concentrated in coastal East Bay cities including Oakland and Richmond. These areas tend to have larger racial/ethnic minority populations (see Figure E-16).

Populations of children living in single-parent female-headed households are shown in Figure E-30. Tracts with larger populations of children in fem ale-headed households are most concentrated on the western side of San Francisco, Oakland, and northern Contra Costa County. The western side of Alameda County has a higher concentration of children in female- headed households compared to central Contra Co sta County jurisdictions to the east. As mentioned previously, these areas tend to have higher concentrations of non-White populations (see Figure E-16
).

53 Figure E -29: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019)

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

54 Figure E -30: Regional Percent of Children in Female -Headed Households by Tract (2019)

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

55 Local Trends . Due to the large population of students and young adults, the City has a larger concentration of non-family households including single-person households. As presented in Table E-24, the number of married couple families has increased most substantially since 2010 (+15.5 percent), followed by male -headed families (+9.3 percent), and other non -family households (+7.3 percent). The City saw a decrease in female-headed families (-11 percent) and single-person households (-2.1 percent) during the same period. In 2010, students enrolled in college or graduate school represented 31.3 percent of the population, decreasing to 29 percent in 2019. 11 However, the overall population increased from 34,207 student to 35,210 students, or thre e percent. The increase in other non -family households and decrease in single-person households may be, in part, due to rising rent prices that may be unaffordable to students. Cost burden and rent increases are further described in Section E4.5 Cost Burden , of this Appendix.

Table E- 24: Change in Household Type Composition (2010 -2019) Household Type 2010 2019 Percent
Change Households Percent Households Percent
Female-Headed Family 3,615 8.4% 3,216 7.1% -11.0%
Male-Headed Family 1,272 2.9% 1,390 3.1% 9.3%
Married Couple Family 13,928 32.2% 16,092 35.5% 15.5%
Other Non-Family 8,433 19.5% 9,045 19.9% 7.3%
Single-person 15,941 36.9% 15,609 34.4% -2.1%
Total Households 43,189 100.0% 45,352 100.0% 5.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021; 2006-2010 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Family households are more likely to own their homes than non- family households. Figure E-31 shows that 68.8 percent of married couple families and 42.2 percent of other families (male- or female-headed households with no spouse) are owners. In comparison, only 31.5 percent of single- person households and 17.2 percent of other non-family households own their home. Despite the increase in married couple families in the City, the proportion of owner -occupied households decreased from 43.3 percent in 2010 to 42.9 percent in 2019. The perc entage of married couple families who rent their home increased from

27.5 to 31.5 during the same period. Increasing housing costs, discussed further in Section E4.5 Cost Burden, likely contribute to the increase in married couple family renters.

As presented in Table E-23, 19.7 percent of Berkeley households have children, an increase from 19.4 percent in 2010. According to UC Berkeley Career Center data, 66 percent of the 2017 -2019 graduating classes stayed in the Bay Area post-graduation. 12 Young adults remaining in the City likely contribute to the increase in married couple family households and households with children.

11 Based on 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). 12 Zhao, Alex (2020). The Daily Californian, Where do UC Berkeley students go? http://projects.dailycal.org/2020/uc - berkeley-students-after-grad/.

56 Figure E -31: Household Type by T enure (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

In most tracts, less than 40 percent of the population lives with a spouse. Tracts where fewer than 20 percent of the population live with a spouse have large student populations. Student populations by tract are further described in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). While the HCD Data Viewer does show that there is one tract in the City, encompassing the UC Berkeley campus, where more than 80 percent of the adult population lives with their spouse (Figure E -18), according to the 2021 UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), there are no existing beds (households/population) in Campus Park (western side of tract 4226 - dark blue where >80% of population lives with spouse). Furthermore, the only student family housing available is in Albany, north of the City. Based on this knowledge, none of the population in this tract lives with a spouse.

There are no areas in the City where more than 40 percent of the population lives alone (Figure E-33). In most of Berkeley, less than 20 percent of the population lives alone and tracts where 20 to 40 percent of the population lives alone are generally not concentrated in a single area of the City. The Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Northbrae, and Claremont neighborhoods have larger populations of persons living with a spouse and small populations of persons living alone. These areas have lower concentrations of non-White residents and higher concentrations of elderly adults (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-27). This pattern probably reflects the demographic changes in the City over time, with some of the longest tenure residents being White and are generally aging in place.

57 Figure E -32: Percent of Population Living with Spouse by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022. Note on UC Berkeley campus: The AFFH Data Viewer data on the UC Berkeley campus is inaccurate. There are no existing beds or population living in Campus Park and three student dormitories (Stern Hall, Bow les Hall, and International House) on Campus West. Student family housing is available only in University Village in the City of Albany.

Figure E -33: Percent of Population Living Alone by Tract (2019)

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

58 Children living in married couple households are most condensed in tracts on the eastern side of the City, particularly the Berkeley Hills, Live Oak, UC Berkeley, Panoramic Hill, Elmwood District, and Claremont neighborhoods (Figure E -34). In five tracts, three on the eastern side of the City, one in Downtown Berkeley, and one in South Berkeley/Le Conte, between 40 and 60 percent of children live in married couple households. Between 60 and 80 percent of children live in married couple households in the remaining tracts. Most tracts where fewer than 60 percent of children live in married couple households also have slightly higher concentrations of persons with disabilities (more than 10 percent) and contain block groups with moderate to high proportions of racial/ethnic minorities (see Figure E -21 and Figure E-26).

Consistent with Figure E-34, Figure E-35 shows that more children on the western side of Berkeley live in single-parent female-headed households compared to the eastern side. There is only one tract in Berkeley where more than 40 percent of children live in female- headed households, located in South Berkeley/Le Conte bound by Dwight Way to the north, Fulton Street to the east, Ashby Avenue to the south, and Martin Luther King Jr. Way to the west. Nearly 50 percent of children in this tract live in female -headed households. This tract does not contain particularly high concentrations of racial or ethnic minority populations (less than 60 percent) or persons with disabilities (less than 10 percent) (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-26). According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, 13.6 percent of female -headed households with children and 12.5 percent of female-headed households without children are below the poverty level, fewer than the Citywide average of 19.2 percent.
13 13 Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official pover ty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

59 Figure E -34: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019)

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

Figure E -35: Percent of Children in Female -Headed Households by Tract (2019)

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

60 Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines an LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the households are LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)).

Regional Trends. Lower income households are considered households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI. Since the 20 06-2010 ACS (HUD CHAS data), the proportion of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI has increased from 50.9 percent to 52.7 percent. Based on HUD CHAS data using the 2006-2010 ACS, 39.7 percent of households are considered lower income, a smaller proportion compared to recent HUD CHAS data. Renter-occupied households tend to have lower incomes compared to owner - occupied households. In Alameda County, 38.4 percent of households are considered lower income, including 24.1 percent of owner -occupied households and 54.5 percent of renter- occupied households (Table E -25). There are slightly more owners than renters in the County (53 percent vs. 47 percent, respectively). Approximately 68 percent of owners earn more than 100 percent of the AMI compared to only 35.5 percent of renters.

Table E- 25: Household Income Level by Tenure – Alameda County ( 2010 and 2017) Income
Category
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All Households All Households (2010) Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 0%-30% of AMI 21,310 7.1% 67,065 25.1% 88,375 15.5% 78,920 14.8% 31%-50% of AMI 23,455 7.8% 40,385 15.1% 63,840 11.2% 58,335 11.0% 51%-80% of AMI 27,845 9.2% 38,270 14.3% 66,115 11.6% 73,975 13.9% 81%-100% of AMI 24,140 8.0% 26,855 10.0% 50,995 9.0% 49,855 9.4% > 100% of AMI 204,915 67.9% 94,830 35.5% 299,745 52.7% 270,935 50.9% Totals 301,665 100.0% 267,405 100.0% 569,070 100.0% 532,025 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2006-2010 and 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.

Figure E-36 compares household income levels for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. Both the Bay Area and Alameda County have slightl y higher proportions of households earning more than 100 percent of the AMI compared to Berkeley. There is a higher concentration of lower income households in the City compared to the County and Bay Area. Specifically, 21 percent of Berkeley households ar e considered extremely low income, earning 30 percent or less than the AMI, whereas only 16 percent of Alameda County households and 15 percent of Bay Area households fall into the same income category.

61 Figure E -36: Households by Household Income Level – Berkeley, Alameda County, and Bay Area (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2021.

Regional LMI households by tract are presented in Figure E -37. LMI areas, where more than 51 percent of households are low or moderate income, are found throughout the region, specifically in San Francisco, Daly City, and coastal Contra Costa and Alameda County (from San Leandro to Richmond). LMI areas are also dispersed to a lesser extent in Marin County and northern Contra Costa County. In general, LMI areas follow patterns similar to racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of children in female - headed households (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-28).

62 Figure E -37: Regional Low to Moderate Income (LMI) Households by Tract (2015)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2011-2015 ACS), 2022.

63 Local Trends. Berkeley has a larger population of lower income households compared to the County and Bay Area region (see Figure E -36, above). Like the County, the proportion of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI has increased since the 2006 -2010 ACS. According to 2010 estimates, 44.7 percent of households were considered lower income, a larger proportion than more recent 2017 data.

Approximately 42 percent of Berkeley households earn 80 percent or less than the AMI, compared to 38.4 in the County. A smaller proportion of owners, but larger proportion of renters, in the City are considered lower income. Only 18.6 percent of owners are lower income. Nearly 60 percent of renter -occupied households are lower income, likely due to the concentration of students and young adults in the City.

Students and young adults tend to have lower paying jobs or no job at all. As mentioned previously, 19.2 percent of the Berkeley population is below the poverty level, significantly higher than 9.9 percent Countywide.

Table E- 26: Household Income Level by Tenure ( 2010 and 2017) Income Category Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All Households All Households (2010) Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 0%-30% of AMI 1,140 5.8% 8,510 32.7% 9,650 21.2% 8,665 20.1% 31%-50% of AMI 1,035 5.3% 3,880 14.9% 4,915 10.8% 4,555 10.5% 51%-80% of AMI 1,449 7.4% 3,104 11.9% 4,553 10.0% 6,095 14.1% 81%-100% of AMI 1,204 6.2% 2,259 8.7% 3,463 7.6% 3,845 8.9% > 100% of AMI 14,699 75.3% 8,245 31.7% 22,944 50.4% 20,030 46.4% Totals 19,527 100.0% 25,998 100.0% 45,525 100.0% 43,190 100.0% Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2022; HUD CHAS Data (based on 2006-2010 ACS).

Berkeley has a college and graduate student population of 29 percent, significantly higher than 8.5 percent Countywide. As shown in Table E -27, young adults aged 18 to 34 have the highest poverty rate and represent the largest proportion of the Citywide population. It is important to note that the ACS does not include persons in college dormitories when estimating poverty status, although less than 25 percent of UC Berkeley students currently live in dormitories and the majority live in off-campus housing.

Poverty status of students and young adults alone, however, may not accurately represent the population living below the poverty level. A 2017 study found that the median family income of a UC Berkeley student is $119,000 and more than half are in the top 20 percent of income earners, while only 7.3 percent of students come from families in the bottom 20 percent (approximately $20,000 or less per year). 14 While
this may reveal that ACS poverty estimates are inflated, it also indicates upward mobility may be hindered for lower income students. Student poverty and mobility is further discussed in Section E4.6 Student Poverty and Mobility of this Appendix.

Table E- 27: Poverty Status by Age (2019)
Total Population Percent Below Poverty
Level Persons Percent
Under 18 years 14,618 13.4% 5.7%
18 to 34 years 40,890 37.5% 38.2%
35 to 64 years 36,446 33.4% 8.4%
65 years and over 17,229 15.8% 8.5%
Population for whom poverty status is determined 109,183 100.0% 19.2%

14 Chetty, R. (Stanford University and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Friedman, J. N. (Brown University and NBER); Saez, E. (UC Berkeley and NBER); Turner, N. (US Treasury); Yagan, D. (UC Berkeley and NBER). (2017). Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college- mobility/university-of-california-berkeley.

64 Note: Includes only population for whom poverty status is determined. Excludes institutionalized persons, persons in military group quarters and in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices are described in detail in Section E4.2 Race/Ethnicity.

Isolation indices, presented in Table E -28, show that above moderate income households are most isolated in Berkeley, followed by very low income households. Between 2010 and 2015, isolation indices have decreased for households of all income levels except very low income. Isolation values indicate that on average, an above moderate income Berkeley resident lives in a neighborhood that is 51.2 percent above moderate income. Isolation indices for very low income and above moderate income residents are higher in Berkeley compared to the Bay Area as a whole.

As shown by 2010 and 2015 dissimilarity indices for Berkeley, segregation between lower income and higher income residents has decreased. However, 33.4 percent of lower income residents and 40.6 percent of very low and extremely low income residents would have to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect income category integration. Berkeley has significantly higher income segregation than the Bay Area. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, income segregation in the County is low, whereas very low income and above moderate income households in Berkeley are moderately segregated.

The Thiel’s H index in Berkeley has declined, indicating there is now less neighborhood -level income segregation. This pattern is consistent with isolation and dissimilarity index trends. However, Berkeley’s Thiel’s H index of 0.109 in 2015 remains higher than 0.043 in the Bay Area.

Table E- 28: Income Segregation Indices (2010 -2015)
Berkeley Bay Area
2010 2015 2015
Isolation Index
Very Low Income (<50% AMI) 0.475 0.484 0.269
Low Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.151 0.110 0.145
Moderate Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.180 0.149 0.183
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 0.514 0.512 0.507
Dissimilarity Index
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.361 0.334 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.464 0.406 0.253
Thiel’s H 0.128 0.109 0.043
Source: ABAG AFFH Data Report (based on 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 ACS), 2022.

LMI areas where more than 51 percent of the household population is low or moderate income are shown geographically in Figure E -38. Block groups adjacent to the UC Berkeley campus in the Southside, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods have the highest concentration of LMI households, where more than 75 percent are low or moderate income. These areas have large student populations that tend to be lower income. Student populations by tract are discussed in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). The South Berkeley, Lorin, Northside, and western neighborhoods also tend to have higher concentrations of LMI households. Most block groups in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, Terrace View, and Claremont neighborhoods have LMI populations of 50 percent or lower. In general, LMI areas also have larger populations of people of color (see Figure E-21).

65 Figure E -38: LMI Households by Block Group (2015)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2011-2015 ACS), 2022.

Poverty status by tract in Berkeley is included in Figure E-40. Since the 2010-2014 ACS (Figure E-39), the population of persons below the poverty level has decreased in several tracts, specifically in the Berkeley Marina, Gilman, Southwest Berkeley, Northside, and South, Central and North Berkeley neighborhoods.

The population of persons below the poverty level has increased in some tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus. Consistent with the aggregation of LMI areas, tracts with large populations below the poverty level are located around the UC Berkeley campus. Tracts south of the campus in the Southside, Downtown Berkeley, Panoramic Hill, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods have the highest poverty rate (>40 percent). Approximately 34 percent of the population in tract 4225 (Northside neighborhood) and 25 percent of the population in tract 4224 (North Berkeley neighborhood) is below the poverty level. This pattern reflects the large population of students with low or no income. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1 of the Housing Element, students tend to have very low incomes which would skew the City’s median household income downward. However, students are generally not considered “lower income” for the purposes of public housing programs because they often rely on support from families or public loans.

Between 10 and 20 percent of the population in most tracts are below the poverty level. Less than 10 percent is below the poverty level in most northeastern tracts (Berkeley Hills and Thousand Oaks neighborhood areas). The areas with the lowest poverty rates also have the smallest racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of children living in female -headed households (see Figure E -21 and Figure E-30).

66 Figure E -39: Poverty Status by Tract (2014)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 ACS), 2022.

67 Figure E -40: Poverty Status by Tract (2019)

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

E4.3 RACIALLY OR ETHNICAL LY CONCENTRATED AREA S
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically- concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non -White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. Areas of High Segregation and Poverty are also identified by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), jointly known as the Fair Housing Task Force. Ar eas of High Segregation and Poverty are defined as tracts where at least 30 percent of the population is living below the poverty line and relies on the location quotient of residential segregation (LQ). 15 Regional Trends. R/ECAPs and TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty are most concentrated on the eastern side of San Francisco and in coastal Alameda County cities from San Leandro to Berkeley (Figure E-42). There are very few of these tracts in Marin County or Contra Costa County. R/ECAPs and

15 The LQ is a small-area measure of relative segregation calculated at the residential census tract level that represents how much more segregated an area (e.g., a census tract or block group) is relative to the larger area (in this case, the county).

For the filter, tracts that have a LQ higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color are flagged as being racially segregated in comparison to the county.

68 TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty are consistent with racial/ethnic minority population and LMI household trends described above (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-35).

Poverty status by race and ethnicity for Alameda County is included in Table E -29. Since 2014, the population of persons below the poverty level has decreased, representing 12.9 percent of the population in 2014 compared to 9.9 percent in 2019. Non -Hispanic White populations have the lowest poverty rate of 6.7 percent. The poverty rate is highest amongst the Black/African American population (20 percent), followed by the American Indian and Alaska Native population (15 percent), and the population of a race not listed (14.4 percent). The Hispanic/Latino population also experiences poverty at a rate exceeding the Countywide average of 9.9 percent.

Table E- 29: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County ( 2014 and 2019) Race/Ethnicity
2014 2019
Total
Population
Percent Below
Poverty Level
Total
Population
Percent Below
Poverty Level
White alone 694,967 10.6% 658,902 7.7%
Black or African American alone 180,317 24.1% 172,438 20.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 9,082 19.0% 10,905 15.0% Asian alone 417,472 9.7% 492,498 7.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 12,761 11.9% 13,695 9.1% Some other race alone 123,715 19.5% 176,536 14.4%
Two or more races 93,032 13.1% 105,317 8.9%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 346,045 17.9% 364,402 12.5% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 510,373 8.2% 512,146 6.7% Population for whom poverty status is determined 1,531,346 12.9% 1,630,291 9.9% Source: 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Employment status is often a variable that describes poverty status. As shown in Figure E -41, the American Indian and Alaska Native population in Alameda County has the lowest labor force participation and highest unemployment rate, followed by the Black/African American population. As discussed previously, the American Indian and Alaska Native and Black/African American populations also have the highest poverty rates in the County. Asian and White populations have the lowest unemployment rate of

3.9 percent with moderate labor force participation rates (66.4 percent and 67.5 percent, respectively).

The White population ha s the lowest poverty rate countywide (6.7 percent), followed by the Asian population (7.9 percent).

69 Figure E -41: Employment Status by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

70 Figure E -42: Regional R/ECAPs and TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (2020, 2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013; 2021 TCAC), 2022.

71 Local Trends. There are no TCAC areas of hig h segregation and poverty that have been identified in the City of Berkeley. Figure E -43 shows there are five tracts that have been recognized by HUD as R/ECAPs.

The following tracts are considered R/ECAPs: 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4236.02. All five of these tracts are located on the eastern side of the City surrounding and including the UC Berkeley campus. As presented in Section E4.2 Income Level, this area has a high concentration of LMI households and persons below the poverty level (see Figure E -38 and Figure E-40). More than 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group in most block groups in this part of the City (see Figure E-21).

Figure E -43: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) (2013)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013), 2022
The presence of R/EC APs in this area of the City correlates with the student populations in these tracts.

In addition to UC Berkeley, the Berkeley City College is also located in this area in the Downtown Berkeley neighborhood. In Fall 2021, UC Berkeley had an enrollment of 45,057 students 16 and in 2017, Berkeley City College had an enrollment of approximately 7,000 students. 17 Students tend to have no income or if employed, only as part- time and generate limited incomes. Approximately 29 percent of the Berkeley population is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to 93 percent in tract 4226 (UC Berkeley campus), 83.1 percent in tract 4227 (south of UC Berkeley campus), 89.9 percent in tract 4228 (Southside neighborhood), 54.2 percent in tract 4229 (Downtown Berkeley neighborhood), and 64.5 percent in tract 4236.02 (northern Elmwood/South Berkeley neighborhood) (Table E -30). As mentioned in Section E4.2 Income Level, young adults aged 18 to 34, whi ch includes college-aged persons, have significantly higher

16 UC Berkeley Quick Facts, Fall 2021 Enrollment. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts. 17 Berkeley City College, About. https://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/about-bcc/.

72 poverty rates compared to other age groups. However, poverty status of students and young adults alone, may not accurately represent the population living below the poverty level as many college students are dependents and may come from higher income families. Discussions on student poverty and income status are expanded upon in Section E4.6 Student Poverty and Mobility, of this Appendix.

Table E- 30: Population Enrolled in College or Graduate School – R /ECAP Tracts (2019) Tract/City Population Enrolled in College or Graduate School Persons Percent
Census Tract 4226 970 93.0%
Census Tract 4227 4,374 83.1%
Census Tract 4228 8,152 89.9%
Census Tract 4229 3,125 54.2%
Census Tract 4236.02 4,209 64.5%
Berkeley 35,210 29.0%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Of the population aged 16 and older in the City, 38.2 percent are not in the labor force ( Table E -31).

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force, including retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Likely due to the high proportion of students, R/ECAP tracts have larger populations of persons not in the labor force. Most R/ECAP tracts, with the exception of tract 4228, have employment rates comparable or lower than the City average. The concentration of persons experiencing poverty in R/ECAPs can likely, in part, be explained by the low labor force participation rates in these tracts. Tract 4228 (Southside neighborhood) the largest population of persons not in the labor force and highest unemployment rate. Many of the UC Berkeley residence halls are located in the Southside neighborhood including Blackwell Hall, Cleary Hall, Channing- Bowditch Apartments, Martinez Commons, Unit 1 Residence Hall, Unit 2 Residence Hall, Unit 3 Residence Hall, and the Ida Louise Jackson Graduate Housing.

Table E- 31: Labor Force Participation – R/ECAP Tracts (2019) Tract/City Population Aged 16+ In Labor Force Not in Labor Force Employed Unemployed
Census Tract 4226 1,018 41.7% 1.8% 56.6%
Census Tract 4227 5,229 40.6% 3.8% 55.6%
Census Tract 4228 9,053 31.5% 5.1% 63.4%
Census Tract 4229 5,592 52.3% 2.3% 45.5%
Census Tract 4236.02 6,401 56.5% 3.1% 40.4%
Berkeley 108,360 58.4% 3.3% 38.2%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Poverty status by race and ethnicity is shown in Figure E-44. Unlike the County, the Asian/API population in Berkeley h as the highest poverty rate of 36.9 percent, followed by the Black/African American population (25.4 percent), and the American Indian or Alaska Native population (24.5 percent). As discussed in Section E4.2 Race/Ethnicity, the Asian and API population make up the second largest population in the City. White non-Hispanic residents represent more than half of the population and have the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent.

According to UC Berkeley Fall 2021 enrollment data, the Asian population represents the largest share of the UC Berkeley student body (33.8 percent), followed by the White population (23.6 percent), and Chicanx/Latinx population (16.2 percent).
18 Nearly a third of the Berkeley City College population is also

18 UC Berkeley Quick Facts, Fall 2021 Enrollment. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts.

73 Asian or API. 19 The large population of Asian/API students in the City likely contributes to the high poverty rate.

Black or African American students represent only 4.1 percent of the UC Ber keley student body but 15 percent of the Berkeley City College student body, while American Indian or Alaska Native students represent only 0.5 percent of the UC Berkeley student body and one percent of the Berkeley City College student body. Despite the smaller Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native student bodies, poverty rates amongst these groups citywide remain high. The high poverty rates amongst Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native populations cannot be attributed to student populations alone. Conversely, 23.6 percent of UC Berkeley students and 25 percent of Berkeley City College students are White, but only 12.1 percent are below the poverty level citywide. Based on student populations and poverty rates, Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native residents are most disproportionately affected by poverty in Berkeley.

Figure E -44: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.

Income category distribution for various racial/ethnic groups in Berkeley is included in Figure E -45.

Approximately 42 percent of Berkeley households are considered lower income, earning 80 percent of less than the AMI. Consistent with the poverty rates described above, the American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American household populations have the largest proportion of lower income households of 84.6 percent and 70.6 percent, respectively. Fewer Asian or API households (56.4 percent) are lower income, despite having the highest poverty rate ( Figure E-44). This discrepancy is due to the

19 Berkeley City College, About. https://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/about-bcc/.

74 Census Bureau’s definition for “household,” which does not include people living in group quarters.20 UC Berkeley has an undergraduate Asian/API population of 39.5 percent. According to the UC Berkeley Office of Undergraduate Admissions, approximately 7,000 undergraduate students, representing 27 percent of the student body, live in university housing. The non -Hispanic White household population is the only racial group with a proportion of lower income households (32.6 percent) below the citywide average.

It is relevant to note that nearly all lower income American Indian/Alaska Native households, 95 out of 117 total households, fall into the extremely low income category, earning less than 30 percent of the AMI.

The proportion of extremely low income American Indian/Alaska Native households is substantially higher than all other racial/ethnic groups in the City.

Figure E -45: Household Income Distribution by Race/Ethnicity (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2020 HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS)), 2021.

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated - a key to fair housing choice. Identifying RCAAs is also important for underser ved populations to be able to participate in resources experienced by populations living in areas of influence.

According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to HUD's policy paper, non -Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is

20 Group quarters are defined as places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an organization providing housing and/or services for th e residents , such as nursing homes, military barracks and college/university student housing.

75 associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.

While HCD has created its own metric for RCAAs, as of February 2022, RCAA maps were not available on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer tool. Thus, this analysis relies on the definition curated by the scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs cited in HCD’s memo: “RCAAs are defined as census tracts where: 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).” Regional Trends. The median income in Alameda County is $99,406 ( Table E-32). The median income countywide has increase signific antly since 2010. The median household income in 2010 was $69,384.

The median household income for all racial/ethnic groups has increased during this period. Between 2010 and 2019, the median household income increased by 43.3 p ercent. The median income for households with a householder of two or more races and Asian householders increased at rates exceeding the countywide average, while the median incomes for all other racial/ethnic groups saw increases ranging from 28.8 percent (Black/African American householders) to 40.7 percent (Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander householders). Currently, Asian households have the highest median income of $124,079, followed by non-Hispanic White households ($114,0427). Asian and White households are the only racial or ethnic groups with median incomes exceeding the countywide median. The median income for Black/African American households of $51,049 is significantly lower than all other racial/ethnic groups in the County. Median income trends for racial groups in the County are consistent with poverty status trends presented in Table E-29.

Table E- 32: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County ( 2010 and 2019) Race/Ethnicity of Householder 2010 2019
Percent of
Population
Median Income Percent of
Population
Median Income
White 51.7% $77,850 46.8% $108,506
Black or African American 15.0% $40,187 12.4% $51,749
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.5% $52,297 0.7% $71,268 Asian 22.4% $83,831 27.3% $124,079
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.6% $62,120 0.7% $87,408 Some Other Race 6.7% $54,246 7.8% $73,614
Two or More Races 3.0% $63,305 4.3% $95,736
Hispanic or Latino 15.5% $55,613 16.4% $77,990
White alone, non-Hispanic 43.9% $82,617 39.6% $114,427
All Households 100.0% $69,384 100.0% $99,406
Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Median incomes by block group for the region surrounding Berkeley are shown in Figure E-46. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the median income in Alameda County is $99,406, higher than $85,530 in Berkeley.

Berkeley has a lower median income compared to most adjacent cit ies including Alameda ($104,756), El Cerrito ($108,298), Emeryville ($102,725), Orinda ($223,217), and Piedmont ($224,659), but higher than Oakland ($73,692) and Richmond ($68,472). Block groups with median incomes exceeding $125,000 are most concentrated in central Contra Costa County, Marin County, and San Francisco, while median incomes below the HCD Statewide median of $87,100 tend to be located in coastal East Bay cities from San Leandro to Richmond. Smaller concentrations of block groups with low medi an incomes are also shown in northern Contra Costa County, southern and western San Francisco, and small sections of Marin County. Areas in the region with higher median incomes also tend to have smaller populations of people of color compared to areas wit h lower median incomes. However, most block groups in the region have non-White populations exceeding 20 percent (see Figure E -17). RCAA block groups with White

76 populations exceeding 80 percent and median incomes above $125,000 are most prevalent in Marin County and Contra Costa County.

77 Figure E -46: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2019)

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

78 Local Trends. As mentioned previously, the median household income in Berkeley of $85,530 is lower than the median countywide. Since 2010, the median household income in Berkeley has increased at a slightly higher rate than the County (45.9 percent vs. 43.3 percent, respectively). The median incomes for different racial/ethnic groups have increased at rates ranging from 28.1 percent (Black/African American householders) to 89.5 percent (householder of two or more races). The American Indian/Alaska Native median household income decreased significantly during this period. The large student population in the City likely contributes to the low median income and high poverty rate of 19.2 percent. Non -Hispanic White households have a median income of $107,660, significantly higher than all other ra cial/ethnic groups in the City ( Table E-33). Consistent with the poverty rates and household income distributions described in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) , American Indian/Alaska Native and Black/African American households have the lowest median incomes of $27,232 and $39,441, respectively. Though the Asian population has the highest poverty ra te in the City, the median income for Asian households remains moderate. It is important to note that this is likely affected by the large population of Asian/API students in the City. Students living in group quarters (residence halls, student housing) are not included in the ACS data for median household income.

Table E- 33: Median Income by Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2019
Percent
Distribution
Median
Income
Households Percent
Distribution
Median
Income
White 65.6% $75,151 29,606 65.3% $107,050
Black or African American 10.8% $30,794 3,820 8.4% $39,441 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2% $76,042 298 0.7% $27,232 Asian 17.6% $38,225 7,929 17.5% $58,253
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2% $55,227 152 0.3% - Some Other Race 2.2% $45,000 1,281 2.8% $70,483
Two or More Races 3.3% $43,608 2,266 5.0% $82,647
Hispanic or Latino 7.6% $44,273 3,585 7.9% $71,051
White alone, non-Hispanic 60.8% $77,273 27,955 61.6% $107,660 All Households 100.0% $58,617 45,352 100.0% $85,530
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Employment status for Berkeley, including labor force participation and unemployment rates, by race and ethnicity are presented in Table E-34. Since the 2006 -2010 ACS, the unemployment rate has decreased from 6.7 percent to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate has decreased for all racial/ethnic groups except the Asian population (remained constant), the population of some other race, and the population of two or more races. Citywide, the labor force participation rate is 61.8 percent, and the unemployment rate is

5.3 percent. Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations all have labor force participation rates falling short of the citywide average. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Black/African American populations also have the highest unemployment rates of 13 percent and 12.5 percent respectively. Conversely, the American Indian/Alaska Native population has the lowest unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. The low unemployment rate and low median income for American Indian/Alaska Native residents indicates persons in this group may have lower paying jobs.

Table E- 34: Employment Status by Race/Ethnicity ( 2010 and 2019) Race/Ethnicity Total Population Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment
Rate
Unemployment
Rate (2010)
Population 16 Years and Older 108,360 61.8% 5.3% 6.7%

79 White 63,961 66.5% 4.3% 5.6%
Black or African American 8,264 52.9% 12.5% 17.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native 535 53.6% 1.4% 21.8%
Asian 24,619 51.4% 5.5% 5.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 570 58.1% 13.0% 25.1% Some Other Race 4,133 65.6% 8.4% 6.8%
Two or More Races 6,278 65.0% 5.9% 2.9%
Hispanic or Latino 11,596 65.5% 7.6% 10.4%
White alone, non-Hispanic 58,213 66.6% 4.0% 5.0%
Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Median income and populations of persons of color by block group are shown geographically in Figure E-

47. Block groups with median incomes ex ceeding $125,000 are most densely populated in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Terrace View, Live Oak, and Northbrae neighborhoods. Block groups in the Southside, Northside, Downtown Berkeley neighborhoods have the lowest median incomes. These neighborhoods have large student populations as described in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).

There are two block groups in the City with median incomes exceeding $125,000 and White populations exceeding 80 percent that can be categorized as RCAAs. One is in the Live Oak neighborhood on the southwest corner of Marin Avenue and Spruce Street, and the other is in the Claremont neighborhood in the southeast corner of the City intersected by California State Route 13 or Tunnel Road.

Figure E -47: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population and Median Income by Block Group (2018, 2019)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2018; 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

80 E4.4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNIT IES
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial a nd measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD -developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess Alameda County residents’ access to key opportunity assets by race/ethnicity and poverty level. Table E -36 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty Index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood through poverty rate calculations and percentile rankings. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high - performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools.

The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with l arger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description o f the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor f orce participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3 -person single- parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3- person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These o pportunity maps are made from composite

81 scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table E-35 shows the full list of indicators.

The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation.

To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters are:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County.

Table E- 35: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps (2020) Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020

TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domains in Table E -35 by census tract and computes “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains. Scores from each individual domain range from 0 -1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize show areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty and can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty.

The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.

Regional Trends. HUD Opportunity indicators for Alameda County included in Table E-36 reveal that White residents are exposed to the least poverty and highest quality school systems. White C ounty residents also have the highest access to employment opportunities, highest labor market participation, and highest human capital compared to other racial and ethnic groups. The Black population is most likely to utilize public transit and have the lowest transportation costs. The Asian/Pacific Islander population scored the highest for environmental health, indicating they tend to live in neighborhoods with better environmental conditions.

Populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, have lower low poverty index, school proficiency index, labor market index, and environmental health index scores compared to the total population. The Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black populations below the federal poverty line tend to have b etter access to employment opportunities than the respective total populations. All

82 populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, are more likely to use transit and have lower transportation costs.

TCAC Opportunity Areas. Tract-level TCAC Opportunity score categories for the region are shown in Figure E-48 below. Highest and high resource tracts are most prevalent in southern and central Contra Costa County, from San Ramon to Walnut Creek, central and northwestern San Francisco, and southern Marin County. There are smaller pockets of highest and high resource areas in the City of Alameda and Berkeley. Most coastal East Bay tracts in and around the cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburg, and Antioch are categorized as low resource. The eastern and southeastern side of San Francisco also has a concentration of low resource areas. Moderate resource tracts located sparsely throughout the East Bay but appear most frequently in Daly City, Marin County, and the northwestern corner of Contra Costa County. Areas of high segregation and poverty are most common in Oakland and San Francisco. High segregation and poverty tracts are described in detail in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) . In general, low resource tracts tend to have larger populations of persons of color, LMI households, and children living in single -parent female- headed households (see Figure E-16, Figure E-28, and Figure E-35).

83 Table E- 36: HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty Status – Alameda County and Berkeley (2020) Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Jobs Proximity
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit Trips
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost index
Environmental
Health Index
Alameda County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.77 63.54 49.53 74.55 66.89 90.14 50.88 Black, Non-Hispanic 44.49 31.94 48.71 48.31 82.01 92.68 47.17 Hispanic 51.24 36.14 39.68 48.53 75.71 91.47 51.38
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 67.49 59.00 43.20 66.53 75.47 90.32 53.28 Native American, Non-Hispanic 56.63 45.28 45.70 56.25 73.86 91.57 51.02 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 62.73 55.76 48.95 66.69 77.09 91.96 46.91 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.26 24.75 50.48 39.82 84.51 93.47 46.13 Hispanic 38.27 25.08 40.01 40.17 80.37 92.68 50.21
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.06 47.56 52.88 57.37 84.51 93.46 46.16 Native American, Non-Hispanic 40.35 28.16 39.56 41.16 82.37 92.68 50.47 Berkeley
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 69.83 78.20 67.22 83.31 88.76 94.05 29.09 Black, Non-Hispanic 51.29 80.36 76.74 74.74 90.47 95.16 27.98 Hispanic 60.16 79.94 73.32 74.20 90.10 94.94 29.02
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 66.12 77.23 69.26 68.33 90.47 95.17 30.10 Native American, Non-Hispanic 60.56 78.29 72.48 73.05 90.29 95.07 28.69 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.02 77.44 69.81 78.40 90.79 95.27 29.62 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.86 79.80 75.75 75.70 90.76 95.52 28.68 Hispanic 60.52 80.24 72.64 75.07 91.32 95.64 28.65
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 66.16 76.43 69.03 70.54 92.40 95.86 29.97 Native American, Non-Hispanic 78.58 76.03 64.53 77.31 85.35 92.05 34.61 Source: HUD AFFH-T Data, 2020.

84 Figure E -48: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), 2021), 2022.

85 Local Trends. HUD Opportunity Indicators for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E -36 above.

Compared to the County, Berkeley populations, regardless of race or ethnicity, have higher school proficiency, jobs proximity, labor market, transit trips, and low transportation cost index scores. However, environmental conditions for all groups are worse in Berkeley than in the County. White and Asian/Pacific Islander populations in the City are also exposed to poverty at a higher rate than the County as a whole.

Like the County, White residents in the City have the lowest exposure to poverty and highest labor market participation compared to other racial/ethnic groups; however, they also have the lowest access to employment opportunities. White populations are also least likely to use public transit and have the highest transportation costs. The Black population tends to live near the highest quality school systems in the City and have the best access to employment opportunities. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are equally and most likely to utilize public transportation. The Asian/Pacific Islander population also has the lowest transportation costs and highest exposure to better environmental quality.

In Berkeley, poverty status appears to have less of an effect on Opportunity Indicator scores compared to Alameda County. Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American populations below the federal poverty line are less exposed to poverty and have higher labor force participation/human capital than the respective total populations. Environmental quality is also better for White, Black, and Native American populations below the federal poverty line.

TCAC Opportunity Areas. TCAC Opportunity Area scores for Berkeley have been compiled by tract (Table E-37) and are presented geographically in Figure E -49. Over half of the tracts in the City are high resource tracts (18 tracts), followed by highest resource tracts (seven tracts, 21.2 percent), and moderate resource tracts (six tracts, 18.2 percent). There is one low resource tract and one tract categori zed as moderate resource (rapidly changing). Moderate resource (rapidly changing) tracts are designed to identify areas that may become high resource.

There are five highest resource tracts : in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, and Northbrae neighborhoods, two in the southeast corner of the City in the Claremont and Elmwood District neighborhoods, and one encompassing the UC Berkeley campus. Most tracts in the Berkeley Hills, Westbrae, North Berkeley, Central Berkeley, and South Berkeley neighborhoods are high resource.

Moderate resource areas are identified surrounding the UC Berkeley campus in the Downtown Berkeley, Northside, Panoramic Hill, and northern Elmwood District/Le Conte neighborhoods, as well as the eastern side of the City (Gilman, N orthwest Berkeley, 4
th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and Berkeley Marina
neighborhoods). The moderate resource (rapidly changing) area is in southwestern corner of the South Berkeley neighborhood. The Southside neighborhood is considered a low resource area.

Highest resource areas tend to have smaller populations of people of color while block groups in and around moderate and low resource tracts tend to have larger populations of people of color (see Figure E-21). The low and moderate resource areas adjacent to UC Berkeley also have a higher percentage of LMI households (see Figure E -38). Several of these tracts have also been identified by HUD as R/ECAPs (see Figure E -43). There does not appear to be any correlation between populations of persons with disabilities or children in single -parent female- headed households and TCAC opportunity score (see Figure E-26 and Figure E-35).

Tract 4228, the Southside neighborhood and low resource area, has a student population of approximately 90 percent. This tract has the highest unemployment rate and lowest labor force participation rate compared to other R/ECAPs in the City surrounding UC Berkeley. Tract 4228 is further characterized in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). However, as discussed before, the Census Bureau’s reporting of student households as low incomes or even at poverty levels may not accurately reflect the actual financial status of the students.

86 Table E- 37: TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2021) Census Tract Economic Score Environmental
Score
Education Score Composite
Score
Final Category
6001421100 0.785 0.98 0.565 0.435 High Resource
6001421200 0.873 0.971 0.565 0.5 Highest Resource
6001421300 0.915 0.794 0.701 0.591 Highest Resource
6001421400 0.877 0.974 0.565 0.51 Highest Resource
6001421500 0.814 0.967 0.565 0.446 High Resource
6001421600 0.782 0.799 0.685 0.462 High Resource
6001421700 0.544 0.957 0.759 0.438 High Resource
6001421800 0.803 0.936 0.759 0.59 Highest Resource
6001421900 0.673 0.599 0.799 0.436 High Resource
6001422000 0.552 0.017 0.765 -0.031 Moderate Resource
6001422100 0.546 0.346 0.743 0.257 High Resource
6001422200 0.676 0.613 0.749 0.407 High Resource
6001422300 0.51 0.922 0.746 0.39 High Resource
6001422400 0.464 0.924 0.724 0.349 High Resource
6001422500 0.249 0.666 0.724 0.108 Moderate Resource
6001422600 0.985 0.641 0.624 0.635 Highest Resource
6001422700 0.076 0.63 0.616 -0.18 Moderate Resource
6001422800 0.001 0.708 0.638 -0.453 Low Resource
6001422900 0.111 0.853 0.676 -0.021 Moderate Resource
6001423000 0.689 0.668 0.757 0.437 High Resource
6001423100 0.622 0.596 0.765 0.378 High Resource
6001423200 0.362 0.469 0.765 0.176 High Resource
6001423300 0.435 0.466 0.756 0.234 High Resource
6001423400 0.678 0.649 0.612 0.297 High Resource
6001423500 0.538 0.832 0.634 0.274 High Resource
6001423601 0.692 0.863 0.69 0.429 High Resource
6001423602 0.119 0.819 0.638 -0.058 Moderate Resource
6001423700 0.338 0.809 0.616 0.115 Moderate Resource
6001423800 0.845 0.883 0.793 0.619 Highest Resource
6001423901 0.758 0.855 0.515 0.311 High Resource
6001423902 0.849 0.85 0.69 0.532 Highest Resource
6001424001 0.576 0.676 0.653 0.285 High Resource
6001424002 0.487 0.52 0.558 0.104 Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
Source: UC Berkeley – TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract. 2021.

87 Figure E -49: TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), 2021), 2022.

As outlined in Section E4.2 Race/Ethnicity, 53.3 percent of the Berkeley population is White. A disproportionate share of residents in high or highest resource areas, 60 percent, are White (Figure E-50).

Only 44 percent of the population in moderate resource areas and 39 percent of the population in low resource areas are White. Of the population in the low resource area, 38 percent is Asian, and 14 percent is Hispanic or Latino. It is relevant to note that nearly 90 percent of the population in the low resource tract is enrolled in college or graduate school. Therefore, the racial/ethnic distribution in the low resource area is mostly a refl ection of the UC Berkeley, and to a less extent Berkeley Community College, student body.

88 Figure E -50: Population Living in High Resource Areas by Race

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2020), 2021.

Education
Regional Trends. There are 18 school districts in Alameda County, including 11 adult schools and three community colleges. The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) consists of 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and one independent high school program. Graduation rates by race and ethnicity for Alameda County are presented in Table E -38. Alameda County had higher graduation rates than the State of California for both the 2010 -11 and 2020-21 classes. In both 2011 and 2021, the Asian population had the highest graduation rate, increasing from 90 percent in 2011 to 95.4 percent in 2021.

African American students (79.8 percent), Hispanic/Latino students (79.3 percent), and students that did not report their race (76.9 percent) had the lowest graduation rates in 2021. Since 2011, graduation rates amongst students without race reported, African American students, and American Indian/Alaska Native students saw the largest increase in graduation rates. There are no racial or ethnic groups in the County that saw a reduction in graduation rates during the same period.

89 Table E- 38: High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2011- 2021) 2010-2011 2020-2021
Students Graduation Rate Students Graduation Rate
African American 2,892 60.8% 1,706 79.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 90 61.1% 47 80.9%
Asian 3,474 90.0% 4,439 95.4%
Filipino 894 87.7% 972 92.0%
Hispanic or Latino 4,663 68.9% 6,304 79.3%
Pacific Islander 276 74.6% 168 85.1%
White 4,246 89.0% 3,252 91.8%
Two or More Races 306 83.0% 837 89.7%
Not Reported 150 53.3% 121 76.9%
Alameda County 16,991 78.0% 17,846 86.9%
California 503,273 77.1% 500,179 83.6%
Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2010- 11 and 2020-21.

HUD’s school proximity indices for Alameda County, shown previously in Table E-36, indicate White and Asian populations tend to live in neighb orhoods with higher quality school systems compared to Native American, Hispanic, and Black populations. All populations below the federal poverty line, regardless of race, have lower quality school systems compared to the total population.

TCAC education scores are determined using the following variables: math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E-35. Coastal East Bay areas such as Antioch, Concord, Richmond, Oakland, and San Leandro have the highest concentration of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile for education. A high concentration of tracts in eastern San Francisco also scored in the lowest quartile. High scoring tracts, with education scores of 0.50 and above, are most prevalent in central and southern Contra Costa County, Berkeley, western San Francisco, and part of Marin County. Lower scoring tracts in the East Bay and San Francisco tend to have larger racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI households (see Figure E-16 and Figure E-35).

90 Table E- 39: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Scores by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

91 Local Trends. Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average,” 5-6 “average.” and 7-10 “above average.” Figure E-51 shows that most Berkeley schools are considered average or above average. There is one school, Longfellow Middle School in the South Berkeley neighborhood, which currently scores below average.

Longfellow Middle School is in a block group where approximately 60 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group and where 51 percent of households are LMI (see Figure E-21 and Figure E -38). REALM Charter, Berkeley’s only charter school which was in the Sou thwest Berkeley neighborhood, closed in 2019.

Figure E -51: Great Schools Ratings (2022)

Note: Private schools are shown in gray.

Source: GreatSchools.org, GreatSchools Rating – Berkeley, CA, 2022.

Of the 17 schools in the BUSD, including 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools, there are 11 Title 1 schools. Title 1, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA):
“…provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low -income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. Federal funds are currently allocated through four statutory formulas that are based primarily on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state.”
Title 1 schools in Berkeley are listed below. These schools are not generally concentrated in one area of the City.
• Berkeley Arts Magnet at Whittier
• Berkeley Technology Academy

92 • Cragmont Elementary
• Emerson Elementary
• John Muir Elementary
• Longfellow Arts and Technology Middle
• Malcolm X Elementary
• Oxford Elementary at West Campus
• Sylvia Mendez Elementary
• Thousand Oaks Elementary
• Willard Middle
Cragmont Elementary and Thousand Oaks Elementary are in the northeastern corner of the City (Berkeley Hills/Cragmont and Thousand Oaks neighborhoods), Berkeley Arts Magnet at Whittier and Oxford Elementary at West Campus are in central Berkeley (North and Central Berkeley neighborhoods), Berkeley Technology Academy, Longfellow Arts and Technology Middle, Malcom X Elementary, and Sylvia Mendez Elementary are in southern Berkeley (South Berkeley and Le Conte neighborhoods), and Emerson Elementary, John Muir Elementary, and Willard Middle are in the southeast corner of the City (Elmwood District and Claremont neighborhoods).

Graduation rates for BUSD students for the 2016 -2017 and 2020-2021 classes are shown in Table E -40.

Berkeley has higher graduation rates than both the County and State. The Asian student population has the highest graduation rate in the City compared to other racial and ethnic student groups. The graduation rate for Asian students during the 2020- 2021 school year was 94.2 percent, followed by the Hispanic/Latino population (89.5 percent), and White population (89.1 percent). The African American and two or more races student populations had slightly lower graduation rates of 87.3 percent and 87.7 percent, respectively. Like the County and State, graduation rates in BUSD have increased since the 2016- 2017 school year, from 86.6 percent to 89.4 percent in 202 0-2021. The graduation rates for African American and Hispanic/Latino students in Berkeley is higher than the County, but lower for Asian students, White students, and students of two or more races. In addition to higher graduation rates, between the 2014 -2015 and 2017- 2018 school years, Berkeley had higher rates of students entering college (72.4 percent) compared to the County (70 percent) and State (64.9 percent).

Table E- 40: High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity – BUSD (2017 -2021) 2016-2017 2020-2021
Students Graduation Rate Students Graduation Rate
African American 181 83.4% 110 87.3%
Asian 84 84.5% 86 94.2%
Filipino 11 100.0% -- --
Hispanic or Latino 174 84.5% 219 89.5%
White 333 88.0% 368 89.1%
Two or More Races 87 93.1% 106 87.7%
BUSD 873 86.6% 905 89.4%
Alameda County 15,225 85.4% 15,933 86.6%
California 428,998 86.7% 425,585 87.7%
Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2016- 17 and 2020-21.

Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students in BUSD are more prone to chronic absence and lower college readiness rates (Figure E-52, Figure E-53). The rate of Black/African American and Hispanic Latino students who are chronically absent has decreased since the 2014 -2015 school year but remains significantly higher than White students. Approximately 21 percent of Black/African American students

93 and 12 percent of Hispanic/Latino students were chronically absent during the 2016 -2017 school year compared to only seven percent of White students. During this period, African American and Hispanic/Latino students also had lower graduation rates than White students.

Figure E -52: School Attendance – BUSD (2014 -2017)

% of students who are "chronically absent" (missed more than 10% of school days in the year) Source: Berkeley’s 2020 Vision: Equity in Education, Update to the Berkeley City Council, September 2018.

Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students at Berkeley high school are also less likely to complete courses required for University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) schools.

During the 2015-2016 school year, 88 percent of White students complete UC/CSU required courses with a C or better compared to only 62 percent of Hispanic/Latino students and 37 percent of Black/African American students. Between 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016, the proportion of Black/African American student with completed UC/CSU courses decreased.

94 Figure E -53: College and Career Readiness – Berkeley High School (2014 -2016)

% of Berkeley High School graduates who completed courses required for UC/CSU entry with "C" or better Source: Berkeley’s 2020 Vision: Equity in Education, Update to the Berkeley City Council, September 2018.

HUD’s school proximity indices for Berkeley, shown previously in Table E-36, indicate Black and Hispanic populations tend to live in neighborhoods with higher quality school systems compared to White, Asian, and Native American populations. School proficiency scores for the City ranged from 77.2 for the Asian population to 80.4 for the Black population. All populations below the federal poverty line, other than the Hispanic population, have less access to high quality school systems compared to the total population.

BUSD has a higher rate of English only (EO) students (78.5 percent), compared to the County (53.8 percent) and the State (59 percent) ( Table E -41). Only 6.7 percent of BUSD students are considered English learners (EL). Conversely, 18.5 percent of Alameda County students and 17.7 percent of California students are EL. Due to the low rate of English learners in BUSD, the district also has a lower rate of reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP) students. During the 2020- 2021 school year, of English language-learners, 55 percent were Spanish -speakers, 9.9 percent were Arabic -speakers, 3.5 percent were Pashto-speakers, 3.3 percent were Urdu-speakers, 1.9 percent were Tigrinya-speakers, 1.6 percent were Thai-, Vietnamese-, Russian-, French -, and Japanese -speakers, 1.4 percent were Punjabi -speakers, and 1.1 percent were Amharic-speakers. Less than 2 percent of English-language learners spoke any other language.

95 Table E- 41: English Language Learners – BUSD, Alameda County, California (2020 -21) Elementary Middle High BUSD Alameda
County
California
English Only (EO) 81.1% 79.0% 75.2% 78.5% 53.8% 59.0%
Initial Fluent English Proficient
(IFEP)

5.8% 6.2% 8.1% 6.7% 7.3% 4.3%
English Learner (EL) 7.8% 7.4% 5.1% 6.7% 18.5% 17.7%
Reclassified Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP)

2.9% 7.3% 11.5% 7.0% 18.3% 17.6%
To Be Determined (TBD) 2.3% 0.1% 0.1% 1.0% 2.1% 1.4%
Total 4,005 2,077 3,327 9,409 222,573 6,002,523
Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2020 -21.

TCAC Opportunity Area education scores for Berkeley tracts are shown in Figure E -54. All tracts have higher scores exceeding 0.50. In general, the eastern side of the City has slightly lower scores, between

0.50 and 0.75, while the western side has scores in the highest quartile. TCAC education scores for Berkeley tracts range from 0.52 to .080, indicating there are adequate educational opportunities Citywide.

Higher education scores do not directly correlate with larger populations of persons of color. Tracts with higher education scores generally have larger populations of persons with disabilities and children in female-headed households, indicating that these protected groups are not exposed to lower education scores at a higher rate (see Figure E-21, Figure E-26, and Figure E-35).

Figure E -54: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

96 Transportation
Regional Trends. In the County, most workers (70.7 percent) drive to work (Figure E- 55). Nearly 61 percent of workers drive alone and 9.8 percent carpool. Public transit is the second most common mode of transportatio n in the County, followed by walking, and bicycling. Since the 2006- 2010 ACS, the proportion of workers who worked from home increased from 5.1 percent to 6.4 percent. One-year, 2019 ACS estimates show that 6.6 percent of workers worked from home. Between the 2006 -2010 and 2015- 2019 ACS, the rate of workers using public transportation also increased (from 11.3 percent to 15.8 percent).

Figure E -55: Means of Transportation for Work – Alameda County (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

There are seven transit agencies that operate in Alameda County.21 Services include heavy rail, commuter rail, bus, ferry, and automated guideway services. Transit agencies serving Alameda County are as follows:
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
• Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
• Capital Corridor
• Altamont Corridor Express (ACE)
• San Francisco (SF) Bay Ferry
• Union City Transit

21 Alameda County Transportation Commission, Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020. https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Transit_System_FS_Jan2020.pdf.

97 • Wheels – Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Transit routes and services areas for these agencies in the Alameda County region are shown in Figure E-

56. Most of these agencies serve cities throughout northeastern Alameda County. The eastern County is served only by BART, Wheels (LAVTA), and ACE.

Figure E -56: Transit Service Areas in Alameda County (2020)

Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission – Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020.

According to the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Alameda County has the second highest share of transit commuters after San Francisco. A majority of transit trips in the County are on BART or bus. Boardings per capita for all services, BART, Commuter Rail, Bus, and Ferry, has increased since 2010 (Figure E-57). Operator expenses for BART and AC transit have increased over the last decade. The County Transportation Commission attributes this increase to congestion on arterials for buses, strongly-peaked demand, and rising maintenance and labor costs. The County Transportation Commission also noted that the cost per trip for operators has increased as AC transit and BART have expanded services but seen a dip in ridership over the past four years.

98 Figure E -57: Boardings per Capita – Alameda County (2010- 2019)

Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission – Alameda County Transit System Fact Sheet, January 2020.

HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Alameda County through the transit index22 and low transportation cost index. 23 Index values can range from zero to 100 and are reported by race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on racial or ethnic background. Indices scores for the County were show n previously in Table E -36. In the County, transit index values range from 67 to 82, with White residents scoring the lowest and Black residents scoring highest. Given that the higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black residents are more likely to use public transit. Hispanic and Asian/API residents were about equally likely to use public transit (transit trip index scores of 75.7 and 75.5, respectively). For residents living below the poverty line, the index values have a smaller range from 77 for White residents to 84.5 for Black and Hispanic residents. Regardless of income, White residents have lower index values - and thus a lower likelihood of using transit. For all racial/ethnic groups, the lower income population is more likely to use public transit.

Low transportation cost index values have a smaller range than transit index values of 90.1 for the White population to 92.7 for the Black population. Low transportation cost indices across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. White residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores, regardless of poverty status, While Black residents have the highest.

All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Alameda County has an AllTransit Performanc e Score of 7.1 (out of 10). The map in Figure E- 58 shows

22 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description:
a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core- Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
23 Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

99 that the coastal areas of the County, from Fremont to Berkeley, have the highest scores compared to inland Alameda County areas. According to AllTransit, in the County, 85.7 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 92.8 percent workers live within ½ mile of transit. Further, 93.3 percent of households are within a ½ mile of transit including 100 percent of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) buildings totaling 14,317 units.

Figure E -58: Alameda County All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019)

Source: AllTransit Performance Score – Berkeley, CA 2019, 2022.

Local Trends. Compared to the County, Berkeley has a significantly lower proportion of workers who drive to work. Only 38.7 percent of Berkeley workers get to work by car, truck, or van, including 33 percent who drive alone and 5.7 percent who carpool (Figure E-59). Over a quarter of workers in the City use public transit. Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the proportion of workers who drive to work has decreased significantly, while the proportion of workers using public transit has increased. The proportion of persons working from home also increased by one percent during the same period. In general, the City is characterized by a high level of public transit users and pedestrians compared to the County.

100

Figure E -59: Means of Transportation for Work – Berkeley (2010 -2019)

Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

HUD Opportunity Indicator scores for the City were shown previously in Table E-36. In Berkeley, transit index values range from 88.8 to 90.5, with White residents s coring the lowest and Black and Asian residents scoring highest. Given that the higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black and Asian residents are more likely to use public transit. Hispanic and Native American residents were almost as likely to use public transit as Black and Asian residents (index scores of 90.1 and 90.3, respectively). For residents living below the poverty line, the index values have a larger range from 85.4 for Native American residents to 92.4 for Asian residents. All groups below the poverty level, except Native American populations, were more likely to use public transit compared to the population as a whole. All Berkeley residents, regardless of race or income, were more likely to use public transit compared to the County population.

Low transportation cost index values have a smaller range than transit index values of 94.1 for the White population to 95.2 for the Asian population. Low transportation cost indices across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. White residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores for the total population, while Native American residents have the lowest low transportation cost index scores for populations below the federal poverty level. All racial/ethnic groups

101

in the City, except for Native Americans below the poverty level, have lower transportation costs compared to the County.

Transit agencies serving the City of Berkeley include:
• AC Transit
• Amtrak
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
• Bear Transit – UC Berkeley Shuttle
• Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
• Emery Go-Round
• Tideline Water Taxi
• Berkeley Lab – Employee shuttle
• CALTRANS Commuter Bike Shuttle – Van service takes bikes from MacArthur BART to San Francisco Transbay Terminal during commute hours
The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to estimate healthy community conditions. Figure E-60 shows that most tracts in Berkeley scored in the lowest quartile for automobile access. This is consistent with the low rate of workers who commute by car, truck, or van. Tracts in the northea stern corner of the City, in the Berkeley Hills, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, and Terrace View neighborhoods, have larger populations with access to automobiles. Though automobile access is limited throughout the City, all tracts scored in the highest quartile for active commuting (Figure E-61). Active commuting includes persons who commute to work by transit, walking, or cycling.

Figure E -60: Healthy Places Index – Automobile Access by Tract

102

Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.

Figure E -61: Healthy Places Index – Active Commuting

Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.

There are three major transit centers located in Berkeley. Transit centers are considered “major transit connection hubs, where multiple transit modes and agencies converge.” 24 Berkeley transit centers include:
• Ashby BART Station (BART, AC Transit, West Berkeley Shuttle) • Downtown Berkeley BART Station (BART, AC Transit, Bear Transit (Shuttle)) • North Berkeley BART Station (BART, AC Transit)
Berkeley received an All Transit performance score of 8.8, higher than the County score of 7.1. According to All Transit, 98.8 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 99.9 percent of workers live within ½ mile of transit, higher than the rates Countywide. Nearly all households (99.9 percent) are also within ½ mile of transit, including 100 percent of LIHTC buildings totaling 781 units. As presented in both Figure E-62 and Figure E-63, most of Berkeley has high access to transit and jobs. Transit opportunities are generally less accessible to areas along the City boundaries, especially the Berkeley Hills neighborhood in the northeastern corner of the City. This part of Berkeley has a higher concentration of elderly adults, White residents, and has median incomes exceeding $125,000 (see Figure E-27 and Figure E-47).

24 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 511 SF Bay – Transit Centers, accessed March 2022. https://511.org/transit/centers.

103

Figure E -62: Berkeley All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019)

Source: AllTransit Performance Score – Berkeley, CA 2019, 2022.

Figure E -63: Healthy Places Index – Transit Access

Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.

Economic
Regional Trends. The Bay Area economy has grown to be the fourth largest metropolitan region in the United States today, with over 7.7 million peop le residing in the nine -county, 7,000 square-mile area. In

104

recent years, the Bay Area economy has experienced record employment levels during a tech expansion surpassing the “dot-com” era of the late 1990s. The latest boom has extended not only to the Sout h Bay and Peninsula — the traditional hubs of Silicon Valley — but also to neighborhoods in San Francisco and cities in the East Bay, most notably Oakland. The rapidly growing and changing economy has also created significant housing and transportation challenges due to job-housing imbalances.

HUD provide values for labor market index 25 and jobs proximity index26 that can be used to measure for economic development in Alameda County. Like other HUD opportunity indicators, scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher score means higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Alameda County’s labor market index values have a significant range from 48.3 to 74.6, with Black residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. White residents have significantly higher labor market participation than all other racial/ethnic groups according to labor market index scores. Scores for Marin County residents living below the poverty line drop notably for residents of all races.

HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicate better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 39.7 to 49.5 and are highest for White and Black residents. The jobs proximity value map in Figure E -64 shows the distribution of scores in the region. Regionally, tracts along the northern San Pablo Bay shore and northern San Francisco Bay shore (Oakland and San Francisco) have the highest job proximity scores Block groups in northern Contra Costa County, sur rounding Richmond, Clayton, and Antioch, and block groups in southwestern San Francisco, Daly City, and around Hayward have significantly lower jobs proximity scores.

TCAC economic scores are determined using the following variables: poverty, adult educati on, employment, job proximity, and median home value. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E -35. TCAC economic scores by tract are presented in Figure E -67.

Tracts with TCAC education scores in the highest quartile are concentrated in San Francisco, Berkeley, northern Oakland, and southern Marin County. Most of Contra Costa County as well as the area spanning southern Oakland to San Leandro have lower TCAC economic scores.

25 Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation , and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
26 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily.

The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.

105

Figure E -64: Regional HUD Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2014-2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data), 2022.

106

Figure E -65: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

107

Local Trends. HUD Opportunity indicators for labor market indices and jobs proximity indices for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E-36. As discussed previously, the labor market index is based on employment levels, labor force participation, and human capital in a neighborhood. Labor market index values for the City range from 68.3 to 83.3 for the total City population, higher than the range Countywide.

The White population has the highest labor market index values, followed by the Black population, Hispanic population, Native American population, and Asian population (lowest values). The low labor market index value for Asian communities is l ikely in part due to the large population of Asian students residing in the City. As discussed previously, students tend to have lower labor force participation rates and employment levels. Labor market index values are higher for the populations below the poverty level for all racial/ethnic groups other than the White population.

Jobs proximity index values reflect the level of employment accessibility for certain racial groups. The Black population in the City has the highest jobs proximity index value of 76.7, followed by the Hispanic population (73.3), Native American population (72.5), Asian population (69.3), and White population (67.2). Jobs proximity index values are higher for all racial/ethnic groups in the City compared to Alameda County as a whol e. Index values are lower for all racial/ethnic groups below the federal poverty level except for the White population. Jobs proximity index values by block group are shown in Figure E -66.

There are no block groups in the City with jobs proximity index scores below 40. The northeastern corner of the City, in the Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak and Northbrae neighborhoods, have the lowest jobs proximity index scores between 40 and 60. The Claremont neighborhood in the southeast corner of the City also has scores in the same range. Most block groups in the City scored between 60 and 80 for jobs proximity. The western section of the City, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4
th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and Berkeley Marina neighborhoods, have the highest jobs proximity index values exceeding 80. Lower index scores correlate with larger White populations, smaller populations of children in female -headed households, and smaller populations of persons below the poverty line (see Figure E-21, Figure E-35, and Figure E-40). Lower access to employment opportunities does not disproportionately affect any of the special needs groups or populations described previously in this Appendix.

TCAC economic scores for the City by tract are presented in Figure E-67. The areas of the City with lower jobs proximity index scores have higher TCAC economic scores. As discussed above, TCAC economic scores are based on the following variables: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The northeastern and southeastern corners of the City, where TCAC economic scores are the highest, have the lowest poverty rates and highest median incomes compared to other tracts in Berkeley (see Figure E-40 and Figure E-47). The Northside, Southside, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Panoramic Hill, Le Conte, and Elmwood District neighborhoods all have TCAC economic scores in the lowest quartile. These tracts surround the UC Berkeley campus and are considered R/ECAPs (see Figure E-43). They also have large student populations and low labor force participation (see Table E -30 and Table E-31).

108

Figure E -66: HUD Jobs Proximity I ndex by Block Group (2017)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, based on 2014-2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data), 2022.

Figure E -67: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

109

Environmental
Regional Trends. Environmental conditions residents live in can be affected by past and current land uses like landfills or proximity to freeways The TCAC Environmental Score shown in Figure E-68 is based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E -35. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify Califo rnia communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. TCAC Environmental Scores range from 0 to 1, where higher scores indicate a more positive environmental outcome (better environmental quality) Regionally, TCAC environmental scores are lowest in the tracts in coastal East Bay cities from San Leandro to Richmond, northern Contra Costa County, eastern S an Francisco and Daly City, and in some Marin County tracts (Figure E-68). Tracts with environmental scores in the highest quartile are located in inland Contra Costa County, eastern San Francisco/Daly City, and western Marin County. The eastern side of Berkeley has significantly higher TCAC environmental scores compared to the western side. This trend is consistent with nearby jurisdictions to the north and south of the City.

Figure E-68 shows the TCAC Environmental Score based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.0 scores in Figure E- 69 are based on percentiles and show trends similar to the TCAC environmental score map. Western portions of San Leandro, Oakland, Richmond, and southeastern San Francisco have the highest (worst) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. Most of Contra Costa County, Marin County, and San Francisco have lower (better) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. Like the TCAC environmental scores, eastern Berkeley has better CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores compared to the western side of the City. In general, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in Berkeley are lower (better) than jurisdictions to the north and south of the City.

HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block -group. In Alameda County, environmental health index values range from 47.4 for the Black population to 53.3 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population (Table E-36). The range is similar for the population living below the federal poverty line, with Black residents living in poverty still scoring lowest (46.1) but Native American residents living in poverty scoring highest among all races (50.5). Environmental scores for all populations below the poverty line are lower compared to the respective racial/ethnic populations as a whole.

110

Figure E -68: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score by Tr act (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

111

Figure E -69: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (OEHHA, 2021), 2022.

112

Local Trends. As discussed previously, TCAC environmental scores in Berkeley are higher on the eastern side compared to the western side. All tracts on the eastern side of the City have environmental scores of

0.50 or above. Western Berkeley neighborhoods, including Berkeley Marina, Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4th Street, Southwest Berkeley, and part of South Berkeley, have the lowest TCAC environmental scores below 0.50. This area of the City has populations of people of color exceeding 40 percent, persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent, and children in female -headed households exceeding 20 percent (see Figure E -21, Figure E -26, and Figure E -35). Some block groups in this section of the City are also considered LMI areas with populations of low to moderate income household exceeding 50 percent (see Figure E -38). Tracts with lower environmental scores are categorized as high resource and moderate resource areas (see Figure E-49).

Figure E -70: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HCD and TCAC, 2021), 2022.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores follow trends similar to TCAC environmental scores (Figure E-71).

The eastern side of the City, especially the northeastern neighborhoods of Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Terrace View, Thousand Oaks, Live Oak, upper North Berkeley, and Northbrae, have the lowest (best) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores in the City. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores get progressively worse towards the western side of the City. There are no tracts in the City scoring in the 90 th percentile or
above (worst scores).

113

Figure E-71: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021), 2022.

HUD Opportunity indicator scores for the City of Berkeley are included in Table E -36. Environmental health scores for all racial/ethnic groups in the City are lower than the Countywide scores. Environmental health scores range from 28 for the Black population to 30.1 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population, and 28.7 for the Hispanic population below the federal poverty level and 34.6 for the Native American population below the federal poverty level. Unlike the County, the White, Black, and N ative American populations below the federal poverty level are higher compared to the respective total populations.

Environmental health index scores for the Native American population below the poverty level is significantly higher than the index score for the total Native American population.

E4.5 DISPROPORTIONATE HOU SING NEEDS
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. §

5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Marin County.

Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income;

114

• Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to CHAS data based on the 2014 -2018 ACS, approximately 41 percent of Alameda County households experience housing problems, compared to 43 percent of households in Berkeley. In both the County and City, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners. It is important to note that Berkeley has a large population of renters, likely in part due to the large student populat ion in the City. Renter populations by tract are shown in Figure E-72. More than 80 percent of households in tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus are renter -occupied. As mentioned above, 29 percent of the Berkeley population is enrolled in college or graduate school compared to only 8.5 in the County. The northeastern corner of the City is comprised of mostly owner- occupied households. 2014 -2018 HUD CHAS data shows than 57.1 percent of households in the City are renters compared to only 46.7 Countywide.

Figure E -72: Percent of Renter -Occupi ed Households by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020 based on 2012-2016 ACS), 2022.

Cost Burden
Regional Trends. Households paying 30 percent or more of their income in housing costs are considered cost burdened and households paying 50 p ercent or more on their income are considered severely cost burdened. As discussed previously, 40.7 percent of households in Alameda County experience one or more housing problem, including 35.7 percent that are cost burdened. According to more recent 2015 - 2019 ACS data included in the ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 37 percent of Alameda County

115

households are cost burdened including 17 percent severely cost burdened households ( Figure E-73).

Cost burden is only slightly more prevalent in the County compared to the Bay Area. Only 36 percent of households in the Bay Area are cost burdened including 16 percent severely cost burdened. There are significantly more severely cost burdened households (23 percent) in the City compared to both the County and Bay Area.

Figure E -73: Cost Burden Severity (2019)

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

Housing problems and cost burden by race and ethnicity for Alameda County is shown in Table E -42.

Estimates may differ slightly from Figure E-73 as this dataset utilizes the 2021 HUD CHAS data based on the 2014-2018 ACS. This table also includes rates of housing problems, including cost burden, for Alameda County households using the 2006-2010 ACS. The proportion of owners experiencing a housing problem has decreased significan tly during this period while the proportion of renters experiencing a housing problem has increased slightly. Overall, there is currently a smaller share of cost burdened households, owners and renters, compared to in 2010. As mentioned above, renter -occupied households are more likely to experience housing problems and cost burden. Over half of renter -occupied households in the City experience a housing problem compared to only 29.5 percent of owner-occupied households.

In the County, Black renters followed by American Indian renters are most likely to be cost burdened (56.9 percent and 50.6 percent cost burdened, respectively). Hispanic renter -occupied households also experience cost burden exceeding the Countywide average of 45.9 percent. Black and Hispan ic owner- occupied households are also most likely to experience cost burdened compared to owners of a difference race or ethnicity. The Hispanic population represents 22.4 percent of the population in Alameda County, the third largest racial or ethnic group Countywide, followed by the Black/African American population (10.3 percent) (see Table E-17). As discussed in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of

116

Poverty (R/ECAPs) , the Black/African American (20 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (15 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (12.5 percent) populations also experience poverty at rates exceeding the Countywide average of 9.9 percent.

Table E-42: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Alameda County (2018) White Black Asian American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic All All (2010)
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 24.2% 40.7% 30.5% 29.6% 32.2% 40.1% 29.5% 42.6% Renter-Occupied 44.6% 60.6% 50.6% 54.5% 59.9% 63.2% 53.4% 52.1% All Households 32.0% 54.4% 38.2% 43.9% 48.4% 54.2% 40.7% 46.8% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 23.4% 38.8% 26.4% 26.5% 28.5% 32.5% 26.7% 40.9% Renter-Occupied 41.6% 56.9% 38.5% 50.6% 45.7% 49.8% 45.9% 47.5% All Households 30.3% 51.3% 31.1% 40.3% 38.5% 43.1% 35.7% 43.9% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.

Housing problems and cost burden often affect special needs populations, such as elderly households and large households, disproportionately. 27 Only 26.7 percent of owner- occupied households in the County are cost burdened, compared to 31.8 percent of owner -occupied elderly households. Fewer owner - occupied large households are cost burdened compared to the County average, however significantly more experience one or more housing problem. The high proportion of large owner-occupied households experiencing a housing problem is likely due to overcrowding. Similarly, only 45.9 percent of all renters in the City are cost burdened while 66 percent of elderly renters and 46.7 percent of large renter households are cost burdened. Both elderly and large renter -occupied households experience housing problems at a high rate. As discussed above, housing problems other than cost burden include lack of complete facilities (kitchen or bathroom) and overcrowding.

Table E- 43: Housing Problems Elderly and Large Households – Alameda County (2018) With Any Housing Problem Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied
Elderly Households 32.1% 31.8%
Large Households 42.8% 23.4%
All Owner-Occupied 29.5% 26.7%
Renter-Occupied
Elderly Households 69.8% 66.0%
Large Households 78.7% 46.7%
All Renter-Occupied 53.4% 45.9%
All Households 40.7% 35.7%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.

Figure E-74 and Figure E-75 shows cost burden by tenure geographically for the region. While there are some tracts throughout the Bay Area where fewer than 20 percent of the renter population is cost burdened, there are generally more cost burden amongst renter -occupied households compared to owner-occupied households. Tracts where more than 40 percent of owners are cost burden are most concentrated in areas surrounding Richmond, San Leandro, southern San Francisco and Daly City, Marin County, and northern Contra Costa County. Less than 40 percent of owner are cost burdened in most

27 Elderly households include elderly families, two persons with either or both age 62 or older, and elderly non- families (i.e., single-person elderly households). Large households are considered households with five or more related persons.

117

Berkeley tracts. The composition of cost burdened owner tracts in the City is generally comparable to the nearby jurisdictions of El Cerrito, Albany, Emeryville, and Oakland.

Cost burdened renter -occupied households are prevalent throughout the region, specifically in coastal Alameda County, northern Contra Costa County and central Contra Costa County along Interstate 680, southern San Francisco/Daly City, and eastern Marin County. More than 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in most Berkeley tracts. The City has a slightly higher concentration of tracts where more than 60 percent of renters are cost burdened compared to tracts directly north and south of Berkeley. In general, areas where cost burden is more prevalent are more highly populated and have larger proportions of people of color (see Figure E -16). Children living in single -parent female- headed households, LMI households, and low resource tracts are also more concentrated in these areas (see Figure E-30, Figure E-37, and Figure E-48).

118

Figure E -74: Regional Cost Burdened Owner -Occupied Households by Tract (2019)

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

119

Figure E -75: Regional Cost Burdened Renter -Occupied Households by Tract (2019)

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

120

Local Trends. A slightly smaller proportion of owners in the City are cost burdened compared to the County (25.1 percent vs. 26.7 percent, respectively) ( Table E-44). Conversely, 52.1 percent of renters in the City are cost burdened compared to only 45.9 percent Countywide. Due to the high concentration of renters in the City and the prevalence of cost burden amongst renters, over 40 percent of all households are cost burdened in Berkeley, while only 35.7 are cost burdened in the County. All racial/ethnic groups except the White population are cost burdened at a rate exceeding the average in the City. Pacific Islander owners (66.7 percent), followed by Pacific Islander renters (65.2 percent), American Indian renters (63.3 percent), and Black renters (60.3 percent) are cost burdened at the highest rate. As shown in Figure E-44, these groups also experience poverty at the highest rates in the City. Nearly 37 percent of the Asian/API population, 24.5 percent of the American Indian/Alaska Native population, and 24.5 pe rcent of the Black/African American population in the City is below the ACS -designated poverty line. However, as discussed before, the large presence of student households in the City is likely a reason for the high rate of cost burden, which may not reflect the actual financial status of these households.

Table E -44 also includes housing problem and cost burden rates using the 2006 -2010 ACS, Like the County, the proportion of owners experiencing a housing problem has decreased significantly. However, in Berkeley, the proportion of renters experiencing a housing problem has also decreased . In 2010, 47.7 percent of households experienced a housing problem and 46 percent were cost burdened.

Table E- 44: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Berkeley (2018) White Black Asian American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic All All (2010)
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 23.7% 40.4% 31.4% 40.0% 66.7% 42.0% 26.5% 34.8% Renter-Occupied 50.7% 61.0% 60.0% 78.7% 68.7% 56.8% 54.8% 57.5% All Households 36.7% 54.7% 51.8% 76.3% 68.5% 52.9% 42.7% 47.7% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 23.0% 37.9% 28.4% 40.0% 66.7% 35.0% 25.1% 34.3% Renter-Occupied 48.6% 60.3% 55.7% 63.3% 65.2% 53.1% 52.1% 55.0% All Households 35.3% 53.4% 48.0% 61.9% 65.4% 48.4% 40.5% 46.0% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.

According to 2014 -2018 HUD CHAS data, the City of Berkeley has a larger proportion of elderly households compared to the County (26.4 percent vs. 22.2 percent), but a smaller proportion of related large households (2.3 percent vs. 9.4 percent). As presented in Table E -45, owner -occupied elderly households have housing problems and cost burden at a rate exceeding the citywide average. Cost burden is less prevalent amongst owner -occupied large households, but housing problems are more prevalent, likely due to overcrowding. Similarly, renter -occupied elderly and large households experience housing problems at a rate exceeding the City average.

Table E-45: Housing Problems Elderly and Large Households – Berkeley (2018) With Any Housing Problem Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied
Elderly Households 28.4% 27.6%
Large Households 30.5% 16.1%
All Owner-Occupied 26.5% 25.1%
Renter-Occupied
Elderly Households 64.7% 63.1%
Large Households 62.3% 47.8%
All Renter-Occupied 54.8% 52.1%
All Households 42.7% 40.5%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.

121

Figure E-76 and Figure E-79 compare percentage of cost burdened owners by tract using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS. Cost burden amongst homeowners in most tracts has generally decreased during this period, specifically in tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus and on the western side of the City.

As shown in Figure E -77, home values for owner -occupied units in Berkeley have followed trends in the County and Bay Area. Home values remain higher in Berkeley compared to both Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole. As of 2020, a typical home in Berkeley was valued at $1,405,908, an increase of 193 percent since 2001. Home values have increased at similar but smaller rates during the same period in the County (+157 percent) and Bay Area (+142 percent). In most Berkeley tracts, between 20 and 40 percent of owners currently overpay. Less than 20 percent of owners overpay in the UC Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley, and northern Le Conte/Elmwood District neighborhoods. There is a concentration of overpaying owners in the Southside neighborhood where more than 80 percent of owners are cost burdened. According to the 2015 -2019 ACS, only 2.2 percent of occupied households in this tract are owners. As shown in Table E -30 previously, nearly 90 percent of the population in this tract (4228) are enrolled in college or graduate school.

Figure E -77: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) (2001 -2020)

Note: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI include s all owner - occupied housing units, including both single -family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household -weighted average of county -level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E -5 series
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Zillow, ZHVI), 2021.

122

Figure E -78: Cost Burdened Owner -Occupied Households by Tract (2014)

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

Figure E -79: Cost Burdened Owner -Occupied Households by Tract (2019)

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

123

Cost burdened renters by tract are compared using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS in Figure E-81 and Figure E-82. Unlike the cost burdened owner trend, the proportion of cost burdened renters has varied from tract to tract during this period. The proportion of cost burdened renters has increased in tracts in the Live Oak/Upper North Berkeley, Westbrae, Southside, Central Berkeley, and South Berkeley neighborhoods, but decreased in tracts in the Berkeley Hills/Terrace View, North Berkeley, Le Conte/Lorin/Elmwood District, and Claremont neighborhoods. More than 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in most Berkeley tracts. Between 20 and 40 percent of renters are cost burdened in the northeastern and southern eastern areas of the City.

Since 2009, the median contract rent in the City has increased at rates similar to the County and Bay Area (Figure E-80). During this period, the median rent in Berkeley increase by 55.4 percent, higher than the Bay Area (54.6 percent) but lower than the County (56.2 percent). As of 2019, the median contract rent was the highest in the Bay Area ($1,849), followed by the County ($1,692) and the City ($1,644).

Figure E -80: Median Contract Rent (2009 -2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2005-2009 through 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.

124

Figure E -81: Cost B urdened Renter -Occupied Households by Tract (2014)

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

Figure E -82: Cost Burdened Renter -Occupied Households by Tract (2019)

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

125

Figure E-83 shows housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients by tract in the City. HCV recipients are most concentrated on the western side of the City. Tracts in the northeastern corner of the City and along the eastern City boundary have low levels of HCV recipients. 28 Concentrations of HCV recipients generally correlate with concentrations of overpaying renters, with the exception of tracts sur rounding the UC Berkeley campus in the Northside, Southside, Downtown/Central Berkeley neighborhoods. While there is a large population of overpaying renters in this area, these tracts also have large student populations.

Section 8 assistance is not provided to individuals enrolled as a student at an institution of higher education or under the age of 24. Tracts 4232, 4233, 4240.01, and 4240.02 have the highest concentration of HCV recipients (>15 percent). In these tracts, between 20 and 40 percent of chil dren live in single - parent female- headed households (see Figure E -35). All but tract 4233 are also considered LMI areas where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income (see Figure E-38).

Figure E -83: Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Recipients by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2020), 2022.

Overcrowded Households
Regional Trends. Households with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded and households with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding

28 Please note that to restrict access to tenant information HCV locations are identified in public records by the owner, and not the tenant. Public data pertaining to the locations of HCV program participants are only available as U.S. Census Tract aggregations. Moreover, to protect the confidentiality of those receiving Housing Choice Voucher Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this service.

126

may indicate an insufficient supply of affordable housing suitable for larger households. Since 2010, overcrowding has become more prevalent countywide. Approximately 5.2 percent of households were overcrowded in 2010 compared to 7.9 percent in 2019. Overcrowding is significantly more prevalent amongst renter -occupied households. As shown in Table E -46, nearly 13 percent of renter -occupied households in the County are overcrowded compared to only 3.5 percent of owner-occupied households.

According to 2013 -2017 ACS estimates, slightly older than the estimates provided for Alameda County below, 6.5 percent of households in the Bay Area are overcrowded including three percent of owner - occupied households and 10.9 percent of renter -occupied households. Based on this data, overcrowding is slightly more common in Alameda County compared to the Bay Area.

Table E- 46: Overcrowding by Tenure – Alameda County ( 2010 and 2019) 2019 2010
Overcrowded
(>1.0 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per room)
Total
Households
Overcrowded Total
Households
Owner-Occupied 3.5% 0.9% 308,891 3.1% 293,277
Renter-Occupied 12.9% 5.1% 268,286 7.9% 238,749
All Households 7.9% 2.8% 577,177 5.2% 532,026
Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

More than half (52.4 percent) of housing units in Alameda County are single -family detached homes and

8.6 percent are single-family attached units. Of multi-family housing units in the County, 10.4 percent are two to four units and 27.3 percent are five units are more. Table E- 47 shows housing units in Alameda County by number of bedrooms. Most housing units in the City have from two to four bedrooms and approximately 21 percent are studio- or one-bedroom units.

Table E-47: Housing Units by Bedrooms – Alameda County (2019) Housing Units Percent
No bedroom 29,383 4.8%
1 bedroom 97,445 16.0%
2 bedrooms 172,508 28.4%
3 bedrooms 185,416 30.5%
4 bedrooms 98,030 16.1%
5 or more bedrooms 25,314 4.2%
Total housing units 608,096 100.0%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure E-84 and Figure E-85 show overcrowded and severely overcrowded households by tract in the region. The HCD Data Viewer shows tracts where the proportion of overcrowded households exceeds the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. Tracts with overcrowded households are most concentrated in and around the cities of San Leandro, Oakland, south Sa n Francisco, Daly City, Richmond, and Pittsburg/Antioch. A few overcrowded tracts are also located in Pleasant Hill and San Rafael. There are no tracts in Berkeley where more than 8.2 percent of households are overcrowded, indicating that overcrowding is less prevalent in the City compared to nearby jurisdictions to the north and south.

Berkeley does contain some tracts where more than five percent of households are severely overcrowded.

In most tracts in the region, less than five percent of households are overcrowded. The severely overcrowded household trend in Berkeley is generally consistent with neighboring jurisdictions. Tracts where more than 20 percent of households are severely overcrowded are located in Richmond, Oakland, and San Rafael.

127

Figure E -84: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.

128

Figure E -85: Regional Severely Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.

129

Local Trends. Overcrowding by tenure and severity for the City of Berkeley is included in Table E -48.

Like the county, overcrowding has increased in Berkeley since 2010; 2.3 percent of households citywide were overcrowded in 2010 compared to 4 percent in 2019. However, overcrowding is less prevalent in the City compared to the County. Only four percent of households have more than one person per bedroom including 1.3 percent of owner- occupied households and six percent of renter- occupied households. Persons living with roommates, such as students, are typically at higher risk of overcrowding to reduce housing costs. Despite the prominent student population in the City, the proportion of severely overcrowded households in Berkeley is also lower than the County as a whole. Consistent with the County and Bay Area, overcrowding is significantly more prevalent amongst renters than owners.

Table E- 48: Overcrowding by Tenure – Berkeley ( 2010 and 2019) 2019 2010
Overcrowded
(>1.0 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per room)
Total
Households
Overcrowded Total
Households
Owner-Occupied 1.3% 0.4% 19,478 0.9% 18,718
Renter-Occupied 6.0% 3.1% 25,874 3.4% 24,471
All Households 4.0% 1.9% 45,352 2.3% 43,189
Source: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Overcrowding may affect various racial/ethnic groups differently due to cultural influences. Some cultures may be more likely to live with extended family members, increasing the need for larger housing units to avoid overcrowding. In Berkeley, Asian/API households have the highest rate of overcrowding (ten percent), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native households (nine percent ), and Hispanic/Latinx households (nine percent) (Figure E-86). Conversely, only one percent of Black/African American households and two percent of non-Hispanic White household are overcrowded.

Overcrowding amongst certain racial/ethnic groups in the City may, in part, be due to the UC Berkeley student population. Based on 2015-2019 ACS population estimates and UC Berkeley data, 29 UC Berkeley
students represent 35.6 percent of the total City population. As mentioned previously, students are more likely to have lower incomes and live with roommates and are therefore more prone to overcrowding.

Table E-49 shows the student populations and overcrowding by race and ethnicity in 2019. Racial/ethnic groups with the highest rate of overcrowding are represented by large student populations. Nearly half of the City’s American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/API populations are UC Berkeley students. Similarly,

35.1 percent of the City’s Hispanic/Latino population is a UC Berkeley student. Black/African American households and non -Hispanic White households have the lowest rates of overcrowding. This correlates with UC Berkeley populations, where Black/African American and White students represent only 11.6 percent of the respective City populations. While this trend does not eliminate the racial disparities related to overcrowded households, it may partially explain the discrepancies amongst racial/ethnic groups.

29 UC Berkeley Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance, Our Berkeley Enrollment History, 2 019. https://pages.github.berkeley.edu/OPA/our-berkeley/enroll-history.html.

130

Figure E -86: Overcrowding by Race (2019)

ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.

Table E- 49: Overcrowded Households and Student Populations by Race/Ethnicity (2019) Race/Ethnicity Total Population % Overcrowded
Households
UC Berkeley Student Population
Persons Percent of Total
American Indian/Alaska Native 282 8.7% 138 48.9%
Asian/API 25,313 9.7% 12,442 49.2%
Black/African American 9,324 0.6% 1,084 11.6%
Hispanic/Latino 13,853 8.8% 4,861 35.1%
White, non-Hispanic 64,781 2.2% 7,509 11.6%
Total Population 121,485 4.0% 48,204 35.6%
Note: The total population estimates provided by the ACS, college students are counted where “they live and sleep most of the time” (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/01/student-housin g-off-campus-with-parents-college-students-count-2020- census.html#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20Current%20Population,from%205.7M%20in%202011.). This estimate may be affected by certain variables including students studying from home due to COVID -19 protocols and students studying abroad. The data provided in this table are used to show the general composition of the City.

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates); UC Berkeley Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance, Our Berkeley Enrollment History, 2019.

Lower income households are more likely to experience overcrowding in order to make housing more affordable. Large families are also more prone to experiencing poverty. According to the 2015-2019 ACS,

3.8 percent of families in Berkeley are below the poverty level. Comparatively, 8.9 percent of families with three or four children, and 59.1 percent of families with five or more children are below the poverty level.

Nearly seven percent of extremely low income households (0 to 30 percent of AMI), 5.9 percent of very low income households (31 to 50 percent of AMI), and 3.2 percent of low income households (51 to 80 percent AMI) are overcrowded. Only 2.1 percent of households earning 80 to 100 percent of the AMI and

131

two percent of households earning 100 percent or more of the AMI are overcrowded. As discussed in Section E4.2 Income Level, young adults have the highest poverty rate in the City compared to other age groups. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, of the population 18 years and older, college-aged students ages 18 to 24 have a significantly higher poverty rate of 72.1 percent compar ed to adults aged 25 to 34 (19.9 percent), aged 35 to 64 (8.4 percent), and 65 and older (8.5 percent). Young adults, including but not limited to college students, are more likely to have roommates to reduce housing costs and are therefore more likely to live in overcrowded households.

Figure E -87: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity (2017)

ABAG Housing Element Data Package (2013-2017 HUD CHAS Data), 2021.

Figure E-88 shows that there are no tracts in the City where more than 8.2 percent of households, the Statewide average, are overcrowded. However, there are three tracts where more than five percent of households are severely overcrowded. Approximately 15 percent of households in tract 4224 (North Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhoods), 5.5 percent of households in tract 4229 (Downtown Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhood), and 17.7 percent of househol ds in tract 4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods) are severely overcrowded. Tracts 4224 and 4229 have predominant renter populations of 87.9 percent and 97.7 percent, respectively. Tract 4238 is characterized by a large senior population of 30 percent (see Figure E -27). Nearly 40 percent of senior households are considered lower income.
30 Elderly households are more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden, likely part due to lower or lack of income.

30 ABAG Housing Element Data Package (2013-2017 HUD CHAS Data), 2021

132

Figure E -88: Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.

Figure E -89: Severely Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2022.

133

Substandard Housing Conditions
Regional Trends. Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2015 -2019 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.

Of housing units in Alameda County, one percent lack complete kitchen facilities and 0. 4 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. According to 2006- 2010 ACS estimates, 0.5 percent of households lacked complete plumbing facilities, including 0.8 percent of renter -occupied units and 0.3 percent of owner - occupied units. Similarly, 1.5 percent of renter households and 0.3 percent of owner households lacked complete kitchen facilities. The proportion of households lacking complete facilities has decreased for both renters and owners since 2010. Historically and currently, incomplete facilities are more common amongst renter-occupied households. Nearly two percent of renter -occupied households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.7 percent lack complete plumbing facilities compared to only 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent of owner-occupied households (Figure E-90).

Figure E -90: Housing Units Lacking Complete Facilities – Alameda County (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 80.6 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 52.8 percent built prior to 1970 (Table E -50). Figure E- 91 shows median housing age for cities and Census -designated places (CDPs) in the region. The housing stock in Ross (Marin County), Berkeley (Alameda County), Oakland (Alameda County), and San Francisco has the highest median age in the region, ranging from the years 1941 to 1952. Jurisdictions in Contra

134

Costa County and parts of Marin County tend to have lower median ages compared to western Alameda County and San Francisco.

Figure E -91: Regional Median Year Housing Units Built ( 2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Local Trends. Housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities are slightly more common in Berkeley than the County. Approximately 1.4 percent of the housing stock lacks complete kitchen facilities and 0.8 percent lacks complete plumbing facilities. Like the county, the proportion of households lacking complete kitchen facilities has decreased since 2010. However, the proportion of households lacking complete plumbing facilities increased during this period. According to 2006 -2010 ACS estimates, 0.8 percent of households lacked complete kitchen facilities and 0.4 lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2010. As shown in Figure E -92, like the County, incomplete facilities are more common amongst renter - occupied households in Berkeley. Over two percent of renter-occupied households lack complete kitchen facilities and over one percent lack complete plumbing facilities. As discussed above, Berkeley is characterized by a large renter population representing 57 percent of households Citywide.

135

Figure E -92: Housing Units Lacking Complete Facilities – Berkeley (2019)

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

Table E-50 and Figure E-93 show the housing stock age in Berkeley by tract. More than 90 percent of housing units in tracts 4212, 4213, 4214, 4218 (Berkeley Hills, Live Oak, Thousand Oaks, and Northbrae neighborhoods), and 4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods) were built before 1970.

Between 80 and 90 percent of the housing stock in most tracts falls within this age group. Tracts 4220 (Berkeley Marina neighborhood), 4229 (Central/North Berkeley neighborhoods), and 4226 (UC Berkeley campus) have the largest proportion of new housing units built in 1990 or later. Of the 33 tracts in the City, more than 90 percent of the housing stock in 24 tracts (72.7 percent) was built before 1990. Aging housing units are not generally concentrated in one area of the City.

Table E- 50: Year Housing Units Built by Tract (2019)
Tract/Jurisdiction 1969 or Earlier
(50+ Years)
1970-1989
(30-50 Years)
1990 or Later
(<30 Years)
Total Housing Units
4211 87.8% 8.3% 3.9% 866
4212 97.0% 2.6% 0.4% 1,516
4213 95.8% 2.7% 1.4% 1,661
4214 92.0% 6.3% 1.8% 685
4215 84.8% 9.2% 6.0% 1,606
4216 89.4% 7.9% 2.7% 1,674
4217 80.9% 12.4% 6.6% 1,640
4218 92.7% 5.4% 1.9% 886
4219 85.3% 11.2% 3.5% 1,796
4220 38.5% 10.3% 51.2% 1,012
4221 78.0% 11.9% 10.1% 1,278
4222 85.4% 10.5% 4.1% 1,632
4223 74.2% 8.7% 17.1% 1,896
4224 65.8% 22.3% 11.8% 2,239
4225 80.9% 16.6% 2.5% 1,593

136

Tract/Jurisdiction 1969 or Earlier
(50+ Years)
1970-1989
(30-50 Years)
1990 or Later
(<30 Years)
Total Housing Units
4226 46.2% 33.3% 20.5% 39
4227 53.9% 39.2% 6.9% 1,194
4228 76.3% 16.9% 6.8% 1,494
4229 42.3% 17.9% 39.8% 2,281
4230 80.0% 15.2% 4.8% 2,235
4231 80.4% 14.1% 5.4% 2,056
4232 65.4% 24.1% 10.6% 1,239
4233 80.2% 7.5% 12.2% 1,715
4234 85.9% 10.6% 3.5% 2,191
4235 65.9% 25.4% 8.6% 1,565
4236.01 85.0% 10.8% 4.1% 1,254
4236.02 63.9% 29.7% 6.3% 2,355
4237 87.3% 12.2% 0.5% 1,455
4238 93.8% 4.0% 2.2% 1,315
4239.01 85.0% 11.6% 3.4% 907
4239.02 85.9% 8.7% 5.4% 760
4240.01 85.6% 9.2% 5.1% 1,560
4140.02 76.4% 6.1% 17.5% 1,079
Berkeley 77.9% 13.5% 8.6% 48,674
Alameda County 52.8% 27.8% 19.4% 608,096
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure E -93: Median Year Housing Units Built (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Displacement Risk
Regional Trends . UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive

137

communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability was defined using the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters is above 40 percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps.

Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the region are most concentrated in the coastal census tracts of Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County, specifically in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure E-94). Additional sensitive communities were also identified in Marin County and inland Contra Costa County along Interstate 680 and Highway 24. Compared to nearby coastal jurisdictions, Berkeley has a slightly lower concentration of sensitive communities.

The following key findings were identified by the Urban Displacement Project for the Bay Area:
31 As of 2018, over 10% or 161,343 low income households (households making below 80% of AMI) lived in areas at risk of or currently experiencing gentrification. Nearly half of these households live in either Alameda or San Francisco counties.

However, consistent with other Strong, Prosperous, And Resilient Communities Challenge (SPARCC) cities, less than 10% of all tracts in the Bay Area are classified as either at risk of or experiencing early or advanced gentrification, suggesting that gentrification is not as prevalent as other forms of neighborhood change. Gentrification risk or occurrence varies by county, however. Ongoing and advanced gentrification is most prevalent in San Francisco (18.5% of all tracts) and Alameda (11.1% of tracts) counties, and least prevalent in Contra Costa, Sonoma, and Yolo counties, mainly due the absence of densely populated, urban tracts.

By contrast, just about 30% of all tracts in the region are either at risk or becoming exclusive, or already stable/advanced exclusive, to low income households. This includes 61 tracts that were labeled as in early or advanced stages of gentrification in 2015, reflecting continued shifts in housing market accessibility for low income households. Exclusive tracts are concentrated in suburban counties, including Marin and San Mateo (nearly 70% and 50% are of tracts were classified as such respectively); wealthy enclaves in eastern Oakland and Berkeley; and pockets of San Francisco (making up 30% of all tracts).

Compared to 2015 maps, fewer areas of San Francisco are classified as ‘At Risk of Gentrification,’ and are instead classified as ‘Stable Moderate/Middle Income.’ This new type captures working- class neighborhoods that are not experiencing the housing market pressures of the rest of the county, so the displacement of low-income households is relatively rare. In contrast, Oakland and South Berkeley continue to display numerous tracts at risk of or undergoing gentrification/displacement.

New maps allow users to overlay other data onto gentrification and displacement maps.

Overlaying redlining maps digitized by the Mapping Inequality Project at the University of Richmond, the crossover between areas once redlined and low -income and gentrifying tracts is stark, particularly in the East Bay. This relationship is consistent with other cities included in UDP/SPARCC research.

Concentrations of vulnerable communities generally overlap with other special needs groups and populations of interest including racial/ethnic minority populations, children in female -headed

31 Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement, 2021. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/.

138

households, LMI households, low resource tracts, and cost burdened renters (see Figure E-16, Figure E- 30, Figure E-37, Figure E-48, and Figure E-75).

Public

139

Figure E -94: Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (UC Berkeley Displacement Project, 2020), 2022.

Public

140

Local Trends . The Urban Displacement Project identified 12 sensitive communities at risk of displacement in Berkeley ( Figure E -95). Most sensitive communities are located in the central and southern areas of the City in the South Berkeley, Le Conte, Elmwood District, Southwest Berkeley, Central Berkeley, and North Berkeley neighborhoods. There is also one sensitive community located in the Live Oak/Upper North Berkeley neighborhoods. Most tracts classified as sensitive communities are TCAC high resource areas. There is one sensitive community along the southern City boundary that is considered a moderate resource (rapidly changing) tract (see Figure E-49).

Figure E -95: Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (UC Berkeley Displacement Project, 2020), 2022.

The Urban Displacement Project classifies Census tracts by displacement typology. Berkeley tracts fall into the following typologies. Typology criteria is shown below and Berkeley tracts by displacement typology are outlined in Table E-51.
• Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement: (1) Low or mixed income tract in 2018. • Early/Ongoing Gentrification: (1) Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate- income households in 2018; (3) Increase or rapid increase in housing costs or above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2012-2018; (4) Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018. • Advanced Gentrification: (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high -income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high -income households in 2018; (3) Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing cost s; (4) Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.

Public

141

• Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.
• Becoming Exclusive: (1) Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high- income tract in 2018; (2) Housing affor dable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018; (3) Rapid increase in housing costs; (4) Absolute loss of low -income households, 2000- 2018; (5) Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018; (6) Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
• Stable/Advanced Exclusive: (1) High-income tract in 2000 and 2018; (2) Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018; (3) Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs.
• High Student Population: Nearly a quarter (24.2 percent) of Berkeley tracts are categorized as high student population tracts. High student population tracts are demarcated in gray and are located in and around the UC Berkeley campus ( Figure E -96). Stable moderate/mixed income tracts are the second most prevalent tract type in the City (21.2 percent), followed by advanced gentrification tracts (18.2 percent), and low income/sus ceptible to displacement tracts (12.1 percent). Advanced gentrification tracts are all located in the southern section of the City in the South Berkeley, Lorin, and Elmwood District neighborhoods. Most block groups in this area have populations of people of color exceeding 40 percent (see Figure E-21). About half of block groups in these tracts have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 6 0 percent, higher than the Citywide average of 46.7 percent. Advanced gentrification tracts have TCAC opportunity area classifications of moderate resource (rapidly changing), high resource, and highest resource (see Figure E-49). In general, the proportion of costs burdened renters has increased in these tracts since the 2010 -2014 ACS (see Figure E -81 and Figure E-82). Most Early/ongoing gentrification and advanced gentrification tracts were redlined in the 1930s. Historical trends including redlining are further described in Section E4.6 Historical Trends . Low income/susceptible to displacement, s table moderate/mixed income, and becoming exclusive tracts are not concentrated in a single area of the City.

Stable/advanced exclusive tracts are located only in the northeastern area of Berkeley in the Berkeley Hills, Cragmont, Thousand Oaks, and Live O ak neighborhoods. These tracts are characterized by large elderly populations ranging from 22 to 33 percent, significantly higher than the 14.3 percent Citywide according to the 2015 -2019 ACS (see Figure E -27). Elderly residents aged 65 and older have lower poverty rates (8.5 percent) compared to the total Berkeley population (19.2 percent) (see Table E-27). As discussed in Section E4.2, Integration and Segregation, this area is generally more affluent and has larger White populations compared to the rest of the City. Less than 40 percent of the population in most block groups in stable/advanced exclusive tracts belong to a racial or ethnic minority group and more than 40 percent of householder in these tracts live with a spouse. Further, all block groups in these tracts have median incomes exceeding $125,000 (see Figure E-47).

Table E- 51: Berkeley Census Tracts by Displacement Typology Displacement Typology Tracts Distribution of Tracts
Number Percent
Low Income/Susceptible to Displacement 4221, 4223, 4232, 4235 4 12.1% Early/Ongoing Gentrification 4231 1 3.0%
Advanced Gentrification 4233, 4234, 4239.01, 4239.02,
4240.01, 4240.02
6 18.2%
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income 4214, 4216, 4217, 4219, 4220, 4230, 4238
7 21.2%
Becoming Exclusive 4213, 4218, 4222, 4236.01 4 12.1%
Stable/Advanced Exclusive 4211, 4212, 4215 3 9.1%
High Student Population 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4236.02, 4237
8 24.2%

Public

142

Total -- 33 100.0%
Source: Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement, 2021.

Figure E -96: Urban Displacement Project – Displacement Typology

Source: Urban Displacement Project, SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement, 2021.

Table E -52 shows the distribution of households by tenure and displacement risk. Renter -occupied households are more likely to be susceptible to or experience displacement or be at risk of experiencing gentrification. Over 60 percent of owner-occupied households are in “stable moderate/mixed income” or “at risk of experiencing exclusion” tracts. Displacement often disproportionately affects renters as rent prices increase and h ousing units become unaffordable to lower or moderate income households. It is relevant to note than a significantly larger proportion of renter-occupied households are in “other” tracts, which includes high student population tracts. Tracts with large stu dent populations are often renter - dominated. Overall, households are generally evenly distributed between tracts at risk/experiencing displacement (20.6 percent), stable moderate/mixed income tracts (21.6 percent), and tracts at risk of experiencing exclus ion (20.1 percent). Only 12.2 percent of all households are susceptible to or experiencing displacement.

Table E- 52: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (2019) Displacement Typology (Tract) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Households Percent Households Percent
Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement 1,964 10.1% 3,556 13.8% At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification 3,777 19.4% 5,552 21.5% Stable Moderate/Mixed Income 5,451 28.1% 4,334 16.8% At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion 6,514 33.5% 2,570 10.0% Other 1,724 8.9% 9,780 37.9%
Total 19,430 100.0% 25,792 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (Urban Displacement Project; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.

Public

143

The City currently offers 21 anti -displacement policies and programs. The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) has identified 14 best practices for local governments, 11 of which are implemented by the City.

Policies shown in Table E -53 are organized by the “Three P’s” framework: Protection, Preservation, and Production. The Three P’s are promoted by housing advocates as a balanced approach to preventing displacement by protecting current at-risk community members, preserving existing affordable housing, and producing new affordable housing.

Table E- 53: Anti -Displacement Strategies (2021)
Policy Description UDP Best Practice
Protection
Eviction Moratorium The Berkeley City Council adopted the Berkeley Emergency Response Ordinance to protect residents from evictions if they are unable to pay rent due to COVID-19’s impacts.

Fair Chance to Housing for Formerly
Incarcerated People
Property owners are prohibited from using criminal background checks to screen tenant applications.

First Source Hiring First Source hiring ordinances ensure that City residents are given priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development programs.

X
Home Retention/Rental Assistance The City provides financial assistance up to $5,000 for low income residents at risk of eviction to remain in their current living arrangement.

Residents impacted by COVID19 are eligible for up to an additional $10,000.

Just Cause for Eviction ordinance Nearly all 26,000 rental units in Berkeley have eviction protections for no-fault causes.

X
Landlord/Tenant Mediation The Rent Board offers landlord/tenant mediation to settle disputes and facilitate positive long-term relationships.

X
Rent Stabilization/Rent Control Over 19,000 units (approx. 70%) are subject to rent stabilization ceilings.

X
Relocation Protections and Assistance Tenants who are mandated to vacate their unit temporarily or permanently at no-fault are provided
protections (including a right to return) and relocation funding (provided by the landlord).

Rent Review Board The Rent Board provides education to tenants and landlords on tenant’s rights related to Just Cause Evictions and Rent Stabilization.

X
Source of Income Protection Property owners are prohibited from refusing to rent to an applicant based on their source of income (e.g., Section 8 and other Housing Choice Voucher programs, Social Security, disability,
unemployment
or veterans’ benefits).

Preservation
Community Land Trusts Northern California Community Land Trust (NCLT) and Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT) serve Berkeley and receive direct support from the City for the acquisition and rehabilitation of local properties as well as organizational capacity building.

X
Condominium Conversion Regulations The Condo Conversion ordinance limits the conversion of rental units to condominiums to 100 per year and includes an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee for each unit converted.

Fees generated from condo conversions provided $3M in revenue for the Housing Trust Fund program since 2009.

X
Senior and Disabled Rehabilitation Loan
Program
The City offers deferred, no -interest loans to assist low -income senior and disabled homeowners in repairing/modifying their homes to eliminate conditions that pose a threat to their health and safety and to help preserve the City's housing inventory.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
The Berkeley Housing Authority provides subsidies for 98 SROs. X Small Sites Program (SSP) Pilot The SSP Pilot supported the acquisition and renovation of small, multifamily rental properties with up to 25 units. The City received

Public

144

Policy Description UDP Best Practice
one application during the pilot and awarded $1.6M to BACLT for the renovation of Stuart Street Apartments.

There are currently no funds available in this program.

Foreclosure/Mortgage Assistance The City participates on the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program through Alameda County. MCC recipients may take up to 15% of their annual mortgage interest payments as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their federal income taxes. Qualified homebuyers can adjust their federal income tax withholdings, which will increase their income available to pay the monthly mortgage X
Production
Commercial Linkage Fee This linkage fee on new commercial development generates revenue dependent on the type of development: Office $5.00/sf, Retail $5.00/sf, Industrial $2.50/sf when greater than 7,500 sf. 20% of fees go towards childcare programs.

The Commercial Linkage fee has generated over $4.4M in revenue for the HTF program since 1992.

X
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program The City supports the development and rehabilitation of non -profit affordable housing properties via the HTF program. The HTF is supported by a combination of federal, state, and local sources, including the Affordable Housing Mitigation fee.

Voters adopted Measure O in 2018 to provide the City with $135M in bond funding for affordable housing.

X
Jobs-Housing Linkage fee (Affo rdable
Housing Mitigation fee)
All new market -rate housing developments are subject to an Affordable Housing Mitigation fee (AHMF) of $39,746 per unit for each market rate unit built with an option to provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units onsite in-lieu of the fee. The fee adjusts biennially to reflect the Construction Cost Index (CCI).

The AHMF generates the majority of the City’s local contribution to the HTF program, with over $12.6M in revenue since 2015.

The in -lieu BMR option has provided over 400 per manently affordable units onsite.

X
Public Land Survey HHCS conducted a survey to identify opportunities for affordable housing development on City-owned property in 2017 and 2019.

West Berkeley Service Center was identified by Council as an opportunity site for future affordable housing development.

Vacant City properties were converted into shelters to house homeless individuals at high-risk of COVID-19.

Source: City of Berkeley, Current Anti-Displacement Initiatives, 2021.

Berkeley is also in the process of developing an affordable housing preference policy and a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) ordinance. Anti -displacement policies in development are outlined below:
• Affordable Housing Preference Policy: A preference policy would provide households with ties to Berkeley a priority in applying for new affordable housing units based on specific criteria.

Multiple preferences can be layered to create a preference ranking system (e.g., displaced from Berkeley, neighborhood proximity, families with small children). • Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) Ordinance: TOPA provides tenants the right to purchase a rental property when the owner puts it on the market or accepts an offer from another potential buyer. The housing would be transitioned into permanently affordable housing or land trusts. Tenants may assign their rights to a qualified affordable housing provider or community land trust.

Public

145

Homelessness
Regional Trends . Communities are required by HUD to conduct a Point -in-Time (PIT) Count of individuals, youth, and families experiencing homelessness. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alameda County PIT Count was postponed from 2021 to February 2022. As of April 2022, the results from February 2022 PIT Count have not been released. This analysis relies on the 2019 Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey to assess homelessness in the County.

As exhibited in Figure E -97, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in the County has increased over the last decade. Between 2017 and 2019, the population of persons experiencing homelessness increased by 42.5 percent, while the Countywide population increased only 1.7 percent.

Similarly, the population in Alameda County increased 12.1 percent between 2010 and 2019, while the homeless population increased 84.8 percent between 2009 and 2019. 32 The unsheltered homeless population has also increased significantly, representing only 35.5 percent of the homeless population in 2009 but 78.7 percent in 2019.

Figure E -97: Alameda County Homeless Population Trend (2009- 2019)

Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Populations of persons experiencing homelessness are most concentrated in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, followed by Hayward and Fremont. It is important to note that these cities have the largest populations countywide. When accounting for City popul ation, Emeryville has the largest proportion of persons experiencing homelessness (1.5 percent of total population), followed by Oakland (one percent), Berkeley (0.9 percent), and San Leandro (0.5 percent). The population of persons experiencing homelessness Countywide account for 0.5 percent of the total population. Racial/ethnic minority populations are most concentrated in Emeryville, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward and Fremont, LMI households are most concentrated in Oakland and San Leandro, and TCAC low resource tracts are most concentrated in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward (see Figure E-16, Figure E-37, and Figure E-48).

32 2006-2010, 2013-2017, and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Public

146

Table E -54 shows the change in homeless population by jurisdiction from 2017 to 2019. During this period, Emeryville (+514 percent), Pleasanton (+289 percent), San Leandro (+284 percent), and Union City (+165 percent) had the highest increases in homeless populations. The populations of persons experiencing homelessness in Albany and Dublin have decreased since 2017. Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont had homeless population increases below or similar to the Countywide average.

Figure E -98: Total Number of Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Jurisdiction (2019)

Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Table E- 54: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2017 -2019) Jurisdiction 2017 2019 Percent Change
Alameda 204 231 +13.2%
Albany 66 35 -47.0%
Berkeley 972 1,108 +14.0%
Dublin 21 8 -61.9%
Emeryville 29 178 +513.8%
Fremont 479 608 +26.9%
Hayward 397 487 +22.7%
Livermore 243 264 +8.6%
Newark 70 89 +27.1%
Oakland 2,761 4,071 +47.4%
Piedmont 0 0 --
Pleasanton 18 70 +288.9%

Public

147

San Leandro 109 418 +283.5%
Union City 40 106 +165.0%
Unincorporated 220 349 +58.6%
Total 5,629 8,022 +42.5%
Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Certain racial or ethnic groups are often overrepresented in the homeless population. In Alameda County, Black/African American individuals represent 47 percent of the homeless population but only 10 percent of the population countywide (Figure E -99). The other/multi -race, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations are also overrepresented in the homeless populatio n.

Conversely, only two percent of the population of persons experiencing homelessness are Asian and 17 percent are Hispanic/Latinx compared to 30 percent and 22 percent countywide, respectively. As outlined in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) , Black/African American population (20 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native population (15 percent), and population of a race not listed (“other”) (14.4 percent) have the highest poverty rates in the County.

Figure E -99: Homeless Population vs. County Population (2019)

Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

According to the 2019 Alameda County Homeless Survey, 57 percent of respondents reported living in Alameda County for 10 or more years, while only 12 percent lived in the County for less than a year. Prior to becoming homeless, 39 percent of respondents reported living with friends or relatives and 37 percent owned or rented a home. Most persons experiencing homelessness in the County (63 percent) have been homeless for a year or longer. Federally reported homeless subpopulations are presented in Table E-55.

Public

148

The proportion of homeless persons in families with children has significantly decreased since 2015, representing only seven percent of the homeless population in 2019. Chronically homeless i ndividuals and homeless adults with serious mental illness continue to be prevalent groups in Alameda County.

Table E- 55: Federally Reported Homeless Subpopulations – Alameda County (2015- 2019) 2015 2017 2019
Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent
Persons in Families with Children 985 24% 711 13% 524 7% Unaccompanied Youth and Young Adults 299 7% 991 18% 731 9% Chronically Homeless 689 17% 1,652 29% 2,236 28%
Veterans 388 10% 531 9% 692 9%
Adults with Serious Mental Illness 714 18% 1,622 29% 2,590 32% Adults with HIV/AIDs 68 2% 157 3% 207 3%
Total Homeless Population 4,040 5,629 8,022
Source: Alameda County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Survey respondents were also asked to identify uses for funding to end homelessness. Over half (52 percent) of respondents identified affordable rental housing and 38 percent identified permanent help with rent. Employment training and job opportunities (31 percent), 24/7 basic sanitation services (25 percent), behavioral health services (22 percent), and emergency shelter (20 percent) were also among the top recommendations.

Public housing buildings and subsidized housing in the region is included in Figure E -100. Both public housing buildings and subsidized housing projects are located throughout the region and are especially concentrated in eastern San Francisco and Oakl and. Public housing buildings and subsidized housing is generally more prevalent in San Francisco and Alameda County compared to Contra Costa County and Marin County. Alameda County has the highest rate of occupied emergency shelter beds in the region.

Approximately 80 percent of emergency shelter beds in the County are occupied compared to only 50 percent in Contra Costa County, 38.9 percent in San Francisco, and 43.3 percent in Marin County ( Figure E-101). Emergency shelters are most prevalent in San Francisco and northwestern Alameda County from Berkeley to San Leandro.

Public

149

Figure E -100: Public Housing Buildings and Subsidized Housing (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (California Housing Partnership Corportion (CHPC), 2021), 2022.

Public

150

Figure E -101: Emergency Shelter Housing (2019, 2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2019/2020), 2022.

151

Local Trends. Since 2015, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in the City has increased at a consistent rate. Between 2015 and 2017 the homeless population increased by 16.5 percent and another 14 percent between 2017 and 2019. The homeless population in Berkeley represents 14 percent of the total population experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Comparatively, the total Berkeley population represents only 7.3 percent of the total County population according to 2015 -2019 ACS estimates. Berkeley has a slightly lower share of unsheltered individuals compared to Alameda County (Table E-56). Nearly a third of the homeless population in the City resided in vehicles (car, van, or RV), followed by tents (23 percent), street/outdoors (21 percent), and emergency shelters (21 percent) (Figure E-102).

Table E- 56: Homeless Population by Shelter Status (2019) Unsheltered Sheltered Total Persons Percent Persons Percent Berkeley 813 73.4% 295 26.6% 1,108
Alameda County 6,312 78.7% 1,710 21.3% 8,022
Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Figure E-102: Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Location (2019)

Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Populations of persons experiencing homelessness are most concentrated in tracts 4220 (Berkeley Marina neighborhood), 4228 (Southside neighborhood), and 4229 (Downtown Berkeley/Central Berkeley neighborhood), while tracts along the eastern City boundary and in the northeastern corner of the City had the lowest number of persons experiencing homelessness ( Figure E-103). Tracts 4220 and 4229 are classified as moderate resource tracts, while tract 4228 is the only low resource tract in the City (see Figure E-49). Between 60 and 80 percent of the population in most block groups contained in these tracts belong to a racial or ethnic minority group and more than 75 perc ent of households in tracts 4228 and 4229 are low or moderate income (see Figure E-21 and Figure E-38). As discussed in Section Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) , tracts 4228 and 4229 are R/ECAP tracts and are characterized by large student populations. However, persons experiencing homelessness in these tracts are likely not primarily stud ents, as only seven percent of the homeless population in the City is unaccompanied youth or young adults, lower than nine percent Countywide.

152

Figure E -103: Total Number of Unsheltered Persons by Tract (2019)

Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

Like the County, Black/African American individuals are overrepresented in the Berkeley homeless population. As shown in Figure E- 104, Black/African American persons represent 57 percent of the homeless population but only eight percent of the total City population. The other/multi-race population, American Indian/Alaska Native population, and Hispanic/Latinx population are also overrep resented in the homeless population but to a much lesser extent than the Black/African American population. The Asian population represents 21 percent of the City population but only one percent of the homeless population. Similarly, the White population r epresents 53 percent of the City population but only 29 percent of the White population.

As outlined in Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) , the White population has the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent. Although there are very few Asian individuals experiencing homelessness, the Asian/API population has the highest poverty rate of 36.9 percent. The high poverty rate amongst Asian/API residents is likely affected by the large Asian/API student population in the City. Students are more likely to have low incomes. Approximately one percent of the total Berkeley population experiences homelessness, while 10 percent of student respondents reported having experienced homelessness at some point since arriving at UC Berkeley according to a 2017 UC Berkeley survey. However, most students that reported experiencing homelessness were “couch surfing” or living in othe r people’s homes. This population is not recorded by the County PIT Count. Student homelessness and poverty is further described in Section E4.6 Student Poverty and Mobility.

Consistent with the composition of the homeless population in the City, Black/African American Berkeley residents had the second highest poverty rate in the City (25.4 percent), after the Asian/API population,

153

followed by the American Indian/Alaska Native population (24.5 percent), and Hispanic/Latinx population (20.5 percent).

Figure E -104: Homeless Population vs. Berkeley Population (2019)

Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

As mentioned above, federally reported homeless subpopulations include unaccompanied youth and young adults, persons in families with children, chronically homeless individuals, and veterans. Berkeley has a smaller share of hom eless unaccompanied youth/young adults, persons in families with children, and veterans than the County. The 2019 PIT Count estimates 35 percent of the Berkeley homeless population is chronically homeless, compared to only 28 percent in Alameda County.

During the 2019 PIT Count, 257 surveys were conducted in Berkeley. Respondents were questioned on various subjects including but not limited to place of residence, prior/current living arrangements, duration and recurrence of homelessness, primary cause of homelessness, and homeless services. A larger proportion of Berkeley respondents have moved to Alameda County in recent years ( Figure E -105).

Approximately 57 percent of the homeless population countywide has lived in the County for more than 10 years compared to only 48 percent in the City. Immediately prior to experiencing homelessness, a larger proportion of persons in Berkeley lived in subsidized housing (12 percent) or jail/prison (eight percent) compared to the County. A majority of Berkeley respondents (64 percent) also stated they have been homeless for a year or more. Berkeley respondents cited job loss (18 percent), eviction/foreclosure (17 percent), mental health issues (15 percent), and substance issues (12 percent) as the primary cause for homelessness. Like the County, Berkeley survey respondents identified the following uses for funding to end homelessness:
• Affordable rental housing (58 percent)
• Employment training and job opportunities (43 percent)

154

• Permanent help with rent/subsidy (29 percent)
• Substance use and/or mental health services (28 percent) • Housing with supportive services (22 percent)
• 24/7 basic sanitation (19 percent)
Figure E- 105: Length of Time Spent in Alameda County (2019)

Source: City of Berkeley Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, 2019.

The City of Berkeley offers the following homeless services:
• Homeless Shelters: The City funds local service providers to offer 256 shelter beds across the community.
• Pathways STAIR Navigation Center: STAIR Navigation Center offers a 45-bed, 24/7, service-rich shelter to get people living on the streets sheltered and housed as soon as possible, employs an outreach team to connect with residents in encampments and bring them into shelter, and provides services to transition unhoused people into permanent supportive housing. • Rapid Rehousing: The City connects homeless households with housing navigators and provides financial assistance to transition people into housing and help them sustain their rent overtime.

There are five emergency shelters located in the City. Three are located in or adjacent to tracts 4228 and 4229 and two are located in tract 4220 (Figure E -106). The location of emergency shelters in the City likely affected the distribution of homeless individuals shown in Figure E-104.

155

Figure E -106: Emergency Shelter Housing (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2020), 2022.

E4.6 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
Home Loans
Home loan applications in Berkeley by race and income are shown in Table E -57. Of all mortgage applications filed in 2018 and 2019, 63.2 percent were originated, 16.3 percent were denied, and 2.7 percent were approved not accepted. Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American applicants were denied at the highest rates of 24 percent and 23.9 percent, respectively. Conversely, applications submitted by White and Asian/API residents were originated or approved at the highest rates of 67.9 percent and 65.3 percent, respectively. This pattern may indicate unfair lending practices are occurring in the City.

As presented in Figure E-107, non-Hispanic White households have significantly higher home ownership rates (51.9 percent) than all other racial/ethnic groups in the City. Non- Hispanic White residents also have the lowest poverty rate of 12.1 percent and highest median income of $107,660 (see Chapter E4.3 , Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas). All other racial/ethnic groups in the City have median incomes below $100,000. Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American populations have significantly higher rates of poverty of 20.5 percent and 25.4 percent, respectively.

156

Table E- 57: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race/Ethnicity (2018 -2019) Amer. Ind./
Ala. Nat.

Asian/API Black/ Afr.

American
White Hispanic/
Latinx
Unknown All
Approved Not
Accepted

13.3% 2.0% 4.3% 2.3% 1.9% 3.5% 2.7%
Denied 13.3% 19.7% 23.9% 15.3% 24.0% 14.3% 16.3%
Withdrawn 20.0% 11.0% 17.4% 12.8% 14.3% 13.8% 13.1%
Incomplete 13.3% 4.0% 7.2% 4.0% 6.5% 5.3% 4.7%
Originated 40.0% 63.3% 47.1% 65.6% 53.2% 63.1% 63.2%
Total 15 401 138 1,692 154 867 3,267
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Federal Financial instritutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) loan/application register (LAR) files, 2018-2019), 2021.

Figure E -107: Tenure by Race (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Open Space and Recreation
According to the Plan Bay Area 2040, a strong regional movement emerged during the latter half of the 20th century to protect farmland and open space. Local governments adopted urban growth boundaries and helped lead a “focused growth” strategy with support from environmental groups and regional agencies to limit sprawl, expand recreational opportunities, and preserve scenic and natural resources.

However, this protection has strained the region’s ability to build the housing needed for a growing population. In addition, maintaining the existing open space does not ensure equal access to it.

Since 1977, the City has significantly increased the amount and type of available open space. According to the City’s Open Space and Recreation Element, there is over 12 acres of parkland available per 1,000

157

residents including the Bay Trail, Eastshore State Park, Tilden Regional Park, and Claremont Canyon Regional Reserve. Since 1977, over 120 acres of parkland has been added to the City. Measure L and Measure Q, passed in 1986, required all existing open space be preserved for open space use and, established the waterfront as an area primarily for recreation and provided public access to the waterfront. A map of existing parks, green areas, senior centers, swim centers, community centers, trails, and paths is provided in Figure E-109.

The City established the “Trees Make Life Better” program and anticipates that between 1,000 and 1,800 new trees will be planted in south and west Berkeley using grant funding. Through this program, the City aims to improve quality of life through greenhouse gas reduction, temperature stabilization, and heating/cooling cost reduction. City staff has identified eight areas for tree planting throughout the South Berkeley, Southwest Berkeley, Central Berkeley, 4
th Street, Northwest Berkeley, and Gilman
neighborhoods. As exhibited in Figure E -71 previously, this section of the City has the lowest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores indicating these communities bear the highest pollution burden and may contain sensitive populations.33
The Healthy Places Index provides tract -level data for percent of population living within a ½ mile of a park, beach, or open space greater than one acre. Figure E-108 shows that nearly all Berkeley tracts score in the highest percentile for park access. Tract 4225 (Northside neighborhood), tract4238 (Claremont/Elmwood District neighborhoods), and 4239.02 (Elmwood District/Lorin neighborhoods) scored in the second percentile (0.25-0.50) for park access. The southeast tracts (4238 and 4239.02) are generally affluent areas with better environmental conditions, while tract 4225 has higher concentrations of lower-income populations and households. However, tract 4225 received a CalEnviroScreen percentile score of 23.1, indicating that environmental conditions in this area are good despite the lack of accessible open space.
33 Pollution indicators include but are not limited to: Ozone, PM 2.5, diesel particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, traffic impacts , cleanup sites, hazardous waste generators. Sensitive population indicators include asthma, cardiovascular disease, and low birth weight infants. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores also take the following socioeconomic indicators into consideration: educational attainment, housing -burdened low- income households, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.

158

Figure E -108: Healthy Places Index – Park Access by Tract

Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), accessed March 2022.

Public

159

Figure E -109: Recreation Centers, Parks, Open Space

Source: City of Berkeley Community GIS Portal, accessed March 2022.

160

Healthy Places
This analysis utilizes the Healthy Places Index (HPI) to measure transportation opportunities and park accessibility in the City (see Section E4.4 Transportation, and Section E4.6 Open Space and Recreatio n).

The HPI is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. Figure E -110 shows the HPI percentile scores for Berkeley tracts. Most tracts in the City tend to have HPI scores above 60 percent.

Tracts with the highest HPI scores exceeding 80 percent are concentrated in the northeastern, central northern, and southeastern areas of the City. Tracts surrounding the UC Berkeley campus, specifically Tract 4227 scoring under 20 percent, have lower HPI index values.

Figure E -110: Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC), 2021), 2022.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program. Known as California Climate Investments (CCI), these funds are aimed at improving public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities at the same time they’re reducing pollution that causes climate change. As identified using the HCD AFFH tool, there is one tract in Berkeley that is classified as a “disadvantaged community” located in the Southwest Berkeley neighborhood (Figure E-111).

161

In this tract, between 61 and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group,

12.9 percent of the population experiences a disability, and 59.4 percent of households are LMI (see Figure E-21, Figure E-26, and Figure E-38). Most households in this tract are renter-occupied and 52.7 of renters are cost burdened (see Figure E-72 and Figure E-82). This tract has one of the worst CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the City of 42.4, followed only by the Berkeley Marina neighborhood (see Figure E-71).

Figure E-111: SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities by Tract

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2021), 2022.

Student Poverty and Mobility
As discussed previously, Berkeley is characterized by a large student population mostly due to the University of California – Berkeley. Approximately 29 percent of the population is enrolled in college or graduate school in the City, significantly larger than 8.5 percent in Alameda County. Students tend to have lower or no income and therefore have higher poverty rates (see Section E4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)).

UC Berkeley conducted a survey in 2017 that received upwards of 9,000 partial or complete responses from undergraduate, graduate, and postdoc students.
34 Of these students, 10 percent reported having
experienced homelessness at some point since arriving at UC Berkeley. Homelessness was defined as “not having stable or reliable housing (e.g., living on the street, in vehicles, motels, short- term rentals, camp grounds, single -occupancy facilities, or couch surfing in other people’s homes for temporary sleeping

34 UC Berkeley Office of Planning and Analysis, Housing Survey Findings, Fall 2017. https://housing.berkeley.edu/wp - content/uploads/HousingSurvey_03022018.pdf.

162

arrangements).” Many of these living situations, such as motels, short-term rentals, and couch surfing, are not counted towards the overall PIT count in the City (see Section E4.5 Homelessness). Over 70 percent of undergraduate and graduate respondents reported they were couch surfing at the time of homelessness, and over 50 percent of postdoc students reported living in short -term rentals. Half of respondents indicated that it took more than one month to find their current housing.

A 2017 study on the role of colleges in intergenerational mobility found that the median family income of a UC Berkeley student is $119,900 and 54 percent of students come from families in the top 20 percent.35 Compared to the State, UC Berkeley students are among the highest for median family income, average income percentile, and share of students in the top 0.1 percent. Of post -grad UC Berkeley students, 22 percent moved up two or more income quintiles and 4.9 percent moved from the bottom to top income quintile, some of the largest shares compared to the PAC-12 and State.

While students may contribute to the poverty rate citywide, UC Berkeley students also tend to come from wealthier families. Regardless, students may require housing that caters to their needs. According to the 2017 UC Berkeley housing survey, a majority of students cited affordability as the most or second most important factor in potential housing, followed by proximity and safety.

Historical Trends
The following is provided by HCD and describes historical redlining trends. “The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices.

The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red:

1. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.

2. B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. - born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.

3. C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working -class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.

4. D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexic an, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.

Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups),

35 Chetty, R. (Stanford University and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Friedman, J. N. (Brown University and NBER); Saez, E. (UC Berkeley and NBER); Turner, N. (US Treasury); Yagan, D. (UC Berkeley and NBER). (2017). Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college- mobility/university-of-california-berkeley.

163

the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune).

In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that w ork, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab.” Redlining grades in Berkeley are presented in Figure E-112. Most of Berkeley was categorized as C- or D- grade, indicating these communities had large immigrant and non- White populations and substandard housing units. Redlined neighborhoods include Gilman, Northwest Berkeley, 4 th Street, Southwest
Berkeley, and parts of North Berkeley, Central Berkeley, South Berkeley, and Berkeley Hills.

Neighborhoods with A - or B -grades include Berkeley Hills, Terrace View, Live Oak, Thousand Oaks, Northbrae, Elmwood District, and Claremont. A- and B-grade neighborhoods directly correlate with more affluent and White areas of the City today. As shown in previous sections of this AFFH analysis, these areas have larger White populations, lower poverty rates, fewer LMI h ouseholds, and higher median incomes (see Figure E-21, Figure E-38, Figure E-40, and Figure E-47). These areas are also exclusively TCAC high and highest resource areas with fewer cost burdened renter households, and smaller homeless populations (see Figure E -49, Figure E -82, and Figure E -103). Redlined areas are shown to have the opposite trends (larger non-White populations, cost burdened renters, lower median incomes, etc.).

Figure E -112: Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) Redlining Grade (1937)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (University of Richmond, 2021), 2022.

164

The Urban Displacement Project presented “Redlining in Berkeley: The Past is Present” to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board in February 2020. 36 The Urban Displacement Project identified the following ongoing impacts of redlining in Berkeley:
• Racial and economic segregation: Most (74%) of redlined neighborhoods are low-to-moderate income today; most (64%) of these neighborhoods are POC neighborhoods today (NCRC, 2018) • Inequality: Cities where more of the redlined areas are currently POC neighborhoods have significantly greater economic inequality; gentrification associated with less segregation but greater economic inequality (NCRC, 2018)
• Environment and health: Higher levels of diesel particulate and higher asthma- related health needs today (Nardone et al, 2019)
• Climate: Redlined neighborhoods were hotter -- 5 degrees on average, but up to 13 degrees – in 94% of 108 cities (Hoffman et al, 2020)

36 Partnership for the Bay Area’s Future, Challenge Grant Fellow, City of Berkeley Former Program Director, Urban Displacement P roject – Redlining in Berkeley: the Past is Present, February 20, 2020. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_- _General/SPECIAL_Item%206._Redlining%20in%20Berkeley%20presentation_02.20.20_FINAL(2).pdf.

APPENDIX F
Outreach and Engagement
F1 Community Workshops
F1.1 Community Workshop #1 - 10.27.2021
F1.2 Community Workshop #2 - 1.27.2022
F1.3 Community Workshop #3 - 6.29.2022
F2 City Council Worksessions
F3 Planning Commission Meetings
F4 Boards & Commission Meetings
F5 Surveys
F5.1 Citywide Survey - Oct to Nov 2021
F5.2 Residential Walking Tours - Nov 2021 to Jan 2022
F5.3 Renter Survey - Apr 2021
F6 Stakeholder Meetings
F6.1 Overview of Stakeholders Interviewed
F7 Community Outreach Events
F7.1 Downtown Berkeley Farmers’ Market - 2.26.2022
F7.2 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach - 4.25.2022
F7.3 Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach - 5.14.2022
F7.4 Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party - 5.19.2022
F7.5 Harvest Festival - 10.15.2022
F7.6 Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach - 10.18.2022
02 02
20 39
51 122
145
146
146
163
207
217
217
224
225
228
230
232
236
238

F1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
In the Fall of 2021, the City of Berkeley hosted the first of three public workshops to provide an update on the planning process and gather input at key stages of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Staff shared information including but not limited to an overview of the project, a sites inventory, and the Pubic Draft Document. This section will include a summary of each workshop, the slides from the presentations given at each workshop, and a summary of the input that was received.

F1.1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 - OCTOBER 27, 2021

OVERVIEW
On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 from 6:00-8:00 pm,
the City of Berkeley hosted a community workshop
for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The
primary objectives of the meeting were to:

Provide an overview of the Housing Element Update
and its planning process;
Share information about recent developments that
will help inform the housing plan;
Get initial community input on housing assets, issues,
and opportunities.

The workshop was held virtually on Zoom, and
approximately 70 people participated. Mayor Jesse
Arreguín opened the meeting, followed by a 20-minute
presentation from the project team. The presentation
provided an overview of the purpose of the housing
element and described the overall process. The slides
and video recordings were made available on the
project website.

A brief question and answer period followed the
project team’s presentation; participants also used
this time to complete a demographic poll to provide
detail on the profile of workshop participants.

In the second part of the workshop, participants were
randomly placed into one of five Zoom breakout
groups to discuss three questions. Each group had a
facilitator and a note-taker. The discussion questions
were:

What is working well with housing in Berkeley? What
are Berkeley’s housing strengths (e.g., programs,
types of housing, location of housing, etc.)?
What are the issues or challenges with housing in
Berkeley?
What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley,
and where should different types be located?
An invitation and log-in information for the public
workshop were sent to more than 200 subscribers of
the Housing Element email list and flyers for the event were posted at 15 sites throughout Berkeley during
the month of October, including public libraries,
senior and community centers, grocery stores, local
retailers, and on utility poles near public parks.
2 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
6th Cycle 2023-2031
Community Workshop #1:

Assets, Issues, & Opportunities
October 27, 2021
Welcome! Logistics
Join Audio
• Two options:
• Use your device’s audio
• Call in using a cell phone

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
Closed Caption is available Raise your “Hand” to Speak
• Please use the “Raise Hand” feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. • Please remain muted until called on.
• You can also use the CHAT function to ask questions and share input during the meeting and small group exercise.

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
Help with Technical Issues
6 Zoom Host
Email: [email protected]
Overview
Housing Element Team
8 9
• Provide an overview of
the Housing Element
Update process
• Share information about
Berkeley that informs the
housing plan
• Get initial community
input on housing
assets, issues, and
opportunities
• !
Meeting Objectives
10 • Overview of the
Housing Element
• Demographic Poll and
Short Q&A
• Small Group
Discussion
•
Next Steps
• !
Agenda
Housing Element
12 The Berkeley General Plan is a
comprehensive and long-range
statement of priorities and
values developed to guide
public decision-making in
future years.

All land use approvals and
decisions must be consistent
with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the General Plan.

The Berkeley General Plan contains the
following “Elements”:

1. Land Use

2. Transportation

33.. HHoouussiinngg  We are here

4. Disaster Preparedness and Safety

5. Open Space and Recreation

6. Environmental Management

7. Economic Development and Employment

8. Urban Design and Preservation

9. Citizen Participation
13 Required Element
of the General Plan
Plan for Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Must be updated every 8 years
and certified by HCD
Currently planning for the
6th cycle (2023-2031)
Statutory deadline is
January 31, 2023
The City’s 8-year plan for
meeting the housing needs of
everyone in the community.

A Strategic Plan Priority Project
Create affordable housing and housing
support services for its most
vulnerable community members.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
For each region, the State analyzes:
+ Jobs to homes ratio
+ Proximity to jobs and education centers
+ Expected job and population growth
+ Demographic trends that affect housing demand
= # of units to plan for in each region, by income level = Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA
14 • The methodology for distributing the RHNA was approved in January 2021 • The Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle (vs. 187,990 in 5th cycle) • Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 units
• The final RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021 State of CA
Councils of
Government
Local
Jurisdiction
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
15SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 5th Cycle
2015-2023
6th Cycle 2023-2031
Progress
2015-2020
22,,995599 22,,994433
88,,994433
+ 202%
Projected Future Housing Needs
+ Unmet Existing Needs (Overcrowding, Cost Burden)
= Higher Allocations (AB 1086 & SB 828 )
~~5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss
SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State
Dept of Finance
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
Figure F-1 Community Workshop #1 Presentation
3 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

This Photo is licensed under CC
22 COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND

ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Web site
Email list
Stakeholder Interviews
Small Group Meetings and Focus
Groups
Survey
Public Workshops
City Board and Commission
Meetings
City Council Work Sessions

OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES
This Photo is licensed under CCThis Photo is licensed under CC BY-SA
This Photo is licensed under CC
BYPhoto: Emilie Raguso
Priorities and Ideas Already Shared by the Community
23 • Preserve existing affordable housing
• Add new affordable housing, including permanently
affordable, deed-restricted housing
• Add new market-rate housing
• Prevent displacement of current residents
• Provide long-term housing for the homeless
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
24 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Fall 2022
Local Adoption
Jan 2023
STATE

CERTIFICATION
NNoottee This is a general timeline and actual timing may change.

Environmental Review
Learn More and Stay Involved!
25 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement
Demographic Poll

POLL INSTRUCTIONS
Open a web browser​
(on second device or in another
window)​
Go to:
https://www.menti.com/12n7ksa1mq
(link is in the Zoom chat)
or
enter code 6152 9554 at menti.com
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
532 442 584
1401
232 41 91
25792,446
1,408 1,416
3,664
VVeerryy LLooww >> 5500%% AAMMII LLooww 5500--8800%% AAMMII MMooddeerraattee 8800--112200%% AAMMII AAbboovvee MMooddeerraattee >> 112200%% AAMMII 5th Cycle RHNA
(2015-2023)
Total Units
Permitted 2015-2020
6th Cycle RHNA
(2023-2031)
16SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 Not meeting Lower
and Moderate
Streamlined Ministerial Approval for eligible 50% affordable projects (SB 35) 17 ADEQUATE SITES

TO ACCOMMODATE RHNA
such as:

Pipeline Projects
Accessory Dwelling Units
Available vacant and
underutilized sites
Rezoning

STRATEGIES

FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION & EQUITY
such as:

Incentives & Subsidies
Homebuyer & Housing Rehabilitation
Assistance
Inclusionary Housing & Housing Trust
Funds
Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections
• City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it • Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments • Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action • Reliant on the development industry (market rate & affordable) to construct housing units Sites Inventory
18 Publicly-owned or
leased sites
Vacant sites that could be
developed with residential
Nonvacant sites that
could be developed with
housing units or more
housing units
Nonvacant sites that
could be rezoned for
residential or more
housing units
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
Photo: Jerome Paulos
Berkeley’s Housing Types and Locations
19 Housing Considerations
20 Public Safety
Wildfires
Pollution
Physical Features
Transit Proximity
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
Access
Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
Affordability
Middle Income
Jobs-Housing Fit
Diverse Housing Types
Missing Middle – “ plexes”
Neighborhood Context
Historic Preservation
Community Benefits
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Geographic Equity
Environmental Equity
Student Housing
BUSD Housing
Household Characteristics
Population & Demographics Tenant Protections
Anti-Displacement
Tenant Selection Criteria
Anti-Speculation
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686)
Why is the Housing Element important?
21 • Cities that miss the Housing Element deadline:
• Pay fines
• Risk litigation
• Lose eligibility for (or priority for) State grants, like • Local Planning and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (SB 2) grants
• HCD-administered Housing Trust Funds
• Sustainable Communities and Affordable Housing (AHSC) grants
• Cities that don’t meet RHNA lose local control for certain types of affordable housing projects
Questions?
Breakout Room
Discussion
Breakout Process
31 • Zoom Host will randomly
distribute participants
• Facilitator will manage
time & participation
• Participants can share
comments verbally
and/or in the Zoom Chat
• Notetaker will take notes
on screen
• Recorded for backup
•
70 minutes
Breakout Questions
32 1. What is working well with housing in Berkeley? What are Berkeley’s housing strengths (eg, programs, types
of housing, location of housing, etc.)?

2. What are the issues or challenges with housing in
Berkeley?

3. What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located?
Ground Rules
33 • Video on (not mandatory)
• Conversational courtesy
 One speaker at a time
 Be mindful of the time and your use of it
 Listen
• Differences of opinion -> Ok
• No personal attacks
• Please mute yourself unless speaking
 Facilitator will invite people to unmute themselves

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
Once Audio is Connected – Please Mute
Please remain muted until it is your turn to speak.

To un-mute, press the same button. On a phone, press *6.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
4

Raise your “Hand” to Speak
• Please use the “Raise Hand” feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. • Please remain muted until called on.
• You can also use the CHAT function to ask questions and share input during the meeting and small group exercise.

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
Help with Technical Issues
36 Zoom Host
Email: [email protected]
Next Steps
Coming up…
38 Thursday, October 28 through Sunday, November 14
www.surveymonkey.com/r/berkeleyhousing
• CCoouunncciill WWoorrkkiinngg SSeessssiioonn ##22: December 9, 6 PM • WWoorrkksshhoopp ##22: Early Winter 2022
Stay Involved!
39 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement

SUMMARY OF INPUT
Housing Strengths
Participants were asked to identify Berkeley’s
housing strengths. The responses are summarized
below:
• High quality of life: As a city, Berkeley has many
assets that make it an attractive place to live,
including unique neighborhoods, easy access to
Downtown, good walkability, availability of high
frequency public transportation, and access to
nature and parks.
• Access to BART and high-quality transit: The
three Berkeley BART stations provide public
transportation options for residents; the station
area zoning standards are a strength for future
housing opportunities. Other transit options,
such as bus, bike share, and car share, were
noted as strengths when used as a last-mile
solution with BART and independently.
• Diverse of housing stock: The City has a
diverse housing stock in various neighborhoods
with different architectural styles and unit sizes
(i.e., single-family, duplex, triplex, mixed-use,
apartments, etc.).
• Large and increasing number of ADUs: The
prevalence of ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units)
offers more housing options for residents; ADUs
have become easier to build in recent years
which is increasing the housing stock.
• New affordable housing units: The recently
built affordable housing such as the Berkeley
Way Apartments (on Berkeley Way between
Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street) and the
Jordan Court project (on the corner of Oxford
and Cedar Streets) provide housing for low-
income families and seniors.
• New market-rate housing: Newly constructed
market-rate housing offers additional housing
options and contributes to overall supply;
market-rate housing Downtown near transit
presents an opportunity for longtime residents
to stay in Berkeley as their housing needs
change.
• Improved permitting process: The reduction
of regulatory barriers contributes to a more
efficient and less expensive process of building
new housing; Berkeley’s process has become
more efficient and is comparable to what is
found in other municipalities in the region.
• Elimination of parking requirements:

No minimum parking requirement in new
residential
• construction allows for the construction of more
housing units due to lower costs.
• Diversity of policies and programs that
support housing production: Many existing
policies and programs are assets to the Berkeley
community, including inclusionary housing, rent
stabilization measures, participatory planning
processes, housing trust fund, tenant protections,
and housing maintenance programs.
5 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing Weaknesses
Participants were asked to identify Berkeley’s housing
weaknesses. The responses are summarized below:
• High cost of housing: Housing in Berkeley is
expensive for both renters and owners. Rents
are high compared to the region and housing
prices make homeownership out of reach for
many people.
• Gentrification: Gentrification has occurred
throughout Berkeley over the years and
continues to occur due to high housing costs and
demand and increasing student population. This
leads to displaced residents, increased lack of
economic diversity, and negative impacts on the
fabric of the community.
• Lack of affordable housing: There is currently
not enough low- and moderate-income housing
in the City to serve the range of income levels
represented in Berkeley.
• Lack of infrastructure to support
densification in the Hills: There is a lack of
infrastructure to support the densification of
underutilized parcels in the Hills. This leads to
an unequal distribution of new housing in other
parts of the City.
• Organized opposition to housing: Individuals
and groups protest housing projects, thereby
slowing down and hindering the process.
“NIMBYSM” has impacted the number of new
housing units that are built.
• Lack of transit-oriented housing: There is not
enough housing near existing BART stations or
along high-quality bus transit corridors. These
areas are opportunities for increased densities.
• Environmental barriers to new housing:

There are concerns that new housing will
impact the natural environment including the
heat island effect, stormwater runoff, increased
greenhouses gas emissions, and lack of
biodiversity. Environmental concerns should be
considered with the location and design of new
housing.
• Slow permitting process: Long and inefficient
permitting processes due in part to organized
opposition, are a significant barrier to new
development. This reduces the potential for new
housing and increases housing costs.
• Policy concerns: Concerns related to housing
policies, including Tenants Opportunity to
Purchase Act (TOPA) not being adopted;
a concern that the inclusionary housing
requirement will increase the cost of housing;
and a concern that the impact fees for affordable
housing are too low.
• Lack of support for homebuyers: Individual
homebuyers lack support and face a difficult
process.
• Lack of support for small property owners.

Small landlords who own few properties do
not receive support from the City. There are
multiple barriers and regulations that increase
the burden on property owners with only a few
units.
• Student housing not counted towards RHNA:

A large student population exists; however,
the State HCD does not count student housing
towards meeting RHNA.
• Unattractive design of new housing: Multi-
family and higher density structures lack
aesthetically pleasing design; there is a need for
objective design standards.
• Negative perception of density: There is a
perception that density comes in limited forms
(i.e., towers) and cannot be consistent with the
character of lower density neighborhoods.
• Need to increase housing stock: Overall
housing supply needs to grow without sacrificing
quality.
• Current and past inequalities: The community
is still addressing the legacy of segregation and
other issues that stem from historical injustices
such as redlining.
• Homelessness: There are insufficient solutions
for the homelessness crisis.

New Housing Types and Locations
Participants were asked to identify the types of new
housing that should be created in Berkeley and where
it should be located. The following is a summary of
general comments and location-specific comments.

The map summarizes locations grouped by site type.
6 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

General Comments
• New housing developments should be made
available for those at all income levels.
• There is an opportunity to build workforce
housing for educators and City staff.
• Build mixed-use housing above existing uses
along corridors, including College Ave., Shattuck
Ave., University Ave., Telegraph Ave., MLK Way,
Ashby Ave, and San Pablo Ave.
• Add more density along bike corridors, such as
California St. and Virginia St.
• All residential areas have some potential to
accept more housing.
• Allow more sites for small houses and RV sites
throughout the City.
• Create new housing in appropriate locations
based on the current neighborhood context.
• There is limited public transportation in the
Hills.
• Build innovative pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transportation options.
• Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/ bus, etc.
• Based on current density, need to question
assumptions in RHNA allocation and address
impacts to traffic and pedestrian safety.
• Implement tenant protection policies; pass
TOPA.
• Allow “cottage cluster” housing type.
• Build more housing in historically green-lined
areas, areas with restrictive covenants.
• Preserve community in connection with the
expansion of housing (i.e., black community).
• Think about the impact of development on
traditionally marginalized communities/
neighborhoods which experienced
disinvestment.

Location-Specific Comments
• North Berkeley BART – Add greater density; add
more multi-family housing.
• Ashby BART
• Ashby Ave. and College Ave. – Develop the City-
owned parking lot
• Sixth St. and Gilman St. – Convert the two
vacant cottages near Berkeley Unified School
District (BUSD) parking lot to a tent camp for
the homeless using the existing bathrooms; The
bus parking lot should be moved to an alternate
location.
• Harrison St. and San Pablo Ave. – Convert
to parking for RVs owned by low-income
households. Has been vacant for about four
years;
• San Pablo Ave. and Francisco St. - Create low-
income and homeless housing on abandoned car
repair/service station, which is underutilized.
• 1822 San Pablo Ave. (Albatross Pub) – Build
housing at this location, which closed during the
pandemic.
• Shattuck Ave. and Haste St.
• Southside – Build more housing for students.
• Downtown – Create higher density housing
especially for students; build on the lot at 2226
Fulton St.
• Area around Ohlone Park – Build more multi-
family housing; 5-7 stories with accessibility
from Ohlone.
• S. Shattuck Ave. – Build multi-family housing;
5-7 stories with accessibility to Ashby BART.
• N. Shattuck Ave. – Create new multi-family
housing; 5-7 stories.
• Solano Ave. – Develop new housing.
• Grizzly Peak Blvd. – Build multi-family and
mixed-income housing.
• University Ave. - Convert one-story commercial
uses to mixed-use; develop/redevelop for
affordable housing with added density.
• San Pablo Ave. – Add more development.
• Grizzly Peak Blvd. - Repurpose existing
structures in this area of the City.
• Euclid Ave. between Regal Rd. and Hearst Ave. –
Add new multi-family.
• 1798 Scenic Ave (Pacific School of Religion) -
Build senior housing.
• UC Berkeley campus - Build more housing on
campus park.
7 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing Element 2023-2031 Summary of Input 9
Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 1

Summary of Input on Housing Types and Locations
Figure 2.1 Summary of Input on Housing Types and Locations Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 1

Summary of Input on Housing Types and Locations
Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 1

Summary of Input on Housing Types and Locations
Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 1

Summary of Input on Housing Types and Locations
Figure F-2 Map showing summary of input on housing types and locations 8 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

BREAKOUT ROOM COMMENTS
Below are the unedited comments as recorded during the small group discussions. They have not been modified or reformatted.

Question 1: What is working well with housing in
Berkeley? What are Berkeley’s housing strengths (e.g.,
programs, types of housing, location of housing, etc.)? Group 1:
• City has a great housing stock from small square
footage to rather large square footage homes
• City has done well creating new housing - market
rate in particular
• Some low-income affordable housing has been
built in last few years, more needs to be built
• New market rate housing in downtown near
transit is providing opportunities for people
who have lived here for generations to stay as
housing needs change
• City Council is considering TOPA, if passed will
be good for housing in Berkeley
• Permitting process is pretty good comparatively
in region
• Could be useful to think of housing in terms of
bedrooms rather than units (larger homes with
multiple bedrooms)
Group 2:
• Berkeley’s bones are diff from suburban
communities, former streetcar suburb,
ecologically friendly and walkable places.
• Participatory planning as a tool
• Public transportation, easy to get around
different parts of Berkeley, allows for not owning
a car
• Commercial and residential areas not as far
apart
• High density housing
• Variety of housing, (single family residential,
ADU’s, apartment bldgs, high/low rise
• Access to outdoors
• 3 Bart stations and others that are close/
walkable
• Rent board (RSB) resource for tenants and
landlords, still rents are high
• Inclusionary housing
• Staff and leadership, want more housing built,
more balanced housing, and concerned with
justice
• Alene, housing programs to facilitate,
housing trust fund, inclusionary housing
ordinance, programs that help w/
maintenance, (such as senior weatherize,
preservation, special needs, homeless
prevention
• UC, ABAG, MTC
• Funding, programs: Adeline corridor, San
Pablo Ave, electrification
• Reduction of barriers, edu re permitting
process
• Streamlining, efficiency & costs
• New construction not req’d to have parking,
instead to provide bike/transit passes
• Alene -> parking reform program, since
parking increases cost of housing, TDM
Transportation Demand Mgmt, bike
parking
• Berkeleyside, a way to know whats going on
• Q: pandemic shifts
Group 3:
• Additional densification
• Different housing types are great w/ different
levels of density
• Diversity of aesthetics, historical architecture
• Low cost aesthetics
• Parks
• Walkable
• Great transportation (AC transit!)
• Overhead times/ intervals could be
improved
• Expanded routes to various areas
9 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Group 4:
• Inclusionary
• Housing trust fund
• Berkeley Way
• Mixed use projects in downtown and
southside
• SB35
• Voters support funding affordable housing
• Renter protections
• BART and housing
• ADUs- lots, all over
• Getting rid of parking minimums, reduces
costs of development and thus rents
• Central Berkeley- duplex, triplex, small
apartments work well in existing residential
districts
• Housing of various kinds (duplex, Single-
Family, gardens, triplex)
• Can bike to downtown
Group 5:
• Recent SB 35 implementation.
• Oxford Street affordable housing
• BART station zoning standards
• Tenant protections
• Emphasis on dense, infill housing
• Existing housing stock is dynamic. Different
sizes and densities
• Berkeley is in a context of larger Bay Area
housing economy; Berkeley does not control all
aspects of the housing situation
• [Can Berkeley support additional inhabitants?]
• Market rate housing was produced; low and
moderate income range
• ADUs have become easier to produce. Can we do
even more? JADUs could also help.
• Diverse neighborhoods that are appealing.

Older neighborhoods; college/student areas;
commerce
• I’m a big fan of housing on transit corridors and
how it’s feasible to live without a car in Berkeley
Question 2 - What are the issues or challenges with
housing in Berkeley?
Group 1:
• More housing within easy walking distance of
BART stations, less than a mile or half mile. A
little over a mile is just far enough that I’m more
likely to take my car.
• Better utilize underutilized grand square footage
in the hills
• Distribute housing more equitably in the city
• New housing creates environmental issues -
traffic, water, etc.
• Permit departments are impossible - too long to
get through permit process
• Not enough low-income housing
• Gentrification
• No infrastructure to support densification in the
hills - water, earthquakes, fire
• Restoration of key system would help -
funiculars, etc densify hills
• Only rich people live here because of market
rate development being built, lose economic
diversity
• TOPA - not passed/implemented
• Housing near transit is too expensive -signal that
demand > supply for that type of housing
• Existing housing will be renovated and price will
increase if more market rate housing is not built,
part of affordability issue
• Lacking low/moderate housing stock
• Large single-family residences in the hills could
be split into duplexes (reasons why: smaller
families today than previously, more older
people who are staying in homes/empty nesters)
• In the hills, narrow streets without sidewalks,
poor road maintenance would be constraints to
densifying
• Objections by neighbors of projects that comply
with guidelines slow projects down
Group 2:
• Home buying process (article berkeley is most
difficult in US to buy)
• Cost, required help from family
10 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• Cost of housing
• Berkeley doesn’t support buyers, support for
sellers and existing owners/resident
• Taxes (Prop 13) structure is unfair, dis-
incentives ppl from moving in or older folks
from moving.
• Education needed of programs to allow people
to downsize and take (at least a portion ) of their
tax benefit w/ them
• Within defined areas or throughout state?
• Housing affordable to working families /
individuals
• Theme of homeownership, affordable housing
discussion tends to focus on rental
• Wealth gap, and able to pass down that wealth
(help w/ downpayment)
• Decreasing diversity, people getting priced out,
will they be ever be able to come back
• Recommended book: Whiteness of wealth, By
Dorthy A. Brown, (passing down wealth and
housing)
• Climate goals, greenhouses gases from
transportation, importance of urban areas in
supporting bio diversity has not been considered.

Need to live with nature
• Hardscape and lack of permeable surfaces, run
off
• Less nature, heat island effect
• Time it takes to development to be approved,
process (shadow considerations,
• People that affordable housing is for don’t get to
be part of the process/vote
• People are not able to participate in our process
• Pace needs to increase rapidly, projects take too
long to be approved, and then cost increases
• North Berkeley BART, currently has single
family housing surrounding it. We haven’t taken
full advantage of infrastructure
• Should be permitted to be build housing near
• Segregation, history redlining, zoning has been
used as tool of segregation historically
• Pace of project review, (may not be biggest
hurdle), barrier to affordable housing in berkeley
is due to lack of financing
• Concern that inclusionary req will increase cost
of housing
• Transportation: congestion, safety for cyclists,
additional housing req’s city to be more bike/
walk/transit friendly including protected bike
lanes. Need to provide open space for residents
of add’l units.
• Difficult for those not originally in area to find
housing, more resources needed to help folks
find housing and link people to housing.
• Re: Biodiversity, regenerative cities,
• People are living in their cars
• Difficulties of purchasing a home, cost of renting,
for 2 bedroom, value
• Ministerial approval, concern about process that
doesn’t allow input
• Long term homeowners concern about shadows,
something being taken away
• Sale of homes, concern about larger
developments
• Cost of rental housing
• Lots of vacancies, why not a vacancy tax, housing
is available but not affordable
• Who will own Berkeley, what will
homeownership vs corporate ownership look
like
• Fractional ownership, condo conversion law, to
convert TIC/duplex to condo was difficult, how
to streamline that process/fees
• Alene -> condo conversion ordinance,
community land trusts, purchasing of ADU’s
• Community land trusts, what would make it more
possible to support non-profit development,
to make lower income housing sustainable for
homeowners. Has been successful in other parts
of the country. Is it a financial issue? To allow ppl
to benefit from equity they have/get in housing
and use it
• Bldg regulations, connection between those
and Zoning. “ Zoning can’t rent old home that
doesn’t meet code” but bldg will say we don’t
have leeway, to look at property and criteria
(if not letter of the law) and should be rentable
(amnesty programs for non-compliant Zoning if
CBC )
11 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

• Re: redlining. Economic diversity, programs to
support ppl to rent
• Renting
Group 3:
• Parking (downtown)- nowhere to park for those
who work in the CIty
• Affordability issues for renters and owners x2
• Need to increase housing production
• Inclusionary zoning
• Housing bond
• Down for all the strategies!
• NIMBYISM → folks against density; sometimes
property owners
• Change the perception of what density looks like
• More attractive/aesthetically pleasing
multifamily structures/buildings
• What do we want to preserve/ continue?
• Eclectic styles
• Characteristics of different neighborhoods
→ maintain while growing
• Intentional investment in the built
environment → enhance quality of the
public experience
• There’s not a tradeoff between quality
of built environment and denser
environments x 3
• Aim for high quality and quantity!
• We need to consider the life cycle of
development (city/ society/ infrastructure)
→ the contex
Group 4:
• Lots of new apartments on San Pablo, other
places, are market rate (will be counted in RHNA
numbers? Not counted if student housing-
developed and owned by UC)
• segregation (income, race)
• City doesn’t have enough low-income and
moderate-income units (developers are
developing higher priced units, not subject to
rent control). Developers can offer free rent
for a few months (they need 80% occupancy to
secure their loans). [The City doesn’t build the
required units]
• Not enough support for small property owners
(people who own a few units)
• Mitigation fee is too low, so City can’t build/fund
the needed units. Market rate units develop a
need for affordable units. Fee should be closer
to $84,000, not $37,000. Consultant report in
April- Streetlevel Advisors
• Hard to meet BMR goals. Plan for more BMR
housing, maybe it will be more likely to be built?
• Equity- don’t put too much in one category in
one area. Don’t just put new housing in “the
flats.” Urban Footprint
• Lots of seniors -- if you remove students from
the data. Seniors want parking, the ability to
have pets, affordable units.
• Parking is an issue. Downtown in particular
(more so for seniors)
• Seniors as landlords. (fixed income, hard to buy
out tenant)
• Don’t discriminate against people of different
ages eg, 80 yos vs 60 yos
• Make sure same rules apply to homeowners as
to landlords.
• Didn’t meet previous goals for low and moderate
income goals. Not enough places for people to
live. Unhoused people.
• Restrictions can drive up costs (shadows,
parking)
• Ideas- shared living model. Poets Corner. Like
a GLA. Co-op. Affordability requirements don’t
apply
• Idea- Oakland, foster children, shared bathroom
and kitchen (Youth Spirit Artworks)
• Youth Spirit Artworks is the org that did
that Oakland example of housing for young
adults leaving the foster system
Group 5:
• Homelessness
• UC-constructed student housing that the City is
not getting credit for; City needs to get credit for
it, especially if we lose local control based on our
not meeting our RHNA target
• Tenant protections weakened by state law
(Costa Hawkins); voters have not supported
efforts to reverse
12 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• More affordable housing should be welcome;
RHNA numbers are not a ceiling.
• Very expensive to build, generally; not just in
Berkeley.
• Organized opposition to housing development
• Entitlement process in Berkeley is long,
cumbersome, expensive and easy to obstruct
• People being priced-out/displacement; negative
impact on community fabric
• Parking requirements can reduce the number of
units built
• People living in vehicles
• Mismatch between housing that is constructed
and the ability of students and other Berkeley
residents to afford them
• A popular perception that density is bad
• Perception that density comes in only one, or a
few, forms (towers, for example). Density can
be added consistent with predominant physical
neighborhood context.
• A growing population; rules needs to change to
address that
• How to make these changes without seeming
heavy handed and negatively affecting the
character of the city
• Large student population but no method to get
credit for housing provided for them.
• Parking and traffic; where are vehicles going to
park at North Berkeley BART station?
• Lack of objective design and zoning standards
(setbacks, solar access)
• Many recent projects have been poorly designed;
making it hard for people to feel good about
density
• Berkeley doesnt control transit service. Except
for BART, anything else can be changed since
routes aren’t fixed. Makes TOD difficult.

Question 3 – What types of new housing should there
be in Berkeley, and where should different types be
located?
Group 1:

General Notes
• Multi-fam and mixed-income housing in hills on
Grizzly Peak along route 65
• Use to have streetcars - Grizzly Peak and The
Alameda - and walk down the stairs to the flats
and ferry to SF
• Current density: 11K+ ppl per sq.mi. second to
SF. Most dense city in east bay - need to question
assumptions in RHNA allocation and address
impacts to traffic, pedestrian safety
• More sites for small houses and RV sites carefully
and thoughtfully designed throughout the city
Comments
• Repurpose existing structures in this area of the
city
• Add a tram on Marin Ave for access to housing
• Corner of Sixth and Gilman and above them - 2
cottages vacant near BUSD lot - could be homeless
tent encampment (existing bathrooms)
• Abandoned car repair/service stations
underutilized - these places have infrastructure
for low-income and homeless housing
• Harrison and San Pablo - vacant for maybe 4 yrs
(parking for about 10 recreational vehicles for
low-income)
• S. Shattuck with accessibility to Ashby BART
multi-fam 5-7 stories
• Sacramento from Hopkins to University
• More multi-fam 5-7 stories housing with
accessibility from Ohlone
• New housing here
• N. Shattuck - new housing multi-famy 5-7 stories
• Euclid between Regal and Hearst wide enough -
new multi-fam could go here
• Multi-fam on bus route on Grizzly Peak, road
wide enough in emergency, bus route downtown
Group 2:

Stickies
• more affordable senior housing: service-rich.
• University- convert 1 story commercial to
mixed-use
• Unhoused: tiny homes- add to ADU ord. (under
13 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

200 sq. ft.)
• Main streets- stores with apartments above
(College, Shattuck, University, Telegraph, MLK,
Ashby, SPA), (x3)
• Hills- limited public transportation
• Both BART stations (x4)
Comments
• Shattuck and Haste (vacant lot?)
• 1822 San Pablo- Albatross Pub
• Pacific School of Religion- senior housing
• More housing around southside
• City-owned lot, might be Ashby and College
• More housing in historically green-lined areas,
areas with restrictive covenants. Redevelop a
gas station, add Missing Middle. Density that
makes sense in the area.
• North Berkeley BART
Group 3:

General Notes
• near the bart stations
• close to campus
• north side
Group 4:

General Notes
• More housing around major transit corridors
• Real opportunity to make parallel corridors like
6th street more bike friendly
• Let’s think of pedestrian/ transit friendly
examples locally and abroad
• Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/ bus, etc.
• New housing development should be made at
different levels of affordability
• More density around Ohlone Greenway
• Difficult to meet moderate income housing or
“middle housing”
• Build housing for all income level housing even
those at 120 AMI
• Opportunity: Funding for housing for educators
and qualified staff at the Berkeley adult school.

Workforce housing!
• Challenge: built out nature of the City limits the
ability to place additional affordable housing
• Descriptions of different neighborhoods and
their characteristics --> should we preserve?
how doe we feel about this in the context of new
dev
• Preserve community in connection with
expansion of housing (i.e. black community)
• Think about the impact of development on
traditionally marginalized communities/
neighborhoods which experienced
disinvestment
• Need more funding -- Fed gov can help with
constructing for affordable housing
• Protection of tenants/ low income homeowners;
production of housing --> we need to be creative
/ pass TOPA
• Invest in community land trust to protect
tenants/ as a protection against gentrification
• Land value recapture --- for historically
marginalized communities HOw are they doing
public housing right in berkeley ?
• Having more density along not just the Ohlone
greenway, but also other bike corridors like
California and Virgina. And of course much
greater density around the North Berkeley Bart
station. More multifamily housing
Comments
• Greater density at the North Berkeley BART -
more multifam housing
• More development along SP corridor x 3
• Lots of new apartments along San Pablo, but not
sure if they are being filled -- are they affordable?
• Areas around university can be developed/
redeveloped for affordable housing/ added
density
Group 5:

General Notes
• UC should permit housing in the Campus Park
• Dense housing should be concentrated on major
arteries (Sac, Univ, Shattuck, ie).
• Density should step down from corridors to
more closely match existing neighborhood
pattern Inventory all city land; what can the City
14 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

20 City of Berkeley | Housing Element 2023-2031 Workshop #1 Summary | December 2021 Community Workshop #1 Summary

6 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT
Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located?
Group 1:

General Notes:
• Multi-fam and mixed-income housing in hills on Grizzly Peak along route 65 • Use to have streetcars - Grizzly Peak and The Alameda - and walk down the stairs to the flats and ferry to SF
• Current density: 11K+ ppl per sq.mi. second to SF. Most dense city in east bay - need to question assumptions in RHNA allocation and address impacts to traffic, pedestrian safety • More sites for small houses and RV sites carefully and thoughtfully designed throughout the city Comments:
• Repurpose existing structures in this area of the city • Add a tram on Marin Ave for access to housing
• Corner of Sixth and Gilman and above them - 2 cottages vacant near BUSD lot - could be homeless tent encampment (existing bathrooms)
• Abandoned car repair/service stations underutilized - these places have infrastructure for low-income and homeless housing
• Harrison and San Pablo - vacant for maybe 4 yrs (parking for about 10 recreational vehicles for low- income)
• S. Shattuck with accessibility to Ashby BART multi-fam 5-7 stories • Sacramento from Hopkins to University
Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located?
Group 1:

General Notes:
• Multi-fam and mixed-income hous-
ing in hills on Grizzly Peak along
route 65
• Use to have streetcars - Grizzly Peak
and The Alameda - and walk down
the stairs to the flats and ferry to SF
• Current density: 11K+ ppl per
sq.mi. second to SF. Most dense city
in east bay - need to question as-
sumptions in RHNA allocation and
address impacts to traffic, pedestri-
an safety
• More sites for small houses and
RV sites carefully and thoughtfully
designed throughout the city
Comments:
• Repurpose existing structures in
this area of the city
• Add a tram on Marin Ave for access
to housing
• Corner of Sixth and Gilman and
above them - 2 cottages vacant near
BUSD lot - could be homeless tent
encampment (existing bathrooms)
• Abandoned car repair/service
stations underutilized - these places
have infrastructure for low-income
and homeless housing
• Harrison and San Pablo - vacant
for maybe 4 yrs (parking for about
10 recreational vehicles for low-in-
come)
• S. Shattuck with accessibility to
Ashby BART multi-fam 5-7 stories
• Sacramento from Hopkins to Uni-
versity
• More multi-fam 5-7 stories housing
with accessibility from Ohlone
• New housing here
• N. Shattuck - new housing multi-fa-
my 5-7 stories
• Euclid between Regal and Hearst
wide enough - new multi-fam could
go here
• Multi-fam on bus route on Grizzly
Peak, road wide enough in emer-
gency, bus route downtown
Figure A.1 Group 1 Housing Location & Types Map
do?
• Mix of uses -- not just 100% residential--
commerce, recreation included
• All residential areas have some potential to
accept more housing
• Single family homes are not affordable for all
Berkeley residents
• “Cottage cluster” as a housing type (see Sonoma
County ord). 2700 sf total to build--how that’s
built (1-2-3 homes) is up to the owner
• increasing density in southside
• We should upzone Durant, college, and telegraph
ave
• Opportunity sites for new housing: 1. 2226 Fulton
Street, west of UC Berkeley campus, cleared by
demolition. 2. Site cleared by the demolition of
Tolman Hall, north edge of UC Berkeley campus.

3. Site occupied by temporary 1-story buildings,
south of Barrows Hall, south edge of UC Berkeley
campus. On-campus housing!
Comments
• UC should permit housing in the Campus Park
• Bus parking lot on 6th and Gilman. Move buses
to a more appropriate spot
• Housing here. Housing should be on the campus
park
• Higher density in downtown for students
• Higher density for students in Southside
Figure F-3 Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 Housing Location
& Types Map
Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix 21
Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 7
• More multi-fam 5-7 stories housing with accessibility from Ohlone • New housing here
• N. Shattuck - new housing multi-famy 5-7 stories
• Euclid between Regal and Hearst wide enough - new multi-fam could go here • Multi-fam on bus route on Grizzly Peak, road wide enough in emergency, bus route downtown Group 2:

Stickies:
• more affordable senior housing: service-rich.
• University- convert 1 story commercial to mixed-use
• Unhoused: tiny homes- add to ADU ord. (under 200 sq. ft.) • Main streets- stores with apartments above (College, Shattuck, University, Telegraph, MLK, Ashby, SPA), (x3)
• Hills- limited public transportation
• Both BART stations (x4)
Comments:
• Shattuck and Haste (vacant lot?)
• 1822 San Pablo- Albatross Pub
• Pacific School of Religion- senior housing
• More housing around southside
• City-owned lot, might be Ashby and College
Group 2:

Stickies:
• more affordable senior housing:
service-rich.
• University- convert 1 story com-
mercial to mixed-use
• Unhoused: tiny homes- add to ADU
ord. (under 200 sq. ft.)
• Main streets- stores with apart-
ments above (College, Shattuck,
University, Telegraph, MLK, Ashby,
SPA), (x3)
• Hills- limited public transportation
• Both BART stations (x4)
Comments:
• Shattuck and Haste (vacant lot?)
• 1822 San Pablo- Albatross Pub
• Pacific School of Religion- senior
housing
• More housing around southside
• City-owned lot, might be Ashby and
College
• More housing in historically green-
lined areas, areas with restrictive
covenants. Redevelop a gas station,
add Missing Middle. Density that
makes sense in the area.
• North Berkeley BART-
Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located? (cont’d)
Figure A.2 Group 2 Housing Location & Types Map
Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix 23
Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located? (cont’d)
Group 4:

General Notes:
• More housing around major transit
corridors
• Real opportunity to make parallel
corridors like 6th street more bike
friendly
• Let’s think of pedestrian/ tran-
sit friendly examples locally and
abroad
• Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/
bus, etc.
• New housing development should
be made at different levels of afford-
ability
• More density around Ohlone Gre-
enway
• Difficult to meet moderate income
housing or “middle housing”
• Build housing for all income level
housing even those at 120 AMI
• Opportunity: Funding for housing
for educators and qualified staff at
the Berkeley adult school. Work-
force housing!
• Challenge: built out nature of the
City limits the ability to place addi-
tional affordable housing
• Descriptions of different neighbor-
hoods and their characteristics -->
should we preserve? how doe we
feel about this in the context of new
dev
• Preserve community in connection
with expansion of housing (i.e.
black community)
• Think about the impact of develop-
ment on traditionally marginalized
communities/ neighborhoods
which experienced disinvestment
• Need more funding -- Fed gov can
help with constructing for afford-
able housing
• Protection of tenants/ low income
homeowners; production of hous-
ing --> we need to be creative /
pass TOPA
• Invest in community land trust to
protect tenants/ as a protection
against gentrification
• Land value recapture --- for histor-
ically marginalized communities
HOw are they doing public housing
right in berkeley ?
• Having more density along not just
the Ohlone greenway, but also other
bike corridors like California and
Virgina. And of course much greater
density around the North Berke-
ley Bart station. More multifamily
housing
Comments:
• Greater density at the North Berke-
ley BART - more multifam housing
• More development along SP corri-
dor x 3
• Lots of new apartments along San
Pablo, but not sure if they are being
filled -- are they affordable?
• Areas around university can be de-
veloped/ redeveloped for affordable
housing/ added density
Community Workshop #1 Summary

BERKELEY HOSUING ELEMENT | 9
Group 4:

General Notes:
• More housing around major transit corridors
• Real opportunity to make parallel corridors like 6th street more bike friendly • Let's think of pedestrian/ transit friendly examples locally and abroad • Reinvest in ferry/ rail/ light rail/ bus, etc.
• New housing development should be made at different levels of affordability • More density around Ohlone Greenway
• Difficult to meet moderate income housing or "middle housing" • Build housing for all income level housing even those at 120 AMI • Opportunity: Funding for housing for educators and qualified staff at the Berkeley adult school.

Workforce housing!
• Challenge: built out nature of the City limits the ability to place additional affordable housing • Descriptions of different neighborhoods and their characteristics --> should we preserve? how doe we feel about this in the context of new dev
• Preserve community in connection with expansion of housing (i.e. black community) • Think about the impact of development on traditionally marginalized communities/ neighborhoods which experienced disinvestment
• Need more funding -- Fed gov can help with constructing for affordable housing • Protection of tenants/ low income homeowners; production of housing --> we need to be creative / pass TOPA
• Invest in community land trust to protect tenants/ as a protection against gentrification Figure A.4 Group 4 Housing Location & Types Map
24 City of Berkeley | Housing Element 2023-2031 Workshop #1 Summary | December 2021 Community Workshop #1 Summary

10 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT
• Land value recapture --- for historically marginalized communities HOw are they doing public housing right in berkeley ?
• Having more density along not just the Ohlone greenway, but also other bike corridors like California and Virgina. And of course much greater density around the North Berkeley Bart station. More multifamily housing
Comments:
• Greater density at the North Berkeley BART - more multifam housing • More development along SP corridor x 3
• Lots of new apartments along San Pablo, but not sure if they are being filled -- are they affordable? • Areas around university can be developed/ redeveloped for affordable housing/ added density

Group 5:

General Notes:
• UC should permit housing in the Campus Park
• Dense housing should be concentrated on major arteries (Sac, Univ, Shattuck, ie). • Density should step down from corridors to more closely match existing neighborhood pattern Inventory all city land; what can the City do?
• Mix of uses -- not just 100% residential--commerce, recreation included • All residential areas have some potential to accept more housing • Single family homes are not affordable for all Berkeley residents Group 5:

General Notes:
• UC should permit housing in the
Campus Park
• Dense housing should be concen-
trated on major arteries (Sac, Univ,
Shattuck, ie).
• Density should step down from
corridors to more closely match
existing neighborhood pattern
Inventory all city land; what can the
City do?
• Mix of uses -- not just 100% res-
idential--commerce, recreation
included
• All residential areas have some po-
tential to accept more housing
• Single family homes are not afford-
able for all Berkeley residents
• “Cottage cluster” as a housing type
(see Sonoma County ord). 2700 sf
total to build--how that’s built (1-2-
3 homes) is up to the owner
• increasing density in southside
• We should upzone Durant, college,
and telegraph ave
• Opportunity sites for new hous-
ing: 1. 2226 Fulton Street, west of
UC Berkeley campus, cleared by
demolition. 2. Site cleared by the
demolition of Tolman Hall, north
edge of UC Berkeley campus. 3.

Site occupied by temporary 1-story
buildings, south of Barrows Hall,
south edge of UC Berkeley campus.

On-campus housing!
Question 3 – What types of new housing should there be in Berkeley, and where should different types be located? (cont’d)
Comments:
• UC should permit housing in the
Campus Park
• Bus parking lot on 6th and Gilman.

Move buses to a more appropriate
spot
• Housing here. Housing should be on
the campus park
• Higher density in downtown for
students
• Higher density for students in
Southside
Figure A.5 Group 5 Housing Location & Types Map
1 2
4 5
15 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Figure F-4 Community Workshop #1 Participation Polling Results 16 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

17 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

18 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

19 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

F1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - JANUARY 27, 2022

OVERVIEW
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 from 6:00-8:00 pm,
the City of Berkeley hosted its second community
workshop for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Update. The primary objectives of the meeting were
to:
• Update participants on:
• Insights from Housing Element community
engagement
• City of Berkeley housing programs
• Sites inventory methodology and status
• Residential objective standards project
• Get input from participants to inform:
• Where the City should change zoning or
zoning standards to facilitate housing
production
• How the City refines residential
development standards.

The workshop was held virtually on Zoom. An
invitation and registration link for the public workshop was sent to over 340 subscribers of the Housing
Element email list and attended by approximately 60
participants, comparable to the first public workshop
in September 2021.

Staff presented an overview of the housing element
process and described Berkeley housing programs,
the housing site inventory approach, the residential
objective standards project, and previous community
input. Spanish interpretation was provided. The
slides and video recordings were made available on
the project website.

Following the presentation, participants completed
an optional demographic poll to develop a profile
of workshop attendees and to inform engagement
efforts.

In the second part of the workshop, participants were
randomly placed into one of five Zoom breakout
groups. Each group had a facilitator and a note-
taker tasked with leading and recording a two-part
discussion.

The discussion questions were:

Part A: Zoning & Criteria
• Where should the City facilitate housing
production through changes in zoning,
particularly height and density?
• What are the most important criteria for
selecting areas to rezone?
Part B: Residential Types and Locations
• What building features are most appropriate in
each neighborhood?
• Where would it be appropriate to see more multi-
family and mixed-use buildings in Berkeley?
20 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

SStteeaaddyy GGrroowwtthh
Forecast for 2020-2030
122,580 to 136,000 (11%)
Population & Housing Trends
NNeett JJoobbss IImmppoorrtteerr
61,290 employed residents
83,199 jobs in Berkeley
SSoouurrccee ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040
OOllddeerr && YYoouunnggeerr
55+: ↑ 19% to 23%
18-24: ↑ 22% to 27%
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019 vs Census 2010
SSoouurrccee AC 2015-2019
8833%% MMuullttii--FFaammiillyy 55++
13% ADU’s

1.6% 2-4 unit development
SSoouurrccee City of Berkeley 2020 revised APR
MMaajjoorriittyy RReenntteerrss

57.1% of housing
is renter-occupied
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
Census ACS = small sample size over 1 to 5 years
Census 2020 was an unusual pandemic year  IInnddiiccaattiioonn ooff ppoossssiibbllee ttrreennddss iinn BBeerrkkeelleeyy RReenntt BBuurrddeenneedd

53.5% spend more than 30%
of income on housing
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
Sampling of Housing Programs
HHoouussiinngg TTrruusstt FFuunndd
$26M+ AHMF since 2017
1,376+ units
64% below 50% AMI
HHoommeelleessss
$16.99M in services in FY22,
506 supportive units, 264
shelter +11 transitional beds
RReenntt SSttaabbiilliizzaattiioonn
~19,500 of 26,000 (75%)
rental units
have protections
OOnn--SSiittee BBMMRR
530 permanently
affordable units
78% below 80% AMI
RReennttaall AAssssiissttaannccee
BHA programs served
1,674 units in 2021
SSeenniioorr//DDiissaabblleedd
$1.56M to 249 units for
accessibility + 22 senior
units home repair loans.

HOUSING

PROGRAMS

1. Housing & Community Services

2. Resources for New Construction

3. HCS Programs

4. Berkeley Policies
21 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
6 th Cycle 2023-2031
Community Workshop #2:

Housing Types, Locations, & Programs
January 27, 2022
WWhhiillee wwee wwaaiitt ffoorr ootthheerrss ttoo jjooiinn pplleeaassee ttaakkee tthhee lliivvee ppoollll aatt::
www.menti.com/xvirv2s17a
or enter code 6553 2209 at menti.com
Welcome!

LOGISTICS
3 ZZOOOOMM –– LLAA IINNTTEERRPPRREETTAACCIIÓÓNN
La interpretación en simultáneo para esta reunión se dará en los siguientes idiomas:​
Español (Charles Idyk y Pablo Rivas Rodas) – bajo la opción Español​ Por favor haz clic en el icono INTERPRETATION en tu barra de herramientas para acceder al idioma deseado

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
Closed Caption is availableChat function available for
questions please direct to
"Questions: Alene Pearson"
Help with Technical Issues
6 Zoom Host
Email: [email protected]

OVERVIEW
7 Housing Element Team
8 9
• Provide a Housing Element
overview
• Provide an update on:
• City housing programs
• Housing site inventory
• Residential standards
• Public input
• Get input on:
• Potential zoning changes
• Residential standards
Meeting Objectives
Residential Objective Standards Website
13 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement
Housing Element Overview
14 • Required Element of the General Plan
• Must be updated on an 8-year cycle, certified by HCD
• Currently planning for the 6th cycle (2023-2031)
• Statutory deadline is January 31, 2023
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
15 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Spring 2022
Preparing Draft
Housing Element
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-2023
Local Adoption
May 2023
Environmental Review

STATE REVIEW/

CERTIFICATION
HCD Review
We Are Here
4 5
Adoption
Jan 2023
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
10 • Presentation
• Housing Elements
• Berkley housing programs
• Housing sites
• Residential standards
• What we've heard from
the community
• Small Group Discussion
Agenda
LIVE POLL!
11 https://www.menti.com/xvirv2s17a
enter code 6553 2209 at menti.com
Open a web browser
(on a phone or in another window)
Housing Element
Figure F-5 Community Workshop #2 Presentation
21 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing and Community Services (HCS)
22 Affordable
Housing
Below Market Rate
Housing (BMR)
Program
530 units
Housing Trust Fund
Program
1,376 units
Upcoming 750 Units in the
Pipeline
HCS – Resources for New Construction
23 Affordable Housing, Linkage, and In Lieu Fees
Average Annual = $4.5 million
State and Federal
Ballot Bond Measures
Measure O = $135 million
HOME, CDBG, HCD Programs
HCS Programs
Foreclosure,
Mortgage, and Rental
Assistance
• Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
• Emergency Rental
Assistance
Rehabilitation
Programs
• Senior and Disabled
Loan Program
• Public Facility Rehab
Program
• Residential Rehab
Program
Homeless Programs
• Emergency Shelter
(264 Units)
• Transitional Housing
(11 units)
• Shelter Plus Care
(300+)
24 City of Berkeley Policies
Tenant Protections
• Rent Stabilization
• Just Cause for Eviction
• Rent Review Board
• Relocation Assistance
• Landlord/Tenant Mediation
Affordable Housing
Production/Preservation
• Affordable Housing Mitigation
Fee (revision upcoming)
• Condo Conversion Regulations
• Commercial Linkage Fee
• Density Bonus
Equity
• Fair Chance to Housing
• TOPA (upcoming)
• Preference Policy (upcoming)
25 HOUSING
SITE

INVENTORY
26 6th Cycle RHNA
88,,994433
TToottaall
UUnniittss
2,446 Very
Low (>50%
AMI)
1,408 Low
(50%-80%
AMI)
1,416
Moderate
(80%-120%
AMI)

3.664 Above
Moderate
(<120% AMI)
27 Notes:
• The RHNA process is a “capacity” analysis; changes in programs and zoning are needed to produce housing! • HCD uses density (over 30 units per acre) as a proxy for lower-income (very low and low) units. • City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it • Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments • Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action • Reliant on the development industry (market rate & affordable) to construct housing units Sites Inventory
28 Publicly-owned or
leased sites
Vacant sites that could be
developed with
residential
Nonvacant sites that
could be developed with
housing units or more
housing units
Nonvacant sites that
could be rezoned for
residential or more
housing units
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
Photo: Jerome Paulos

SITE INVENTORY

METHODOLOGY
29 STEP 1. Identify Likely Sites
STEP 2. Calculate “Deficit”
(Remaining RHNA)
STEP 3. Identify Potential New Sites
STEP 5. Calculate Buildout
STEP 4. Evaluate and Analyze
30 1 – Identify Likely Sites
• Pipeline projects (entitled
between 2018 and present)
• Accessory Dwelling Unit Trends
(annual average of 2018-2020 x
8)
• BART properties
Add photos
2 – Calculate Remaining RHNA and Buffer
31 RHNA 8,934
Likely Sites
ADU Trend 796
BART Properties 1,200
Entitled projects (after 2018) 2,941
Subtotal 4,937
Remaining RHNA (RHNA – Likely Sites) 3,997
Buffer (15% of remaining RHNA for VL, L and M) 567
Remaining RHNA 4,564
CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN.. The City must identify ppootteennttiiaall nneeww ssiitteess to accommodate a significant amount of new housing through existing and/or new zoning. 3- Identify Potential New Sites
32 INCLUDE
• Project applications submitted or
pending
• Vacant
• Large enough for development
(ideally greater than .5 acres)
• Underutilized (significantly below
maximum density)
• Old structures

EXCLUDE
• Condos
• Large apartment buildings
• Historic buildings
• Rent controlled units
• Most supermarkets
3 – Identify Potential New Sites – Capacity Analysis
33 “Heat Map” showing capacity analysis
of potential additional housing sites
(2+ units)
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
16 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Spring 2022
Preparing Draft
Housing Element
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-2023
Local Adoption
May 2023
Interviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Workshops
Public Survey
Boards & Commissions
1 3
Council Work Sessions 1 2 3
Environmental Review

STATE REVIEW/

CERTIFICATION
HCD Review
We Are Here
4 5
Adoption
Jan 2023
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
17SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 5th Cycle
2015-2023
6th Cycle 2023-2031
Progress
2015-2020
22,,995599 22,,994433
88,,994433
+ 202%
Projected Future Housing Needs
+ Unmet Existing Needs (Overcrowding, Cost Burden)
= Higher Allocations (AB 1086 & SB 828 )
~~5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss
SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State
Dept of Finance
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
Housing Element x Residential Objective Standards
18 AApprriill 2233,, 22001199.. MMiissssiinngg MMiiddddllee HHoouussiinngg RReeppoorrtt.. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04- 23_Supp_2_Reports_Item_32_Rev_Droste_pdf.aspx
FFeebbrruuaarryy 2233,, 22002211.. RReessoolluuttiioonn ttoo EEnndd EExxcclluussiioonnaarryy ZZoonniinngg iinn BBeerrkkeelleeyy.. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02- 23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
Downtown, University, San Pablo,
Shattuck, Telegraph
Adeline (not included)
Transit + Commercial Corridors
Min. 15-minute peak headways
R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A
Up to 2-3-4 units per parcel
(including ADUs, JADUs), and
division of units.

Variety and flexibility of
housing types and tenure
MMaarrcchh 2255,, 22002211,, IInniittiiaattiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc PPrroocceessss aanndd ZZoonniinngg CCoonncceeppttss ffoorr 22002233--22003311 HHoouussiinngg EElleemmeenntt UUppddaattee.. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Docume nts/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%20- %20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf

CONCURRENT WITH HOUSING ELEMENT
4 – Evaluate and Analyze - Environment
34 Update map
Projected Inundation from 5' Sea Level Rise
Source: NOAA
Fire Zones
Source: City of Berkeley Fire Zones
2 3
1 4 – Evaluate and Analyze – Transit Access
35 BART Access (.5 mile)Bus Access (.15 mile)
4 – Evaluate and Analyze – Resource-Rich Areas
36 Insert TCAC map
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
22

37 4 - Evaluate and Analyze
• Aerial photos and field visits
• Remove inappropriate sites
Next Step – Complete Site Inventory

1. Identify potential sites to meet RHNA capacity requirements using the technical analysis accepted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

2. Evaluate to determine the best sites for housing

3. Calculate buildout using existing zoning and potential new zoning

4. Complete inventory process
38 MULTI-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL

OBJECTIVE

STANDARDS

1. Project Purpose and Overview

2. 2-4 Unit Projects

3. 5+ and Mixed-Use Projects
39 www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards

MORE INFORMATION AT
Residential Objective Standards – Project Purpose
40 Prepare objective standards for
multi-unit residential development.

What is an Objective Standard?
• No personal or subjective judgement
• Uniformly verifiable
• Knowable in advance
41 Why are we doing this?
42 CALIFORNIA & BERKELEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

RECENT STATE LAW CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS HOUSING ELEMENT • SB 35
• HAA
• HCA – SB 330
• 2021 Housing Bills
• HAA
• Missing Middle
• Eliminate
Exclusionary Zoning
• Plan for 8,934 new
units
• AB 1397
• Adopt by January
2023
ALSO
New Objective Standards
• Two categories (“buckets”)
• 2-4 units multifamily
• 5+ units multifamily and mixed use
• Focus first on objective development standards
• Prepare objective design standards in second phase
43 Standards for 2-4 Units
Impetus:
• City Council referrals
• SB 9
Expected Standards:
• Where Allowed
• Permits Required
• Site Layout and Massing
• Building Design
44 Example 2-4 Unit Projects
45 Standards for 5+
46 Impetus:
• City Council referrals
• State law (HAA, SB 35)
Expected Standards:
• Site Layout
• Building Massing
Example 5+ Projects
47 Requested Input Tonight
Example Multi-Unit Residential Projects:
• 2-4 Units Multi-family
• 5+ Multi-family and Mixed Use
Discussion Questions:
• Why or why not appropriate with
surroundings?
• Where do you want to see more?
48 Public Workshop & Online Survey
50 High cost of homeownership
Opposition to new development
Public safety & environmental concerns
Gentrification & displacement
Access to services, jobs, transit
Programs/policies for housing production
Programs to support housing & residents
Homelessness
Unequal distribution of new housing
Challenges Successes
Workshop - Approx. 70 participants
Mostly residents, some business owners, students
56% owners / 46% renters
21% Asian / 5% Latinx / 5% Other / 59% White / 10% Biracial Representation from each adult age bracket and income group 60%
55%
Lack of Housing Options
High rental costs 48%
Tenant Protections
Building more ADUs
Building new multi-unit housing
Incentives for energy efficient, climate adaptation
36%
30%
26%
26%
Survey – 745 participants
90% residents, 29% work in Berkeley, 9% business owners 69% owners / 31% renters
9% Asian / 4% Latinx / 8% Other / 74% White / 8% Biracial Representation from each adult age bracket (32% 65+) and largest proportion earn between $100 -$150k 51 Near BART / Transit / Bike corridors
Commercial Corridors
Balance distribution of housing and density
Consider neighborhood & historical context
Housing Locations
More transit access to serve more housing

WHAT WE'VE HEARD

1. Public Workshop #1

2. Stakeholder Interviews

3. Survey
49 Presented to 10 Berkeley Boards & Commissions1
Interviewed Stakeholder Interest Groups 2
Held an online public workshop with approx. 70 participants Received 745 responses from the citywide online survey
1 Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/15/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021), Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021), Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021), Civic Arts Commission (1/19/22)
2 Black/African American Faith Institution, Market Rate Developers, Affordable Developers, Senior Center, Real Estate Professional, Property Managers, Homeless Services, Housing Advocacy, Disabilities Services Focus Group Meetings
City Council Work Sessions
Web site
Email list
Preliminary Stakeholder Interviews
52 Avoid replacing existing residential & displacement
Consider construction efficiency (85’ heights)
Need more funding for affordable housing, disabled, and homeless Racial inequity in housing and displacement
High land costs & unpredictable entitlement process
Flexibility on ground floor retail requirements
Gentrification from high housing costs and student population Consider pre-1970s height/densities
Black/African-American Faith Institution
Affordable + Market Rate Developers
Senior Center
Realtors + Property Managers
Homeless Services
Housing Advocates
Disabilities Services Demographic Poll
Results
Breakout Room
Discussion
23 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Breakout Process
55 • Zoom Host will randomly
distribute participants
• Facilitator will manage time &
participation
• Participants can share comments
verbally and/or in the Zoom Chat
• Notetaker will take notes on screen
• Video recorded for backup
• 60 minutes
Breakout Discussion Topics
Zoning & Criteria
• Where should the City facilitate housing production through changes in zoning, particularly height and density?
• What are the most important criteria for selecting areas to rezone? Residential Types and Locations
• What building features are most appropriate in each neighborhood? • Where would it be appropriate to see more multi-family and mixed-use buildings in Berkeley?
56 Ground Rules
57 • Video on (not mandatory)
• Conversational courtesy
 One speaker at a time
 Be mindful of the time and your use of it
 Listen
• Differences of opinion are OK
• No personal attacks
• Please mute yourself unless speaking
 Facilitator will invite people to unmute themselves
Raise your “Hand” to Speak
• Please use the “Raise Hand” feature if you want to speak. On a phone, press *9. • You can also use the CHAT function to share input during the small group exercise.

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS

ZOOM INSTRUCTIONS
• You may unmute yourself when called on.
• To un-mute, press the Mute button. On a phone, press *6.

Help with Technical Issues
60 Zoom Host
Email: [email protected]
Breakout Room
Reports

THANK YOU
62 www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement

FOR MORE INFORMATION /

SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST
[email protected]

CONTACT US
24 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

SUMMARY OF INPUT
Location
Participants were asked to identify where the City
should facilitate housing production with changes in
zoning, particularly height and density. The following
areas were identified as appropriate:

Neighborhoods:
• Southside
• Downtown
• West Berkeley
• North Berkeley
• South Berkeley
• Thousand Oaks
Specific Streets:
• Solano Ave.
• Telegraph Ave.
• 6th Street
• Martin Luther King Jr. Ave.
• Addison St.

Zoning Districts:
• R-1
• R-2
• R-3
• C-T (specifically to the north and south of Dwight
Way)
Other comments related to where housing
production should be facilitated included:
• Build housing in areas that have been historically
exclusive, such as Claremont or Elmwood.
• Increase density throughout all of Berkeley.
• Allow for diverse housing types, including
student housing, throughout the city.
• Build more student housing on campus.
• Restrict new student housing to campus.
• Avoid clustering high density and low-income
residents on high traffic corridors.
• Corridors may merit more stringent building
requirements, but the requirements could be
more flexible further from busy streets.
• Add more residential density in industrial areas.
• Incentivize development on lots with abandoned
homes.

The following general comments were also
shared:
• In addition to location, consider policies to keep
homes healthy.
• Protect rent-controlled units.
• Consider re-housing rent-controlled residents
while existing rent-controlled properties are
being redeveloped.
• Any area zoned for medium or higher density
should allow for commercial uses, specifically
on the ground floor.
• Increase flexibility in development standards to
allow for commercial uses in residential zones.
• There should be some caution while deciding
what businesses are added adjacent to
residential uses. Business should complement
residential uses and should be reviewed with
some discretion
Criteria
Participants were asked to identify the most
important criteria for selecting areas to rezone. A
list of potential criteria to rezone was provided,
and many participants expressed support for the
following:
• Corridors and Priority Development Areas
• Proximity to BART and public transit
• Proximity to schools
• Proximity to parks and open spaces, and other
recreation facilities
• Proximity to grocery stores
• Proximity to other retail
• Limiting proximity to hazards
• Reducing displacement
• Reducing poverty concentration
• Increasing racial and ethnic diversity
Residential Types and Features
Participants were asked what features of various
sample building types are appropriate (or not) with
25 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

the surrounding neighborhood. The responses are
summarized below:

Multi-unit 2-4 units per lot
Design
• A variety in housing design should continue to
be preserved and developed in Berkeley.
• Multi-family housing should be built with design
features that aid in creating a community.
• It is important to consider not being too
subjective in developing objective design
standards.
• Thoughtful objective standards are needed
to ensure that buildings don't intrude in the
surrounding area.
• “Detriment” needs to be defined clearly in
the zoning code, especially if buildings shown
in examples will be placed in R-1 or hillside
districts.
• The City should be prepared for pushback that
the development examples shown will affect
privacy/views.

Height & Density
• Height limitations greater than two stories is
positive.
• Buildings should maintain a reasonable height.
• Missing middle housing sizes are ideal for
families.

Public Space / Green Space
• Small setbacks allow for the potential of better-
managed landscaping.
• When high-density housing results in reduced
yard space, more intention needs to be paid to
creating public spaces outdoors.
• Neighborhoods need to have green spaces, which
can be achieved with reduced lot coverage.
• The pandemic has made people more
appreciative of air and open space.
• Ensure that there are trees with new development
and thatexisting trees are protected
Neighborhood Character and Context
• Zoning should aid in developing and maintaining
a sense of place.
• Context is critical, but it is challenging to codify
subjective qualities and ambiance.
• Compatibility (height and building scale) is
not as important for preserving neighborhood
character.
• New housing should respect existing
neighborhoods and the impacts on the existing
community need to be considered.
• What's currently there is not necessarily the
best model.

Solar
• Sunlight impacts must be considered when
building new units not to preclude solar
potential.
• When developing standards and review
processes the City should consider how to
protect solar panels that might be affected by
neighboring taller developments.
• If the effectiveness of solar panels is
reduced, there should be monetary
compensation.

Additionally, participants were asked to identify
places in Berkeley where they would like to see more
of this type of development. Participants identified
R-1 zoning areas and 5,000 square foot lots in R-1
areas.
908 Cedar St. (Two detached single-family homes on a
lot)
• Different rooflines on the four buildings provide
visual variety.
• Houses show attractive design and effective use
of space.
• The limited two-story height does not tower
over neighbors.
• Additional setback on the second floor would
minimize the wall massing.
• Houses have nice use of setbacks and gardens.
1911 Ninth St. (Three detached single-family homes on
a lot)
• Building size feels disproportionate, bulky, and
massive compared to lot size.
• Having three units on one lot is a good use of
land.
26 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• Additional landscaping is needed and could
soften the industrial feel.
• The variety of styles and sizes present provide
the possibility for different size units.
2411 Fifth St. (Duplex behind existing duplex, four units on a lot)
• Back duplexes look light and airy.
• The clean design stands out.
• The existing Victorian-style building is more
attractive than the new.
• Different types of housing and unit sizes can
provide for people in various stages of life.
• The development is a good example of a style
that can meet family needs.
• The project needs to include more shared spaces,
landscaping, and open space.
• There is good foliage and landscaping between
two units.
• Buildings are spaced out enough for different
styles to work, and diversity is appealing.
• The entrances should not take up as much space.
2817 Eighth St. (Four attached units on one lot)
• The three-story height of the development is
positive; City should consider allowing extra
height if the building has angled roofs.
• The density of the building makes good use of
the entire lot.
• Limited driveway space and off-street parking
provides space for more housing.
• Housing looks seamlessly built-in and matches
the surrounding industrial neighborhood.
• Building looks unfriendly but might be
appropriate with the surrounding manufacturing
neighborhood.

Multi-unit 5+ & mixed use
1080 Jones St.
• Second- and third-floor setbacks would allow
more light in; possibility for balconies and
tenants wouldn’t get immediate sound impacts
with setbacks.
• The building feels very dark.
• Parking on the first floor is negative.
• There is an opportunity to put solar panels on
the roof.
• Larger setbacks and more landscaping are
needed.
• Deep shadows on San Pablo Ave. create a
problem for some pedestrians; for others, shade
provides benefits on hot days.
• Setbacks and design of townhomes on 10th St.
side is creative and appealing and fits in well
with the community, while massing on San Pablo
Ave. is jarring and does not fit.
• Green space provided is positive.
1885 University Ave.
• The building offers a beautiful design that fits in
the neighborhood.
• Development could be more creative in design.
• The color and overall aesthetic feel lighter and
more attractive than 1080 Jones St.
• The retail provided is an asset for residents;
great example of residential above retail.
• The building needs more consistent design
elements between new and existing units to
appear less stark and jarring.
• One can walk easily as a pedestrian; there is
good lighting provided in the neighborhood.
• The building is livable, works for people.
2119 University Ave.
• Building is a good example of a mixed-use
project.
2711 Shattuck Ave.
• Vacant ground floor should be repurposed for
housing.
• Developments don't always need ground floor
commercial; can be residential..
• Project should work with existing tenants to
keep ground-level commercial functional.

Overall comments on multi-unit 5+ & mixed use
Design
• Developers and architects need to find ways
to create a community in multi-family housing
through design.
27 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT