Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, January 18, 2023 (part 5 of 13)

Page 468 ends

• What is an appropriate vs. less appropriate style
is subjective, not objective.
• Many of the buildings currently and recently
built look the same. There should be some
latitude in design.

Green Space
• There should be the opportunity for a density
bonus for offering green space.
• High-density residential should provide more
shared green space.
• Attached housing is more efficient but detached
provides desirable green space.

Height and Density
• Put higher heights in areas where it is less
noticeable and utilize setbacks.
• The student areas in town can be denser as the
housing units are smaller.
• Many of the examples shown still seem low-
density.
• Appropriate heights should blend in with the
neighborhood.
• Be careful when designing buildings to replicate
existing structures that may unintentionally
perpetuate inappropriate heights; new
developments should not always replicate
what's already there.

Parking
• Don’t waste space on parking.
• Long driveways are a waste of space and better
suited for green space.

Solar
• Be cognizant to make sure commercial abutting
residential does not block solar on residential
units.

Additionally, participants were asked to identify
places in Berkeley they would like to see more of this
type of development. The responses included:
• Residential (R1) zoning areas
• South Berkeley
• West Berkeley
• Abandoned homes on Cedar St.
• 1425 Oregon St.

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

Part A: Where should the City facilitate housing
production through changes in zoning, particularly
height and density?
What are the most important criteria for selecting
areas to rezone?
Group 1:

Where should the City facilitate housing production
through changes in zoning, particularly height and
density?
• Higher density desired everywhere.
• Expand housing in the R-2.
• Keep new student housing on campus.

What are the most important criteria for selecting
areas to rezone?
• Prioritize housing in locations close to public
transit and vital services - grocery stores, places
of employment, etc.
• Areas with greenspace and parks facilities.
• Don't necessarily put highest density on highest
traffic corridors. (x2)
• Berkeley is a unique city – geologic/seismic, fire
hazards, sea level rise -- those areas should not
be considered for more housing
• Cost is high everywhere, so need housing lots of
places (including student housing).
• In addition to "where" consider what can be
done in housing design to keep homes healthy
-- sometimes site specific.
• Near BART, other resources.
• Spread density.
• Consider economic limits to building different
building types and densities.
• Make sure areas outside hazard areas can
28 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 465 of 1385 ends

Page 469 ends

accommodate housing units needed.

Additional Notes:
• Let's develop/upzone everywhere, Berkeley can
be more dense in general.
• Prioritize areas near transit or services.
• The low-density area on Sacramento, where it's
low.
• Maybe re-house rent-controlled residents while
existing rent-controlled properties are being re-
developed -- so, don't ignore completely.
• Look at places where price per square foot is
highest.
• Develop near green spaces/parks/recreation
facilities -- not sure if the high/low resource
index captures green spaces.
• We develop right on busy traffic corridors today,
where there's also most noise and air pollution,
but then it drops off dramatically a block or so
away -- should limit to just on busy corridors.
• We should count student housing as units in
Berkeley, only build more student housing on
the campus, and prohibit additional enrollment
at Berkeley unless the university provides
adequate housing.
• Most areas in the Bay Area share Berkeley’s
"unique" traits as per previous comment, we
should build more housing regardless of student
housing.
• Maybe being on traffic corridors means more
stringent requirements on how the building
is built, but the requirements could be more
relaxed further from busy streets.
• Add more volume on development near BART,
and also on spreading density throughout
Berkeley.
• More density in the flats helps to build our way
away from fire corridors.

Group 2
• More student housing to support increase in
student population.
• Rethink where we place higher density, lower-
income residences -- don't always concentrate
along the main, highly traveled arterial roads.
• Support for more student housing, particularly
on the Southside, particularly affordable
housing. Permit 12 story buildings.
• Continue to upzone Southside; would like to see
2000 new units.
• Larger units along University Ave. Need for
mixed use, as well as housing. Incentives for
ground floor retail.
• Very low income and low-income housing: Sites
evaluated based on competitiveness with regard
to ability to obtain funding. Would like more
formal reports regarding affordable housing
made available to residents. Would like a scoring
of site inventory.

Group 3:
• How is the City calculating the feasibility of
developments being built?
• Alene - Requirement of the housing Element for
City to assess. Permit review is used as part of
process to assess.
• Would like to see that districts that have been
historically exclusive (ex: Claremont Elm)
contribute to provide low-income housing
• Shocking to look at R-1, R-2 maps (given
exclusivity). Would like to see higher density
in these districts in a way that is considerate to
existing residents and keeping the neighborhood
character in mind.
• Should consider/focus large-scale developments
in single family zoning districts.
• Reducing poverty concentration is important.

MLK (North of university) feels like should be
zoned higher. It is currently zoned R-2A.
• Addison and MLK area should be zoned higher.

C-T area north and south of Dwight should
be zoned with greater density. No noticeable
difference between north and south areas and
doesn't feel like there should be different types
of zoning between areas.
• Any area zoned for medium or higher density
should allow for commercial uses (specifically
on the ground floor). This kind of allowance is
seen in other cities.
• Would like to see additional flexibility in
development standards to allow for commercial
uses.
29 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 466 of 1385 ends

Page 470 ends

• Other cities are developing with lots of retail
uses within residential buildings. This reduces
the necessity for cars.
• There should be some caution while deciding
what businesses are added next to (incidental/
within) residential uses. Business should be
in support of the community and should be
reviewed with some discretion.
• If necessity for cars is reduced (through easy
access to places we all need/want to go), BART
should be part of the solution to facilitate
the community's use of transportation and
proximity to uses people often frequent).

Group 4:
• R1-R1A (upzone); north berkeley
• allow for more housing in west berkeley/ near
industrial area
• R1-R1A (upzone); north berkeley - lots of room
for more density and more dwelling units
• Concerned for the displacement/ demolition
of existing rent controlled units; protect rent
controlled units
• R2-R3H, along telegraph upzone for student/
dense/ mixed use housing
• Southside/ downtown (upzone);
• interested in local shuttle system
Additional Notes from Surlene
Locations
• The Industrial Are and Downtown can be denser.
• Would like to see more mixed use, like on
Telegraph, in the taller building where it is not
parking but a place to walk in and shop.
• Cedar and 4th Street has some abandoned homes.

Would like to see similar in other locations.
• 6th Street has room for more homes that
wouldn’t offend the surrounding home owners.
• North Berkeley -- R1 determination ... has a
single family feel but could accommodate more
housing. More density like the photos on the left
side (the multi-story units) (from a N.B resident)
• North Berkeley - Lots of room for more people
and more density.
• South Berkeley - increase the density of R2
zoning off of Telegraph -- offered in context of
student housing. (from a student)
Concerns
• Lots of comments about housing and
displacement and how will we preserve it.

Concerned about it.
• Likewise, the express need for a shuttle and
transportation services, and need for toxic
remediation.

Question - that may need to be defined in future
• When we say “surrounding neighborhoods”
how far way is that? For some of the locations
on the boards if you go a couple of blocks in a
certain direction you are in a different kind of
neighborhood or on a transit corridor etc.

Pulled from the chat
• I had said Virginia at Fourth Street but, the
abandoned homes I was thinking about are
actually on Cedar Street at Fourth Street.

Group 5:
• more development around campus
• rezoning in southside, affordable and easy walk
to campus
• great place for housing that supports anti
gentrification without going into neighborhoods
historically used by others
• +1 better utilize space there
• access to transit important
• lack of grocery stores and other amenities (lots
of barbershops) Southside. housing on MLK
style is appreciated and could be seen here
• more in hills near campus
• develop around solano ave and thousand oaks.
have all types of income here including low
income and very low income
• access to bikeways in west berkeley and
upzoning here (Sacramento and West)
Part B: What are the features of each building that
make in appropriate (or not) with the surrounding
30 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 467 of 1385 ends

Page 471 ends

neighborhood?
Are there places in Berkeley where you would like to
see more of this type of development?
Group 1:
2 -4 Units Per Lot
• Shared driveways between lots Fifth St.: Usable
green space vs. concrete Lots and mulit-units for
intergenerational family dwellings
• Don't foreclose solar development on residential
• 5th street good example of style that met family
needs
• Build community into MF housing design (x3)
• Like integration of architectural features of hood
• Transition from backside of corridors to R
• Be careful of being too subjective
• What's currently there is not necessarily the
best model
• eight st. example is most dense and looks very
seamlessly built-in
• Are there places in Berkeley you would like to
see more of this type of development?
• 5000 sf R-1 are great candidates
• Look hard at R-1 zone -- don't see any examples
5+ and Mixed Use
• Like Jones because of green space
• Ground floor retail often vacant -- what would
be better use?
• Density bonus for green space
• Love the windows -- can that be part of
standards?
• Repurpose vacant ground floor for housing
• Provide allowance for aesthetic -- function of
resources available
• Don't always need ground floor commercial --
can be R in some contexts
• All elegant -- like articulation on the facade
• Jones a bit jarring but ok
• Happy with all -- build more MF in general;
favorite are U and Shattuck
• Keep ground level commercial functional -- work
with existing tenants (x2)
• Additional Notes:
• likes all types of these examples, still seem pretty
low-density, want more shared driveway space
• want more shared green space with more high-
density residential
• typical for residential to abut commercial --
commercial should not block solar on residential
• building community in multi-family housing
• architectural styles that use height, but the
height is set back so it's not imposing on the
street
• attached is more efficient, but detached provides
desirable green space
• appropriate vs. less appropriate styles --
subjective, not very objective
• perpetuates existing structure even in situations
where it's not working. someone might be the
first on their block to be higher-density, don't
always replicate what's already there
• r1 neighborhoods have the biggest lots/lowest
density, those are possibly the best places to
develop for multi-generational households
• some r1 houses have the most overconsumption
Group 2:
2 -4 Units Per Lot
• Small setbacks (potential for better managed
landscaping). Suggestion to allow four story
buildings in the rear. Height limitations being
greater than 2 stories is good. Missing middle
housing sizes are ideal for families.
• Pandemic brought us to the point where we're
appreciating air, green space, open space, etc.

Context of where to put units is critical. Thinking
about sunlight impacts. Jones on Cedar -- good
job of tall in the back to protect sunlight of
neighbors. Consider: what are we impacting in
the community?
• There does not appear to be any zoning
continuity that provides a sense of place. Main
corridors are very underutilized. Consideration
of where students should be, families should
be, etc. Would like to see single-family housing
remain that way. Missing quality (amenities -
such as sunlight); not a density issue. Maintain
a reasonable height. Context is key, but it is
31 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 468 of 1385 ends

Page 472 ends

challenging to codify context.
• Echoing prevalence of underutilized lots,
support for new housing respecting existing
neighborhoods. Concern with upzoning is that it
increases the cost of land, limiting affordability
of future development.
• Would like to see something built at 2119
University. In general, would like to see faster
construction.
• Context varies. Dependent on how well the
development is done. Challenging to determine.

Sunlight is key. Character is subjective.

Group 3:
2 -4 Units Per Lot
• Compatibility (height/building character-wise)
is not as important for preserving neighborhood
character. It is more important for neighborhood
to green spaces. Willing to see less lot coverage
to allow for these kinds of spaces.
• Likely there will be pushback that the
development shown examples will affect
privacy/views. City should be prepared for this
pushback.
• Examples seem to work within their districts.

Important to take the context of the surrounding
area. If projects were administered ministerially,
there should be care in developing objective
standards so that buildings don't intrude in
surrounding area. Detriment is not clearly
defined in BMC. Definition should be clarified,
especially if buildings shown in examples are
going to be placed in R-1/hillside like districts.
• Not much concern about preserving lot coverage
to help combat housing crisis.
• Southern part of City feels lacking of parks.

City needs more even distribution of park/
community use resources/spaces.
• From brief glance looks unfriendly, but might be
in character with surrounding manufacturing
neighborhood.
• For building height, consider allowing extra
height if building has pointed roofs.
• Would like to see focus on ensuring that there
are trees with development and protection of
trees with development. Important to preserve
setbacks to keep trees (MLK).
• Does City have any efforts/information on
how City will develop standards/review that
will protect solar panels that might be affected
by neighboring higher (height) development?
-City acknowledges this may be an issue/
resident concern and will be considering while
developing standards.
• Additional concern for City: if solar panel
effectivity reduced, if there will be some kind of
monetary compensation/shared costs.
5+ and Mixed Use
• High density in Berkeley. Currently we tend to
like lower height buildings (to protect existing
views), but would be nice to see higher buildings
to allow residents to have views as well.
• Important to consider transition for larger
developments. There are always residential areas
adjacent to commercial corridors. Important
to not block solar panels (on residential
development). Important to have objective
standard to protect llower density) residential
uses. Finds protecting detriment important, but
not necessarily with neighborhood preservation
(form).

Group 4:
2 -4 Units Per Lot
• General comment: all projects blend in well
with the surrounding area --> projects could
potentially be even greater in height/ additional
floor
• consider that not all residents have cars -
consider parking permits/ RPP - consider first/
last mile issues
2817 Eighth St
• height of development positive: high density -
makes use of entire lot
• no driveway space/ off-street parking = more
housing
• reduce off street parking as part of project
5+ and Mixed Use
• flexibility in design; don't impose prescriptive
design standards - allow for greater height
• existing buildings fit in well with the existing geo
context (southside/downtown)
32 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 469 of 1385 ends

Page 473 ends

2119 University Ave
• good example of a mixed use project
• Are there places in Berkeley where you would
like to see more of this type of development?
• Cedar: demo/ redevelopment of abandoned
homes could allow for more density
• South Berkeley - build up/ increase density
• 1425 Oregon
• West Berkeley
• vacancy tax
Additional Notes
Design Consideration
• Many of the buildings currently / recently being
bult look the same. There should be some latitude
in design. There should be an “appreciation” for
height, blend in with the neighborhood.
• Don’t waste space on parking.
• The long driveways are a waste of space. Could
be used for green space.
• Need to have some green space.

Density
• The student areas in town can be dense. Student
areas the housing units are smaller thus they can
be more dense.
• Keep with character of the neighborhood but
there are places that can go higher and not be so
noticeable with one more story.
• More buildings like 1885 University and 1080
Jones
• There is an upside to up zoning
Group 5:
2 -4 Units Per Lot
908 Cedar St
• different rooflines provide visual variety
• like limited height- how does it impact neighbors
shade and light?
• thumbs up - attractive
• doesn't tower over
• would like more setback on 2nd floor to not feel
like wall on setback
• nice setbacks and garden
• effective use of space
• how fireproof is exterior ?
• should continue to preserve variety in design in
Berkeley
1911 Nineth St
• disproportionate: feels bulky and massive
compared to lot
• not as attractive as 908 Cedar
• loosing yards with high density housing like this
- more intention to public spaces outdoors
• great 3 units on one lot: maximizing land
• limited garden space looks, industrial - could be
softened with landscaping
• appreciate variety of styles. could have
possibility for different size units
2411 Fifth St
• back duplexes look light and airy
• appreciate mixed use for walkability and
efficiency
• clean design stands out
• different types of housing allow for different
types of people in various stages of life
• need to do better job at common spaces and
landscaping
• good foliage and landscaping between 2 units
• historic building more attractive than new
• aesthetic diversity: buildings spaced out enough
and diversity is appealing
• entrances should not take up as much space
5+ and Mixed Use
1080 Jones St
• no solar panels on roof
• 2nd and 3rd floor setbacks would allow more
light in, possibility for balconies and tenants
wouldnt get immediate sound impacts with
setbacks
• very dark
33 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 470 of 1385 ends

Page 474 ends

• dislike parking on first floor
• larger setbacks and more landscaping needed!
• big shade creator and large wall
• deep shadows on SP, problem for pedestrians
• shade has benefits like hot days, reasonable for
busier street to have height
• building levels: townhomes fit in nicely with
community on 10thstreet- concern with massing
on SP
• set back and designs on 10th is creative and
appealing - whole building should be more like
that
1185 University Ave
• appreciate consistency of design aesthetic
• color and overall aestetic feels lighter than jones
• like the retail (TJs)
• shopping is asset for residents
• appearance and detailing around roof more
appealing than jones
• needs more consistent design elements between
new and existing units to appear less stark and
jarring
• more integrated design would be more appealing
• great example of residential above retail
• beautiful design - fits in neighborhood
• can walk around easily - good lighting in
neighborhood
• could be more creative in design
• building is livable, works for people
34 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 471 of 1385 ends

Page 475 ends

Figure F-6 Community Workshop #2 Participation Polling Results 35 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 472 of 1385 ends

Page 476 ends

36 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 473 of 1385 ends

Page 477 ends

37 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 474 of 1385 ends

Page 478 ends

38 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 475 of 1385 ends

Page 479 ends

F1.3 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - JUNE 29, 2022

OVERVIEW
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 from 6:00-8:00pm, the
City of Berkeley hosted its third community workshop
for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The
primary objective of the meeting was to allow for
community members to provide feedback on the
public draft of the Housing Element Update, which
was made available to the public on June 14, 2022.

The workshop was held virtually on Zoom. An
invitation and registration link for the public
workshop was sent to approximately 400 subscribers
of the Housing Element email list, and attended by
approximately 50 participants.

The workshop began with participants filling out
an optional demographic poll, followed by a staff
presentation on the public draft of the Housing
Element, focusing specifically on the sites inventory
and middle housing. The slides and video recordings
were made available on the project website.

After the presentation, staff opened seven Zoom
breakout rooms, each assigned a different topic:
• Room 1 - General Comments
• Room 2 - Sites Inventory: North of University
• Room 3 - Sites Inventory: South of University
• Room 4 - Housing Programs: Health, Housing, &
Community Services
• Room 5 - Housing Programs: Rent Stabilization
Board and Berkeley Housing Authority
• Room 6 - Housing Programs: Planning, Office of
Energy & Sustainable Development, and Building
& Safety
• Room 7 - Middle Housing Standards
Participants were then able to move between the
rooms of their own accord. Each room had a facilitator
and a notetaker, answering and recording questions
and comments.

Housing Element Update 2023-2031 / Public Workshop #3 / June 29, 2022 Housing Programs BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND RENT STABILIZATION BOARD

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BERKELEY HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

RENT STABILIZATION AND

TENANT PROTECTION

HOUSING QUALITY

STANDARDS ACCESSIBLE HOUSING

TENANT SURVEY HOUSING PREFERENCE

POLICIES
HP-01 HP-02
HP-30HP-11 HP-13
HP-31 HP-32
• BHA was recently selected by HUD to be a Move to Work Agency (MTW) that allows for flexibility programmatically
• It will allow BHA to attract additional landlords to participate with BHA to house voucher holders in Berkeley.
• The BHA Board has established a non-profit entity – Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) – as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley.Specific Actions > Complete Strategic Plan for Affordable Housing Berkeley Inc. by 2023 > Complete MTW Plan, including public hearings for input on MTW flexibilities/actions BHA will take.

Provides a range of rental housing assistance to very low income, and low income households through a number of programs.

Specific Actions
> Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program – 98
units
> Housing Choice Vouchers – 1,500 households
(and growing)
> Project-Based Vouchers – 400 households
Implements HUD’s housing inspection protocol, called Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to ensure safe and decent living conditions for Housing Choice Voucher holders.Specific Actions > Conduct an Annual Inspection approximately 10-12 months after the initial inspection, and every year, or every other year for qualified units.
> Written notice of the inspection is mailed to the tenant and landlord approximately 2 weeks prior to the scheduled inspection.
> Minor repairs to be conducted on the spot if a maintenance person is available in order to avoid the need for a reinspection.
> If all deficiencies noted at the inspection are not repaired and confirmed by the scheduled reinspection date, rental subsidies will be withheld effective the first day of the month following the
failed inspection.

Promotes housing accessibility for persons with disabilities and promotes its reasonable accommodation to property owners.

Specific Actions
> By 2026, encourage residential units to be developed with universal design and visitability principles in future PBV Master Contracts or exemptions for requiring a modified unit to be returned to its original state upon vacating the unit.
> As part of BHA’s MTW application to HUD, the fiscal flexibilities include spending up to $500 per unit to help landlords pay for unit modifications.

RSB works closely with other City departments to ensure that tenants are protected from retaliation when they complain about code violations and to assist landlords in following the requirements of the law when they need to temporarily relocate tenants in order to make repairs. Specific Actions
> Proposed amendments to the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance for November 2022 ballot.

Issued an RFP to conduct a Tenant Survey to gather a
representative sample of tenants’ experiences in Berkeley today and use the data to ensure the RSB adopts legislation that promotes policies and services stated in the Berkeley Rent Ordinance.

Specific Actions
> Conduct Tenant Survey in Spring 2022 with summary of data to the Board by end of calendar year 2022.

Provides preference points for households or families that—at the time of selection from the waiting list—reside in the City of Berkeley, or formerly resided in Berkeley, or include a member who works or has been hired to work in the jurisdiction. Specific Actions > By 2023, the City will adopt a housing preference policy. The City plans to conduct outreach on an ongoing basis, coordinate preferences with the Alameda County Housing Portal for applications, and collect data and monitor annually to asses impact.
> Emergency Housing Vouchers – 51
households
> Mainstream Voucher Program – 91
households
> VASH – 40 households
> Continue to assist up to 2,000 households through:

What BHA and RSB
programs best prepare
Berkeley to address housing needs?
What
improvements
could be made?
CO-LEAD: BHA +

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BERKELEY
LEAD AGENCY:

BHA
LEAD AGENCY:

RSB
CO-LEAD:

BHA + PLANNING
LEAD AGENCY:

BHA
LEAD AGENCY:

RSB
CO-LEAD:

BHA + HHCS
Housing Element Update 2023-2031 / Public Workshop #3 / June 29, 2022 Housing Programs BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND RENT STABILIZATION BOARD

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BERKELEY HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

RENT STABILIZATION AND

TENANT PROTECTION

HOUSING QUALITY

STANDARDS ACCESSIBLE HOUSING

TENANT SURVEY HOUSING PREFERENCE

Provides a range of rental housing assistance to very low income, and low income households through a number of programs.

Promotes housing accessibility for persons with disabilities and promotes its reasonable accommodation to property owners.

Specific Actions
> Conduct Tenant Survey in Spring 2022 with summary of data to the Board by end of calendar year 2022.

What BHA and RSB
programs best prepare
Berkeley to address housing needs?
What
improvements
could be made?
CO-LEAD: BHA +

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BERKELEY
LEAD AGENCY:

BHA
LEAD AGENCY:

RSB
CO-LEAD:

BHA + PLANNING
LEAD AGENCY:

BHA
LEAD AGENCY:

RSB
CO-LEAD:

BHA + HHCS
Figure F-7 Workshop #3 Break-out Room Boards
39 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 476 of 1385 ends

Page 480 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
6th Cycle 2023-2031
PPlleeaassee ttaakkee tthhee lliivvee ppoollll!!
www.menti.com/pe17ng36mc
or go to menti.com and enter code 3054 1185
Community Workshop #3 Draft Housing Element Open House
June 29, 2022
2 WELCOME!
ZOOM Logistics
Live Transcription!
[email protected] Zoom Host
Chat to Everyone or direct
to Alene Pearson
4 AGENDA
I. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

1. Housing Element Overview

2. Draft Housing Element

3. City Housing Programs
II. HOUSING SITES INVENTORY

1. Sites Inventory

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
III. OBJECTIVE STANDARDS – MIDDLE HOUSING
IV. OPEN HOUSE BREAKOUT ROOMS
LIVE POLL!
5 https://www.menti.com/ pe17ng36mc
enter code 3054 1185 at menti.com
Open a web browser
(on a phone or in another window)

DRAFT HOUSING

ELEMENT UPDATE

1. Housing Element Overview

2. Project Timeline

3. Public Draft & Appendices

4. Goals, Policies, & Programs
6 Housing Element Website & Email
7 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement
8 Required Element
of the General Plan
Must be updated every 8 years
and certified by HCD
Currently planning for the
6th cycle (2023-2031)
Certification deadline is
May 31, 2023
Bay Area: 441,176 units
Berkeley: 8,934 units
532 309
2446
442
130
1408
584
106
1416
1401 3197
3664
5th Cycle RHNA
(2015-2023)
Units Permitted
(2015-2021)
6th Cycle RHNA
(2023-2031)
Very Low < 50% AMI
Low 50-80% AMI
Moderate 80-120% AMI
Above Moderate > 120% AMI
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
9 22,,995599
33,,774422
88,,993344
SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2021 APR, accepted by HCD on April 11, 2022 + 202% 41%
16%
43%
AApppprrooxx.. 5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State Dept of Finance
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
88,,994433
+ 17%
6600,,994433
Six Appendices
13 Housing Goals & Policies
Housing Affordability
H-1 ELI, VLI, Low and
Mod Housing.

H-2 Funding Sources
H-3 Permanent
Affordability
H-4 Economic
Diversity
H-5 Rent Stabilization
H-6 Low-Income
Homebuyers
H-7 Berkeley Housing
Authority
14 Housing Preservation
H-8 Housing
Preservation
H-9
Naturally
Affordable
Housing
H-10 Code
Requirements
H-11
Prevent
Deferred
Maintenance
H-12 Seismic
Reinforcement
H-13
Resource
Efficiency &
Climate
Resiliency
Housing Production
H-14 Publicly-Owned
Sites
H-15 Medium-High
Density Zoning
H-16 Transit-Oriented
Housing
H-17 Accessory
Dwelling Units
H-18 Regional
Housing Needs
H-19
Monitoring
Housing
Element
Progress
H-20 University of
California
H-21
Inter-
Jurisdictional &
Reg’l
Coordination
Special Needs &
Homelessness Prevention
H-22 Homelessness &
Crisis Prevention
H-23 Homeless
Housing
H-24 Family Housing
H-25 Senior Housing
H-26 People w/
Disabilities
H-27
Emergency,
Transitional,
Supportive
Housing
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
H-28 Fair Housing
H-29 Accessible
Housing
H-30
Affordable
Accessible
Housing
H-31 Middle Housing
Governmental
Constraints
H-32 Reduce Gov’t
Constraints
H-33 Streamline
Review Process
H-34
Incentivize
Affordable
Housing

A B C D E F
Draft Housing Programs
HP-1 Affordable Housing
Berkeley HP-9 Livable Neighborhoods HP-17 Berkeley Existing Building Electrification (BEBE) HP-25 Homeless Services HP-33 Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)
HP-2 Housing Choice
Vouchers
HP-10 Lead-Poisoning
Prevention
HP-18 Building Emissions
Saving Ordinance (BESO) HP-26 Shelter Plus Care HP-34 By-Right Approval on Reused Sites for Affordable
HP-3 Citywide Affordable
Housing Requirements
HP-11 Housing Quality
Standards
HP-19 BayREN Home
Programs
HP-27 Housing for Homeless
Persons w/ Disabilities
HP-35 Zoning Code: Special
Needs Housing
HP-4 Housing Trust Fund HP-12 Home Modification for
Accessibility and Safety
HP-20 Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) HP-28 Rental Assistance HP-36: Zoning Code Amendments: Residential
HP-5 Affordable Housing
Overlay HP-13 Accessible Housing HP-21 BART Station Area Planning
HP-29 Fair Housing Outreach
and Enforcement
HP-37: Permit Processing
Procedures
HP-6 Preservation of At-Risk
Housing
HP-14 Senior / Disabled
Home Improvement Loan HP-22 Middle Housing HP-30 Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections
HP-7 Replacement Housing /
Demolition Ordinance
HP-15 Seismic Safety and
Preparedness Program
HP-23 Accessory Dwelling
Units HP-31 Tenant Survey
HP-8 Rental Housing Safety HP-16 Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund
HP-24 Adequate Sites and
Monitoring for No Net Loss
HP-32 Housing Preference
Policies
15 • Health, Housing, and Community
Services (HHCS))
• Rent Stabilization Board (RSB)
• Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA)
• City Manager’s Office
• Planning & Development (Planning,
Building, Energy & Sustainability)
• Office of the Mayor
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
10 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Spring 2022
Preparing Draft
Housing Element
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Early 2023
Local Adoption
May 2023
Environmental Review

STATE REVIEW/

CERTIFICATION
HCD Review
Adoption
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
Public
Draft
DEIR
We Are Here
Outreach & Engagement
11 Presented to 13 Boards/Commissions/Committees
Held 20+ Meetings with 15 Stakeholder Interest Groups
Held two online public workshops, ~60 participants
Received 745 responses from Nov ‘21 citywide survey
Received 49 responses from Residential Tours survey
Tabling @ farmers mkt, grocery store, recreation events Public Draft – Comment by July 14th!
Figure F-8 Community Workshop #3 Presentation
40 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 477 of 1385 ends

Page 481 ends

Where Standards Will Apply
31 R-1R-2R-2R-2
R-2A
R-2A
R-1
R-1
R-1
R1-A
R1-A
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 R-2A
R-2
R1-A
MUR
MUR
MUR
R-1H
R-1H
R-2H
R-2AH
R-2A
R1-A
Standards will apply in the R‐1,
R‐1A, R‐2, R‐2A and MU‐R districts,
including in the Hillside overlay
district.

Allowed Uses & Permits Required
32 R-1 R- 1H R-1A R-2 R- 2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Multi-Unit
Residential ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Discretionary permit still required for -
• Structures of Historic Merit  Structural Alteration Permit • Sites requiring environmental remediation
Include consideration of the Hillside Overlay
ZC = Zoning Certificate
Building Size and Placement on Lot
33 Floor Area Ratio
Height
Setbacks
Lot Coverage
Open Space
Standards

HOUSING SITES

INVENTORY

1. Sites Inventory

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
16 17
> Adequate Sites
> Zoned Appropriately
> Available for residential use
> Capacity to provide units, by
income level, required by RHNA
> Meet HCD’s criteria (physical
characteristics, density)
> Meet new affirmatively furthering
fair housing objectives
Meeting the RHNA
18 Likely Sites
ADU Trends
N Berkeley & Ashby BART
Approved Projects since 2018
Pipeline Sites
Projects under Review
Likely + Pipeline Sites
Anticipated
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
622 628 249 3,186 4,685
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
204 180 68 1,962 2,414
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
2,446 1,408 1,416 3,664 8,934
RHNA
Opportunity Sites: HCD Affordability Methodology
< 80% AMI
Lower Income
80 – 120% AMI
Moderate Income
> 120% AMI
Above Moderate Income
Size of Site Between 0.35 to 10 acres Between 0.1 and 0.35 acres Density Assumption At least 30 du/ac* Less than 30 du/ac Site Capacity At least 50 units Between 30 to 50 units Less than 30 units 19 *3300 dduu//aacc iiss tthhee ““ddeeffaauulltt ddeennssiittyy”” - considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing [GOV 65583.2] Density Assumption: Average density achieved for 116
recently approved, under construction, or completed
mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Fair Housing Outreach and Education
• Housing Mobility
• A variety of housing choices
• Ability to age in community
• Access to services and amenities
• New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
• Distribution of lower income units
• Place-Based Strategies for Neighborhood Improvements
• Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
• Replacement of demolished units
20 21
Opportunity SitesOpportunity Sites
Vacant or Underutilized
Non-residential Building > 30 yrs old
Improvement to Assessed Land Value ≤ 0.75
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
1649 1649 2886 2845 9028
Federal, State, County-owned
Condo or Large Apartment Bldg
Historically-sensitive
Rent-Controlled Units
Most Supermarkets
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
2,446 1,408 1,416 3,664 8,934
RHNA
Likely Sites
Pipeline Sites
Opportunity Sites
Racial Diversity
Concentration of Poverty
Environmental Equity
Community Benefits
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Ensure affordable housing is distributed
and balanced in “high opportunity”
neighborhoods.

NNoott sshhoowwnn:: ADU and In-fill “Middle Housing”
23 > City is not required to build or
finance the housing
> Does not automatically authorize
the construction of housing units
> No obligation by property owner to
take action
> Reliant on the development
industry (market rate/affordable)
to construct
Meeting the RHNA NOT ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
1250
249
3186384
68 1962
3297
2886
2845
Lower < 80% AMI Moderate 80-120% AMI Above Moderate > 120% AMI Likely Sites Pipeline Sites Opportunity Sites RHNA
+118%
+126%
+28%
44,,993311
33,,220033
77,,999933
3,854
1,416
3,664

OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS –

MIDDLE HOUSING

1. Housing Element Program

2. Public Input

3. Preliminary Development
Standards
24 Public Input
28 Berkeley Bowl 4/25/22 Roses in Bloom 5/14/22 Poppin Skate Party 5/19/22 Desire for a mix of housing types and higher density living City Council, Planning Commission, and ZORP Input
29 Permit higher density equitably
throughout the city
City Council (3/15)
Embrace climate adaption while
accommodating additional units
Incentivize adaptive reuse and
smaller, more affordable units
Encourage smaller units that are
“affordable by design”
ZORP Subcommittees (12/15 & 2/16)
Permitting more density while
discouraging financial
speculation
Balance protecting solar access
and allowing higher densities
Planning Commission (6/1)
Allow more density in R-1
Reconsider need for floor area
ratio standard
Discourage financial speculation
Do more to incentivize smaller
units
Relax open space dimension
requirements
Allow more than four units on an
individual lot

PRELIMINARY

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

1. Where Allowed

2. Allowed Uses & Permits
Required

3. Building Size and Placement

4. Min and Max Density (Units per
Acre)
30 NOT A BLANK SLATE
• Existing Standards
• Development Patterns
• City Council Referrals
• State Laws
• Environmental/Social/
Economic/Demographic
Factors
What is “Middle Housing”?
R-1R-2R-2R-2
R-2AR-2A
R-1
R-1
R-1
R1-A
R1-
A
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 R-2A
R-2
R1-A
MUR
MUR
MUR
R-1H
R-1H
R-2H
R-2AH
R-
2A
R1-A
Smaller-scale multi-unit housing in lower-density
residential neighborhoods
Program HP – 22: Middle Housing
• “ Amend Zoning Ordinance to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill housing in high resource neighborhoods.” • “ Allow for by-right multi-unit development on one lot to encourage housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden.” Program HP – 22: Middle Housing
• The Housing Element assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the lower density residential districts for the 2023-2031 period. • To facilitate middle housing while balancing the need for affordable units, the City will also introduce a reduced inclusionary housing fee for middle housing projects with less than 12,000 gross square feet (GSF), with a sliding scale increase for projects with floor areas between 0 and 12,000 GSF. 41 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 478 of 1385 ends

Page 482 ends

Floor Area Ratio

0.95 FAR
1911 Ninth Street
6,505 sf (0.15 ac)
3 units, Avg. 2,060 sf/du
Building Height
34’11” maximum height
29’6” average
max height
25’3” eave
Draft standards establish
maximum “average
building height”
Minimum & Maximum Density (Units per Acre)
36 R-1 R- 1H R-1A R-2 R- 2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Min. Density (du/ac) 10 No min. 10 No min. 20 No min. 20 Max. Density (du/ac) 25 20 35 20 55 55 55
*ADUs allowed per https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.306 • More than 1 detached dwellings  max 1 ADU
• Duplex or attached multi-family dwellings  max 2 detached ADUs or 1 converted ADU Note: Minimum densities would apply for new development on a vacant lot or redevelopment of a nonvacant lot. 3 2 4 2 6 6 6Max. # Units
1 No min. 1 No min. 2 No min. 2Min. # Units
Resulting units on a 5,000 sf lot…
1 or 2* 1 or 2* 1 or 2* 1 or 2* 1 or 2* 1 or 2* 1 or 2*Max ADUs Density - Examples
37 20 du/ac 52 du/ac
5 units
1911 Ninth Street 1744-1756 10th Street1028-1030 Grayson Street 35 du/ac
5,000 sf (0.11 ac)
4 units
6,505 sf (0.15 ac)
3 units
4,200 sf (0.096 ac)
Photo Credit: Workshop1, Inc.

Open House
Breakout Rooms
7 Breakout Rooms
39 Housing Programs –
Rent Stabilization Board &
Berkeley Housing Authority
5 Housing Programs –
Planning & Development
6 Middle Housing
Objective Standards
7 General Comments
1 Sites Inventory –
North of University
2 Sites Inventory –
South of University
3 Housing Programs –
Health, Housing, &
Community Services
4 How to Join a Breakout Room
40 Step 1: Select the Breakout Rooms icon
in the Zoom Navigation bar
Step 2: Click Join next to the room you
would like to enter.

If calling in: Press *9 to raise your hand
to be moved between rooms by the Zoom
host. Press *6 to un-mute.

Need help? If you have questions of need
any technical assistance during the
meeting, email the Zoom host, or return
to the main room.
[email protected] Zoom Host
Room 1 General Comments
Room 2 Sites Inventory, North
Room 3 Sites Inventory, South
Room 4 Programs HHCS
Room 5 Programs RSB / BHA
Room 6 Planning + Development
Room 7 Middle Housing Standards
41 Raise your hand to speak
Be courteous to one another
One speaker at a time
Differences of opinion are OK
Mute yourself unless speaking
Video on is preferable
(but not mandatory)
Facilitator will manage
participation and answer question
on the breakout room topic.

Participants can share comments
verbally and/or in the Zoom Chat
Notetaker will take notes on screen.

Video recorded for backup
THANK YOU!
42 www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement

FOR MORE INFORMATION /

SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST
[email protected]

CONTACT US
Room 1 General Comments
Room 2 Sites Inventory, North
Room 3 Sites Inventory, South
Room 4 Programs HHCS
Room 5 Programs RSB / BHA
Room 6 Planning + Development
Room 7 Middle Housing Standards

SUMMARY OF INPUT
Breakout Room Comments
Below are the unedited comments as recorded during
the small group discussions. They have not been
modified or reformatted.

Room 2- Sites Inventory, North of University
Should include parking lots and potentially faith-based institutions
Need high enough zoning to accommodate affordable
housing
Edge of the city – unclear why this is on the list – Fire Hazard Zone. If we area serious about affirmatively
furthering fair housing, housing needs to be developed
in North Berkeley – seeing less of it in higher resource N. Berkeley
Make sure that the development of the sites are feasible.

Berryman and Henry opportunity for housing on
parking lots
1601 Oxford should not be on the site inventory list
Look into Cedar and Shattuck site that was once a
drugstore – now going to be a climbing gym
Monterey Market should not be on the list. Andronicos
as well. They are community resources and it is very
unlikely they will be developed.

Room 3 - Sites Inventory, South of University
Methodology for TCAC zones can be better explained
within the context of the HE and selected site
inventory
Sites to include/ consider: Include center street
42 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 479 of 1385 ends

Page 483 ends

parking lots included as an inventory site (2445
allston way and directly across from berkeley
city college) Fulton -between grant and bancroft:
underutilized parking lot space
Friends of adeline: housing for south berkeley
should be 100% affordable housing --> so that the
historically marginalized can have opportunities in
that area South Berkeley: lots of displacement POC
bc of gentrification; populations traumatized
Room 4 - Housing Programs, HHCS
Need more 50% or less BMR units and ELI units
Allow people to access funds for renovation of vacant
units
City should consider allowing community members
be able to access HTF similar to land trusts
Better accessibility for low-income people with
disabilities
AMI is too high for working class people, there is not
enough and what we are building is rnot reflective of
people’s incomes; BMR rents especially are rapidly
increasing and out of reach
The City should dedicate General Fund to HTF like SF
Need ownership downpayment support especially for
POC, what federal rants are we applying for?
Should reference potential new funding sources such
as a potential housing bond
Outreach should mirror public health immunization
outreach
City should put housing bond measure or
commitments to further expand funding; should have
fund dedicated to preservation and expanding small
sites
Need better outreach for people to know about
services, especially for AA/POC
There should be a massive PR campaign who are not
active in government; reach out to churches and other
AA institutions
When are they going to open up golden bear in? City
should explore additional motels
New homekey rounds are flexible; City should
consider using City-owned sites for homeless housing
Homeless services are difficult to access for lots of
people; would someone from COB join AC County
Healthcare for Homeless
When are they going to open up golden bear in?
City should explore additional motels for homeless
housing as well
How long will People’s Park residents be at the
Roadway Inn and will they be supported with the
transition to permanent homes
TOPA should support single-family homes
If the tenant has insufficient funding, then the tenant should have the right to go to a land trust or nonprofit with the understanding that the rents will remain
stable
The City needs to provide funding for people to
purchase their buildings when they are sold
Need to set a date for TOPA adoption by Council
Need to show more specificity around an adoption
and implementation timeline
There are services for people but people, especially
black people and people of color, are not aware of
them
AMI is now too high to effectively serve most low-
income people in the community
What data do we have on equitable outreach to Black/
POC people? We need to have thresholds for seniors,
disabilities, and income. We need to increase targeted
outreach to improve outcomes
Homeless Services are targeted towards addiction,
seniors, disabilities, etc. and services/service
43 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 480 of 1385 ends

Page 484 ends

providers can not meet needs when people don't fit
into these boxes
Need support for people who are made homeless
when their buildings are sold and rents are raised
substantially
Need more support for homeowners and property
owners of rental property with low-income/resources
Room 5 - Housing Programs, Rent Stabilization
Board and Berkeley Housing Authority
1500 vouchers in Berkeley
Project based vouchers to developers.

Room 6 - Housing Programs, Planning, Building,
OESD
Oakland Berkeley Hills are likely to catch fire again
and does have a history of fire and emergency
evacuations.

The City could take a stronger role in building a park/ school/houses.

How much of new building units are vacant and are
people actually living in those units? What about
vacant ground floor retail commercial? The City of
Berkeley has a very low vacancy rate of housing
units and especially for rental units, between 2-4%
depending on the year. Potentially need to look at
what active uses are and what is considered as active
retail commercial and the standards that require
those.

In the current housing element zoning, we have
a history of having small shops that have been
converted and some exist. In the updated housing
element is there allowances for new ones to come
back in a residential area? In the past two years, the
City has relaxed regulations on home occupations.

The home occupation permit is nod, to many people
working from home, and recognizes to allow more
variety of uses in those neighborhoods.

Are we speaking about homeless housing and other
special needs populations? It is part of the Housing
Element to include policies and standards for special
needs housing. There are also regulations for various
types of housing and living arrangements but there
may additional programs where this could be
incorporated.

HE has requirements for furthering fair housing
- 100% of housing would be concentrated on San
Pablo, Shattuck, and concentrating density near
transit as opposed to narrow streets. Believe there
is a misunderstanding about the inventory map. The
map is showing where housing can be accommodated
however more analysis on specific sites would
be conducted in the future to facilitate housing
throughout the city not just on the corridor but in
High Resource Areas.

How would this be possible without rezoning the
single-family neighborhoods. Residential Objective
standards would be changing some of the regulations
that would allow additional densities in those areas,
based on the existing zoning standards. Triplexes/
Duplexes...

Open space was not specifically noted and is an
important topic including climate resilience. 5-6
stories may be more environmentally positive?
More trees and more open space is also important.

The community has expressed a desire for more
open space and desire for more flexible open space.

Flexibility and Open space is being looked at and
Residential Objective Standards are still being
developed and is still open for additional comments
and feedback.

Nature occurring affordable housing? What are we
talking about? Housing units that are low cased
based on their size or when they were built. Naturally
occurring affordable housing may be apartments built
in the 70's ~ sometimes may hear more affordable
44 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 481 of 1385 ends

Page 485 ends

housing.

New Housing today may be affordable in the future,
how much emphasis is on the quantity of housing as
opposed to lower income housing, how feasible is
this? 60% of the City's RHNA is below market rate
housing, consistent with all cities in the state. These are targets are the City of Berkeley has policies that
promote affordable housing like the Inclusionary
Housing Policy. The State also provides incentives
for affordable housing including Density Bonus and
waivers and concessions to promote affordable
housing to meeting RHNA targets.

Berkeley has exceeded RHNA targets for market rate,
but not affordable, and it seems likely that this would occur again...If in the future this occurs again what
are the implications of that? Many jurisdictions in the State are in a similar situation and for years there were no repercussions, but since 2017 the State has passed
new legislation where jurisdictions are penalized ~
or may be required to streamline projects if they do
not meet RHNA requirements. The State may take
away discretionary review for housing projects and
may take away local control to further housing. State
may levy fines or withhold housing. It may depend on
the State and progress.

Majority of residents are making over 75K a year and
may be a vary wealthy community in the future. The
whole system should be thought about in the future to
be more inclusive of all types of incomes and people.

There should be some transition and buffer between
really tall apartment buildings and existing housing.

Specifically concerned about Parker St. neighborhood
(R-4 on south side of Blake, near Milvia). Not sure of
the history of the site but we'll be discussing when
we're planning to update the land use element update
in the future.

A couple of things the state may look at closely, the
opportunity sites that are non-vacant, and HE must
discuss why the existing use would go away.

The Hills may all be R-1 and seem to be excluded from
more density - understand that there is concern about
traffic during an emergency. Has anyone studied this?
The City is required to look at hazard mitigation plans, and the Safety Element needs to be updated. We will
be looking at those types of metrics. PW and the fire
department has conducted most of the analysis with
regards to access and accessibility issues. These are
some of the issues we've grabbled with increased
densities through the state ADU laws and SB9.

Most of the development project are not well thought
out. If the City took charge and would become the
developer there may be some unexplored potential.

Because the City does not own the land, we cannot
proposed development on the lands.

Oakland spoke about anchoring the neighborhood
but it would be great if one entity could have control
over development. Does the Berkeley Planning
Commission take into account the the entire
neighborhood. The City of Berkeley has a Zoning
Adjust Board (ZAB) and when subjective review is
allowed then modifications of projects may happen to
allow step backs/ step downs/ architectural details
like windows and entrances. Take note that how can
incorporate neighborhood context and how can we
objective look into those standards.

Room 7 - Middle Housing
- Standards need to consider water quality,
groundwater recharge, heat island effect, and
ecosystem services , particularly WRT climate.
- In addition to zoning, are there any other efforts to encourage/incentivize Middle Housing?
- Increased height standards could effect solar access.

Fall and winter are the most important seasons to
assess any effects, so analysis of these times should
be considered.
- An average maximum height of 35 feet could result
45 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 482 of 1385 ends

Page 486 ends

in a building as tall as 50 feet. If a density bonus were used on a 5 unit project, you could also have a taller
building, as well.
- Objective standards should be developed to
determine when shadowing of a solar panel should
require mediation, arbitration or other consideration.
- Could there be an effort to survey Berkeley property
owners to see whether there is any interest in
building housing consistent with these recommended
changes?
- Almost all of Berkeley residential power is 100%
clean. Solar power on a roof may not necessarily
provide more renewable energy. Opposed to any
shadow measures because energy is already clean
trough the grid.
- What about larger housing, and social housing
(including design elements that encourage sociability
(courtyard, for example), even with smaller individual
units (Redwood Gardens, as an example)
- Can standards be developed on an area-wide basis,,
as opposed to just building by building? Concerns
about sufficient open/green space.
- Concerns: parking and shadows."
Need to make sure there are housing opportunities
that include back yards not surrounded by dense
buildings. Also, there need to be places that people
enjoy and can build families. Some approaches to
housing seem driven by developers.

More paving can lead to water quality impacts and
discourages groundwater recharge.

Would setbacks pertain to garages, as well, like
detached garages that are up against the front
property line? Could garages be used for averaging
smaller front setbacks?
What is the public purpose of having setbacks in the
first place? For many lots, the placement of a house
is pretty arbitrary. Setback regulations are aesthetic
and restrict development unnecessarily.
4 foot setbacks make sense for fire-related safety
issues. 20 feet is too much
Whats the difference between street side and front?
How about if the entrance is on the long side. (Gregory Lemieux, attendee -- follow up with answer)
46 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 483 of 1385 ends

Page 487 ends

Figure F-9 Participation Polling Results
47 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 484 of 1385 ends

Page 488 ends

48 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 485 of 1385 ends

Page 489 ends

49 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 486 of 1385 ends

Page 490 ends

50 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Page 487 of 1385 ends

Page 491 ends

F2 CITY COUNCIL WORK

SESSIONS
Between September 2021 and September 2022, the City of Berkeley hosted four City Council Work Session, during which updates on the project were presented, public comment was taken, and decision-maker feedback was obtained, providing policy direction for identifying suitable sites, housing programs, and zoning efforts.

Each subsection will include the staff memo and work session presentation. 51 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 488 of 1385 ends

Page 492 ends

Office of the City Manager

WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update Work Session

SUMMARY
Berkeley is engaged in an 18-month process to update the Housing Element of the General Plan. This update occurs every eight years and is mandated by State law. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update must be adopted by the City Council, and the statutory deadline for submitting to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is January 31, 2023. Berkeley hired a consultant team led by Raimi & Associates to provide the necessary technical expertise and wide-reaching public outreach efforts to ensure that the City delivers a State-compliant Housing Element that reflects Berkeley’s diverse character and needs. This report follows the April 28, 2021 memo on the Housing Element (see Link 1), providing more detailed information on the State’s Housing Element requirements as well as specifics on the City’s approach.

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Housing Element Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for its most vulnerable community members. The Housing Element Update will serve as the City of Berkeley’s housing framework for the eight-year period between 2023-2031 (herein referred to as the “6th cycle”). Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of homes across income levels to plan for called the Regional Housing Needs Allo cation (RHNA). State law does not require that jurisdictions build or finance new housing required by the State’s RHNA, but the Housing Element must plan to accommodate the allocated units with appropriate land use policies and development regulations.

The Housing Element Update addresses a range of housing issues such as affordability, diversity of housing types, allowable density and project locations, housing for those with special needs, and fair housing for disadvantaged communities of concern. In addition, it establishes goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City’s decision-making around the development of housing to address existing and projected needs with a mix of housing opportunities that will serve a range of income levels.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
52

Page 489 of 1385 ends

Page 493 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 2 ends

Recent legislation resulted in changes and new requirements for Housing Element Updates that occur in the 6th cycle:

1. Higher Allocations. State law requires that HCD update its regional housing methodology to account for unmet existing and future housing needs. This includes an analysis of overcrowding and cost burden, in addition to projected housing needs, which raised the total regional allocation for new units. Overall, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle, compared with 187,990 for the 5th cycle (2015-2023). Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle allocation is 8,934 units, a 202% increase over its 5th cycle allocation.

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Using HCD’s guidance and approach, Housing Elements must now affirmatively further fair housing by examining the identified policies, programs, rules, and practices to ensure that they will promote inclusive communities and prevent poverty concentration and segregation. Berkeley will access technical assistance provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to ensure its Housing Element Update complies with this new requirement.

3. Site Limitations for Lower Income RHNA. New legislation (AB 1397) sets forth additional criteria for selecting sites that can accommodate the lower income RHNA category, defined as less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI)1.

Identification of opportunity sites, which is a component of the Housing Element Update, will require consideration of:
a. Reusing sites from prior Housing Element cycles. Projects with 20 percent of on-site units set aside for lower income households are subject to by- right approval without discretionary review unless rezoned for a higher density prior to the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. b. Rezoning. Sites to be rezoned or upzoned after January 31, 2023 to accommodate the lower income RHNA are subject to by-right approval without discretionary review if projects include 20 percent lower income units. The rezone must also include a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of at least 30 du/ac and be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units on site.
c. Mixed Use. If more than 50% of the lower income RHNA is to be satisfied on mixed use or nonresidential zoning, then the sites must permit standalone residential and do not require more than 50% of the floor area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential uses.
d. Small or Large Sites. Additional analysis is required for sites smaller than

0.5 acre and larger than 10 acres for the lower income RHNA category. In 1 2021 income levels by family size are available at
https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/2021IncomeandRentLimits.pdf 53 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 490 of 1385 ends

Page 494 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 3 ends

the 5th cycle RHNA, over 55% of the opportunity sites identified were less than 0.5 acres. To utilize small sites for lower income RHNA, the City must be able to demonstrate past trends, potential for lot consolidation, and programmatic response to facilitate lot consolidation. e. More than 50 Percent Nonvacant Sites. If more than 50% of the lower income RHNA is being accommodated on nonvacant sites, the sites are subject to a higher standard of feasibility analysis. In the 5 th cycle RHNA,
nearly 40% of the lower income RHNA was projected to be accommodated on nonvacant sites.

4. Site Limitation for Moderate and Above Moderate Income RHNA Categories.

New legislation (AB 725, effective January 1, 2022) requires that 25% of the moderate income RHNA (80-120% AMI) and 25% of the above moderate income RHNA (>120% AMI) be provided on sites that can accommodate at least four units, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). In Berkeley, this would be applicable on conforming lots in every district except R-1 and ES-R. The State is working on bills to clarify AB 725.

5. No Net Loss. (AB 166) As development occurs, the City must continually monitor its residential sites capacity in accommodating its remaining RHNA throughout the entire eight-year planning period. If development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element, the City must demonstrate remaining capacity is available for the remaining RHNA. For this reason, HCD recommends utilizing a buffer for the lower and moderate sites inventory that exceeds the RHNA. The project team will analyze past trends of opportunity sites to determine an appropriate buffer.

Housing Element Update Scope of Work
The City Council directed staff to take into consideration seven key principles for the Housing Element Update:
• Robust Community Engagement
• Equity – geographic equity, equity in housing types and access • Affordability and Community Benefits
• Public Safety
• Transit Proximity and Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled • Design, Neighborhood Context, and Historic Preservation • Tenant Protections, Anti-Displacement, and Anti-Speculation Provisions City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
54

Page 491 of 1385 ends

Page 495 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 4 ends

City staff and the consultant team will be incorporating these principles, amongst others which may be proposed during the public engagement process, in the analysis and development of the Housing Element. Raimi and Associates’ project scope comprises four major tasks and the key principles will be integrated into Tasks 2 through 4. • Task 1: Project Management
• Task 2: Commu nity Outreach and Engagement
• Task 3: Update the Housing Element of the General Plan o Housing Needs Assessment
o Housing Production Constraints
o Sites Assessment and Inventory
o Goals, Policies, and Programs
• Task 4: Environmental Review

Council also directed staff to consider specific rezoning strategies, which will be integrated with the Housing Element’s site assessments strategy. Rezoning considerations include:

• Location. Focus on Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and locations near transit and commercial corridors.
• Z oning District. Focus in R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts to allow for greater flexibility and variety of housing types beyond single-family residential. • R esidential Use Type. Focus on incentivizing the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs on lots containing single-family residential.

This scope of work will integrate with concurrent land use planning efforts, such as planning at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, Southside Zoning Ordinance amendments, Phase 2 of Zoning Ordinance Revision Project (ZORP) and development of objective development standards.

Housing Element Update Schedule
Due to strict deadlines imposed by the State and severe penalties for missed deadlines, it is extremely important that this project stay on schedule. The Housing Element Update timeline is well-defined and finite: the City must adopt the 6th cycle Housing Element and the statutory deadline is January 31, 2023. The majority of the housing needs analysis and assessment and sites inventory must be completed by early 2022 in order to allow for sufficient time to conduct a thorough and legally defensible environmental review (see Figure 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline).

55 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 492 of 1385 ends

Page 496 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 5 ends

In addition, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan amendments will be identified in early 2022 and reviewed by Planning Commission in Summer 2022 in order to be adopted by City Council in Fall 2022 prior to the adoption of the Housing Element Update in January 2023. Missing the adoption deadline for the Housing Element would require the City to conduct four-year updates to the Housing Element. Rezoning of sites after the January 31, 2023 deadline would subject the sites that are identified for rezoning to by- right approval. However, reused sites from previous cycles are subject to by-right approval regardless of the adoption date of the Housing Element.

Figure 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline

Housing Element Update
The key deliverables for the Housing Element Update project include administrative, public, and final HCD-certified drafts of the Housing Element Update, associated environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a summary of the outreach and engagement.

The content of the Housing Element and the methodologies used for analyzing constraints and sites inventory are dictated by State law. The Housing Element of the General Plan must include the following:

1. Housing Needs Assessment. Examine demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identify existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., workforce housing, persons with disabilities). The data package provided by ABAG will form the basis of this section, supplemented by other available data on market conditions, etc.

2. E valuation of Past Performance. Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs. The City’s Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to HCD will form the basis of this evaluation.

3. H ousing Sites Inventory. Identify available sites for housing development to ensure there is enough land zoned to meet the future need at all income levels, with consideration of affirmatively furthering fair housing.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
56

Page 493 of 1385 ends

Page 497 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 6 ends

4. Community Engagement. Conduct and summarize a robust community engagement program, reaching out to all economic segments of the community, and especially underrepresented groups.

5. C onstraints Analysis. Analyze and recommend remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development.

6. P olicies and Programs. Establish policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023-2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing needs.

Environmental Review
A thorough and legally defensible CEQA environmental review is critical for adopting and certifying the Housing Element Update and will serve to avoid or minimize future environmental review of specific housing developments. The environmental review process requires an analysis of the Housing Element Update’s potential effects on the environment to ensure that required rezones and associated General Plan updates to accommodate the increased housing allocation will generate the lowest possible environmental impacts. The environmental review includes identifying significant impacts associated with the Housing Element Update, identifying and considering alternatives to the proposed Zoning Ordinance or General Plan amendments, and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. The CEQA process also provides the general public and any interested parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and engagement are an integral part of this project from initiation to adoption.

As prioritized by City Council’s March 25, 2021 recommendations, the project will be informed through a robust public participatory process. The consultant team (Raimi and Associates in conjunction with Surlene Grant of Envirocom Communications) will work with staff to provide expansive and inclusive methods of outreach that are tailored to both inform Berkeley’s community members and stakeholders on the Housing Element Update as well as encourage productive feedback that will guide the development of the City’s housing framework.

Based on the Council’s recommendations, the plan for outreach and engagement is framed by 10 community engagement goals listed in Table 2 below.

57 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 494 of 1385 ends

Page 498 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 7 ends

Table 1: Community Engagement Goals and associated Participation Strategies Community Engagement Goals Interviews Survey
Stakehold
er
Meetings
Public
Workshop
s
City
Council
Work
Sessions
Tailor engagement strategies
and approaches to the local
context (equity, needs, history)

X X X X
Open and transparent process X X X X X
Promote and advertise public
participation opportunities
X X X
Leverage input at various points
in the process X X X X X
Provide a variety of opportunities
for convenience (low tech/high
touch and high tech/low touch)

X X X X
Flexibility, in -person and remote
engagement X X X X
Communicate clearly and
visually, simplify complex
concepts

X X X X
Space for participants to be their
authentic selves, speak native
language

X X X X
Specific attention to equity and
typically underrepresented X X X
Maintain positive discourse and
dialogue X X X X X

The consultant team is conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis. For each vulnerable population and key stakeholder group, the team is identifying interests, contributions, and best practices for outreach and engagement. That analysis is used to confirm how specific engagement strategies are applied to inform each phase of the Housing Element planning process. The strategies include 20 interviews, a communitywide survey, 20 small format meetings, three work sessions with the City Council, and three public workshops.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
58

Page 495 of 1385 ends

Page 499 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 8 ends

The workflow of the engagement strategy is as follows:

• Interviews. The Consultant team will begin by conducting 20 interviews with housing stakeholders in the Berkeley community. The information will be used to inform engagement strategies, identify housing needs and production constraints, identify opportunity sites, and solicit ideas for housing strategies to include in the Housing Element.
• S urvey. A survey will also be distributed at the start of the outreach process to solicit general community input housing needs, constraints, and opportunities. • B oards & Commissions. In September 2021, City staff will meet with 10 boards and commissions to provide an overview of the Housing Element, identify stakeholders, and invite members to participate in the planning process. • S mall Format Meetings. Throughout the planning process, the Housing Element team will conduct focus groups, meetings, “pop-ups”, and listening sessions with disadvantaged communities, neighborhood groups, advocacy organizations, industry organizations, and others to ensure inclusive and representative participation.
• P ublic Workshops. Three public workshops will be conducted at key points during the project: The first workshop will inform the housing needs assessment and production constraints. The second workshop is to inform the site assessment and inventory. The third and final workshop is to invite public review and feedback on the draft Housing Element.

The interviews, meetings, and workshops will adhere to State and local public health guidance in effect at the time of the event. The team anticipates that for Fall 2021 and Winter 2022, the activities will include a mix of online synchronous and asynchronous opportunities (using zoom and other technology platforms for interactive participation) and in-person outdoor events.

The team will rely on use of the city’s website, email lists (City’s GovDelivery account), and flyers and mailings for communication. Other distribution channels include:

Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Homeowner Associations (HOAs), schools, community/senior centers, and community hubs such as grocery stores and farmers markets.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units2. The final target RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth

2 May 20, 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023-2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf 59 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 496 of 1385 ends

Page 500 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 9 ends

over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, certain affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35).

Table 2: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5
th & 6th Cycles

Income Level
5th Cycle
RHNA Units
Units
Permitted
2015-20203
6th Cycle

DRAFT RHNA
Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 232 2,446
Low (50 – 80% AMI) 442 41 1,408
Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) 584 91 1,416
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) 1,401 2,579 3,664
Total 2,959 2,943 8,934

Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the City does not adopt its 6
th Cycle Housing Element prior to January 31, 2023, it faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to facing significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. The City would lose the right to deny certain affordable projects and a court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance.

Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. Many state and regional grant and loan programs require a compliant Housing Element, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), the Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
In addition to this first work session, the team will make presentations to City Council at two additional work sessions in 2022. The purpose of the work sessions is to inform the Council of the Housing Element Update’s progress, share findings from community and stakeholder input, and receive project direction and recommendations from the Council on the immediate tasks ahead.

3 Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
60

Page 497 of 1385 ends

Page 501 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
September 21, 2021

Page 10 ends

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The total budget allocated for the Housing Element Update is $540,000. Berkeley has secured $325,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant funds, $83,506 in non- competitive Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant funds, $75,000 in competitive REAP grant funds, and $56,494 in Community Planning Fees.

CONTACT PERSON
Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489 LINKS:

1. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off- Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf

2. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/D ocuments/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concept s%20-%20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf

3. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021 -03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
6th Cycle 2023-2031
City Council Work Session
September 21, 2021
Agenda

1. Housing Element Update Overview

2. Meet the Team

3. Housing Element Tasks

4. Outreach & Engagement Plan

5. Timeline
2 3
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.

Figure F-10 Work Session #1 Presentation
61 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 498 of 1385 ends

Page 502 ends

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
4 State of CA
Councils of
Government
Local
Jurisdiction
• 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 Reg’l Housing Needs
Determination (RHND)
RHNA
Housing Element
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
5SSoouurrccee 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 (Job & Population Growth, Demographic Trends, Proximity to Education Centers)
+ Unmet Existing Needs (Overcrowding, Cost Burden)
= Higher Allocations (AB 1086 & SB 828 )
~~5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss
SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State
Dept of Finance
~~11,,990000 aaffffoorrddaabbllee uunniittss
SSoouurrccee Berkeley Health, Housing,
Community Services (HHCS) July
2021 Inventory, BMR & HTF
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
~~1199,,550000 rreenntt--ccoonnttrroolllleedd uunniittss SSoouurrccee Berkeley Rent Stabilization
Board, 2021 Q1 Report
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)
6SSoouurrccee 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) 0 16 74 80 93 120
470
271
490
234
533 456
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Single-Family Accessory Dwelling Unit 2-, 3-, 4-Plex Units 5+ Units per Structure Permitted Units by Category 2015-2020
7 59 units 383 units 47 units 2,454 units
488
294
593
343
634
591
11,,112255 xx 88 yyeeaarrss
Housing Element Team
8 9

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SCOPE
Task 1 – Project Management
Task 2 – Community Outreach and
Engagement
Task 3 – Updating the Housing Element
o Housing Needs Assessment
o Constraints Analysis
o Sites Assessment & Inventory
o Goals, Policies & Programs
Task 4 – Environmental Review
Robust Community
Engagement
Equity
Affordability &
Community Benefits
Public Safety
Transit Proximity &
Reducing VMT
Design,
Neighborhood,
Historic Preservation
Tenant Protections,
Anti-Displacement
/Speculation

CITY COUNCIL KEY PRINCIPLES
March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/Initiation%20of% 20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%20- %20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf City Council Rezoning Strategies
10 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
Prioritize in PDAs
Adeline, Downtown, San Pablo,
Shattuck, Telegraph, University
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
• Equitable Neighborhood
Scale Housing
• Ensure similar scale and form
as existing residential.
• Maintain historic fabric and
character
New Rules for Moderate & Above Moderate Income Sites (AB 725) By-Right for Duplexes, Lot Split in Single-Family Zones (SB 9) Jul – Sep
2021
Oct - Dec
2021
Jan - Mar
2022
Apr - Jun
2022
Jul – Sep
2022
Oct - Dec
2022
Jan
2023

HOUSING ELEMENT
ZORP 1– Base Zoning Ordinance
ZORP 2– Objective Standards
Southside Zoning Update
Ashby / N Berkeley BART
Citywide Affordable Housing Req.

San Pablo Av PDA Specific Plan
>>
Integrate with Concurrent Planning Efforts
11 Zoning & General Plan Amendments
Rezoning Timing for Lower Income RHNA

REZONED / UPZONED SITES
By-right approval for 20%+ affordable, with a density
of 30 du/acre and minimum 16 units on site.
12 Jan 2023

REUSED SITES
By-right approval for projects with 20%+ affordable
to lower income households
Reused sites → new site 20% lower-income
Additional sites to accommodate for lower-
income RHNA
New Rules for Lower Income Sites (AB 1397)
Rezoning Needed for Lower-Income RHNA If Needed Rezoning is Adopted After Deadline RHNA & Sites Inventory
13 No Net Loss, by income level (AB 166)
Sites Inventory
Low Income Sites
Inventory Assumption
Approved
– Not Residential
Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
Demonstrate that enough land is zoned to
meet our RHNA…with a buffer (Somewhere
else in Berkeley)
EXAMPLE:

Sites Inventory
14 • City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and zone for it • Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments • Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action • Reliant on the development industry (nonprofit & for profit) to construct housing units Small Sites
< 0.5 acres Non-Vacant Sites
Additional HCD scrutiny on….

Housing Considerations
15 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)
This Photo is licensed under CC
16 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS
 Tailor engagement strategies and approaches to the
local context
 Open and transparent process
 Promote and advertise public participation and
opportunities
 Leverage input at various points in the process
 Provide a variety of opportunities for convenience
 Flexibility, in-person and remote engagement
 Communicate clearly and visually, simplify complex
concepts
 Space for participants to be their authentic selves,
speak native language
 Specific attention to equity and typically
underrepresented
 Maintain positive discourse and dialogue

OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES
This Photo is licensed under CCThis Photo is licensed under CC BY-SA
This Photo is licensed under CC
BYPhoto: Emilie Raguso
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
17 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
CERTIFICATIONEnvironmental Review
& Rezoning
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
18 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
Interviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Workshops
City-wide Survey
1 3
STATE

CERTIFICATION
Council Work Sessions 1
2 Boards & Commissions
2 3
Environmental Review
& Rezoning
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
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
Council Work Sessions 1 2 3
Share results of initial
outreach & engagement
Preliminary housing
assessment findings
Receive input on sites
inventory & strategies
Share results of public
meeting #2, stakeholders
Preliminary sites
inventory & strategies
Receive input on Draft
Housing Element
Environmental Review
& Rezoning
19 Thank You
20 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
62

Page 499 of 1385 ends

Page 503 ends

Office of the City Manager

WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Steven Buckley, Land Use Planning Manager, on behalf of Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department
Subject: Housing Element Update Work Session

SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update for the Statewide “6th Cycle” is underway. This report follows up on the September 21, 2021 Council worksession on the Housing Element and provides an update on progress to date. The purpose of this report and worksession is to:

1. Provide updates to the project timeline based on State law.

2. Present the preliminary findings of the housing needs assessment.

3. Describe the sites inventory methodology.

4. Introduce the multi-unit residential objective standards scope of work.

5. Share the results of the initial public outreach and engagement efforts.

6. Receive direction from the City Council on priority housing programs, site selection criteria, and suitable locations for increased residential density.

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
Project Timeline
Assembly Bill 215, signed by Governor Newsom on September 28, 2021, effectively shortens the Housing Element Update timeline by 74 days. The new law requires that cities make the draft Housing Element publicly available for a minimum of 30 days, and take a minimum of 10 business days to consider and incorporate public comments, prior to sending a revised draft to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) for review. Previously, the public review period could run currently with Planning Commission, City Council, and CEQA meetings on the Housing Element, but AB 215 requires a separate public comment period prior to HCD’s first review of the draft. The law also increased HCD’s review period for the draft Housing Element from 60 to 90 days. However, the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023 remains unchanged.
63 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 500 of 1385 ends

Page 504 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 2 ends

This results in significant impacts to the proposed draft Housing Element timeline and likely necessitates that the City of Berkeley utilize the allotted grace period in order to be able to thoroughly complete the housing plan and provide adequate review and responses. Table 1 details the proposed project timeline in light of AB 215.

Table 1: Housing Element Update Project Timeline
Analysis & Assessment June 2021 – December 2021
Sites & Opportunities August 2021 – February 2022
Goals & Policies November 2021 – May 2022
Draft Housing Element & Review June 2021 – November 2022 Environmental Review December 2021 – December 2022
Minimum 30-day review & 14-day response May 2022 – July 2022 90-day review by HCD July 2022 – October 2022
Response to HCD and Finalize Draft October 2022 – December 2022 Local Adoption of Final Draft January 2023 – March 2023 Final Review and Certification by HCD March 2023 – May 31, 2023 All cities have the option of a 120-day grace period, which includes a 60-day final review and certification by HCD. Therefore, the City effectively has a 60-day grace period and must adopt a Housing Element no later than March 31, 2023.

Preliminary Housing Needs Assessment
The Housing Element illustrates the trends and characteristics of Berkeley’s population, housing stock, and demographics to provide context for the City’s housing needs. The housing needs assessment includes the unmet needs of existing residents and the future housing demand resulting from anticipated changes in population and demographics. Key preliminary findings provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
1 are:

1. Steady Population Growth. The California Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population in 2020 was 122,580. According to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 projections, Berkeley’s population is anticipated to reach approximately 136,000 by 2030 (11%) and approximately 141,000 by 2040. Since 2000, the City’s population has increased approximately 9% each decade, comparable to the State overall (average 8.4%) and slightly less than neighboring jurisdictions such as Oakland (11%) and San Francisco (11.5%).

2. Younger and Older Population. According to the Census American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019), residents ages 15 to 24 comprise the largest age 1 ABAG Housing Needs Packet, April 2021
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
64

Page 501 of 1385 ends

Page 505 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 3 ends

group in Berkeley (27%), followed by people ages 25 to 34 (18%). The median age in Berkeley is 31 years old and the high proportion of younger residents is due to the presence of UC Berkeley within the City. Between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of population aged 25 to 34 increased by 25%, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete.

Berkeley also experienced a significant 40% increase in population aged 65 to 84 between 2010 and 2019, which suggests an increasing need for housing appropriate for seniors in the community. The largest decrease was in the 45 to 54 age group (-9%).

3. Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition. The City is slightly less diverse when compared to Alameda County as a whole, which has greater proportions of Black or African-American, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latinx populations.

Conversely, the proportion of White residents is greater in Berkeley (53%) compared to the County (31%). According to the ACS, the most significant change to Berkeley’s ethnic diversity is a 2% decrease in the overall proportion of the Black/African-American population, which is a continuation of a trend in the City and in the region as a whole since 2000. Over this time period, the proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander residents has increased steadily from 19% to approximately 21% of the Berkeley population and the Latinx residents also increased slightly by 0.6% to approximately 11% of the overall population.

4. Rising Household Income. According to the ACS, the median household income in Berkeley increased by 68% between 2010 and 2019, which is comparable with Alameda County as a whole. For 2021, HCD determined the Area Median Income (AMI) for Alameda County is $125,600 for a family of four. According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which used 2013-2017 ACS data, half of Berkeley’s households earn below the median income which is comparable to Alameda County as a whole. However, a greater proportion of Berkeley households fall within the Very Low-Income category, earning less than 50% AMI (32% compared to 27% in Alameda County as a whole).

5. Rent Burdened. According to the ACS, a majority of Berkeley residents are renters (57%) and more than half of those are rent-burdened, i.e. they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. In 2019, only 3.5% of Berkeley’s rental housing stock was vacant, where a typical rental vacancy rate in California was 5.5%.

Sites Inventory Methodology
The City is required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet the anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (AB 166). AB 166 requires cities to demonstrate 65 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 502 of 1385 ends

Page 506 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 4 ends

capacity is available for affordable units in the case that development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element. Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 units. The following is a summary of the overall methodology for Berkeley’s sites inventory analysis

2. 1. Identify Likely Housing Sites and Production. The initial efforts will identify known projects, sites, and ADU trends that can be credited towards the 6th Cycle. a. Pipeline Projects and Sites of Interest. These parcels are those where applications have already been submitted or there is demonstrated interest in building housing. Pipeline projects for the 6 th Cycle can include
any residential project that is not expected to receive a Certificate of Occupancy until after July 1, 2022.
b. Reused 5
th Cycle Housing Element sites. Generally, available sites can be reused from the 5th cycle Housing Element. These sites should be included in the preliminary sites inventory and evaluated for continued feasibility. New legislation (AB 1397) requires that projects with 20% of on- site units designated for lower income households (80% AMI or less) on these sites are subject to by-right approval unless the sites are rezoned for a higher density prior to the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. c. Calculate ADU Trend. ADUs can count toward the RHNA if the projected number of ADU units aligns with an established local trend. The project team will identify a trend using the annual average of ADU permit approvals between 2018 and 2021 (the time period when the most recent ADU bills were adopted). HCD recommends this methodology.

2. Screening for Vacant and Underutilized Parcels. Using existing land use and County Assessor data, the project team will conduct an analysis to identify vacant and underutilized parcels that could be included in the sites inventory.

This process involves screening the most achievable parcels based on their existing characteristics. The following characteristics will form the starting point for the analysis, based on state and regional guidance:
a. Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. b. Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. c. Parcels are not State- or county-owned.
d. Parcels have an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. 2 More detailed guidance for Housing Element site inventories and analysis is available here: ABAG Site Inventory Memo. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-08/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
66

Page 503 of 1385 ends

Page 507 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 5 ends

e. Buildings on the parcel are “older”. As a starting point, the team will use a threshold of 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non- residential buildings.
f. Parcels are underutilized (built at less than maximum capacity). As a starting point, the team will use parcels that are identified as built at 35% or less of their assumed maximum density or intensity (physical indicators such as height and coverage).
g. Parcel sizes are between 0.5 and 10 acres (for lower income categories) or less than 0.5 acre for moderate and above-moderate income categories. Note that parcels may be consolidated to achieve the 0.5 acre minimum threshold.

Parcels identified in this screening will be reviewed to ensure an adequate assemblage for consideration, and will be combined and cross referenced with the parcels identified in Step 1 to create a comprehensive list of potential Housing Element sites.

3. Screening of Parcels. Using the UrbanFootprint scenario analysis tool 3, the
project team will evaluate the suitability of each parcel for new housing and inclusion in the Housing Element sites inventory. The screening will identify locations where housing should be located (such as near transit, schools, and parks) and locations to avoid if possible (such as areas subject to wildfires). The screening tool will also help with the evaluation of sites in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirement

4. Criteria used in this analysis
includes racial diversity, concentrations of poverty, and vulnerability to displacement. These criteria are divided into four categories and each parcel will be given a “score” to evaluate its appropriateness as a Housing Element parcel based on HCD-provided methodology. The categories and specific criteria are:
a. Socioeconomic criteria, including racial diversity of census tracts, concentrations of low-income households, areas with high social vulnerabilities
5, and a combination of low incomes and high pollution
vulnerability as measured by the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool6. b. Access criteria, including the proximity to transit, parks, and retail/amenities.
3 More information on the UrbanFootprint scenario analysis tool: https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/scenario- planning/
4 More detailed information on the AFFH process and requirements: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtml
5 Social vulnerabilities are measured by the Social Vulnerability Index, an index prepared by CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
6 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report and Mapping tool: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 67 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 504 of 1385 ends

Page 508 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 6 ends

c. Presence of environmental conditions, including parcels near freeways, located in a floodplain or areas subject to sea level rise and fire hazards. d. Housing characteristics of the area, including cost burdened households, the potential for displacement, and a concentration of overcrowded households.

4. Evaluate and Analyze Sites. The project team will study each potential parcel in the sites inventory using aerial photos or field visits, using professional judgment to identify the accuracy of the screening and assess the viability of the parcel for development. Sites that are not appropriate for housing will be removed, while others that are suitable for housing but were not included in the initial quantitative analysis will be added, such as parcels less than 0.5 acres that are able to be consolidated.

5. Calculate Buildout Potential. Using existing zoning, calculate the potential buildout of each parcel to a maximum of 70% of maximum capacity. This number can be modified for individual zoning districts by demonstrating a pattern of achieving higher densities through built or approved projects. Each parcel will also be categorized by its “income category” with parcels that allow 30 dwelling units per acre or more categorized in the “lower income” category (Very Low or Low Income households) and parcels less than 30 units per acre in the Moderate and Above Moderate Income categories.

The project team will review and revise the above steps until all of the appropriate Housing Element sites are identified under the current zoning. If the City cannot meet its RHNA and buffer under current zoning, City Council will be asked to consider locations where additional new housing can be built. This can occur by:

1. Up-zoning areas that already allow residential uses to increase the number of housing units that can be built on those parcels.

2. Allowing residential uses in commercial or industrial areas where residential uses are currently prohibited.

AB 1397 requires that sites rezoned after January 31, 2023 to accommodate lower income RHNA are subject to by-right approval without discretionary review if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households. The rezone must also include a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum density of at least 30 du/ac, and be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units.

The final sites inventory will include a detailed data table (template provided by HCD) of all sites with the characteristics of each (including existing use, zoning, address), calculating the buildout by income category, documenting the viability of each parcel to build housing (with photos and descriptions) and conducing the AFFH analysis.

Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
68

Page 505 of 1385 ends

Page 509 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 7 ends

On September 28, 2021, City Council approved a contract amendment that supports development of objective standards for residential and mixed-use projects. This project originated in response to numerous City Council referrals, as well as recent state housing legislation that requires by-right and ministerial processes for certain eligible residential projects. The objective standards effort is linked directly with the Housing Element scope and timeline to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate approximately 9,000 units and a buffer.

The objective standards project will be undertaken in a two-part process. The focus of this effort (Part 1) will be on establishing objective densities (dwelling units per acre) and building massing standards for housing projects with two or more units.

Development regulations relating to the project placement on a lot and allowable building envelope correlate directly with construction efficiency and the total square footage of housing that can be built. Objective standards for building form and densities will be crafted to ensure consistency with State housing laws and assumptions for the sites inventory and assessment of unit capacities. Part 1 is underway and tracks directly with the Housing Element and environmental review timeline.

The focus of Part 2 will be on objective standards for design, which includes architectural details such as roofline articulation, the orientation of entries, window patterns, and façade treatment. Objective design details will not have a meaningful effect on the number of units that can be built but provides further assurances and predictability for a building’s aesthetic character and harmony within a neighborhood context. Part 2 would begin after the Housing Element is complete; its full scope has not been finalized.

Initial Public Outreach Feedback
At of the time of the writing of this report, the Housing Element team had made presentations to nine Berkeley boards and commissions
7, conducted nine stakeholder
interviews, held a public workshop with over 70 participants, and released a citywide online survey.

1. Public Workshop. The first public workshop occurred over Zoom on October 27, 2021. The goal for the workshop was to introduce Berkeley community members to the Housing Element goals and processes, to get input on successes and challenges in Berkeley’s housing development and programs, and to begin 7 Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/15/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021), and Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021).
69 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 506 of 1385 ends

Page 510 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 8 ends

identifying potential residential types and sites that are appropriate for development.

An invitation and log-in information for the public workshop were sent to more than 200 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and flyers for the event were posted at 15 sites throughout Berkeley during the month of October, including public libraries, senior and community centers, grocery stores, local retailers, and on utility poles near public parks.

During the public workshop, several key themes were identified:
a. High quality of life. As a city, Berkeley has many assets that make it an attractive place to live, including unique neighborhoods, easy access to Downtown, walkability, public transportation, and access to nature and parks.
b. Diverse housing stock. The city has a diverse housing stock with different architectural styles, neighborhood types and unit sizes (i.e., ADUs, single- family, duplex, triplex, mixed-use, apartments).
c. Public Safety. Access is a concern in neighborhoods with narrow roadways and high wildfire risks. Additional development in the hills should be located near major thoroughfares for vehicular, emergency vehicles and transit access.
d. Affordable Housing. Displacement and gentrification trends and the high cost of housing for ownership and rental units indicates a need for more low and moderate-income units.
e. Inclusionary Housing. The current inclusionary requirements and mitigation fees should be revised to support the building of more affordable housing. However, there is also concern that a higher inclusionary requirement will increase housing costs.
f. Geographic Equity. The increased housing needed to meet RHNA should not be focused solely in a few neighborhoods, but be distributed equitably throughout the city.
g. Onerous Entitlement Process. Residential permit approvals are frequently slowed by neighborhood opposition which can make the process long, cumbersome, expensive and easy to obstruct.
h. Opportunity Sites. Housing, particularly affordable and senior housing, should be in transit-rich locations. There should be more diversity in lower density zones to achieve “missing middle” housing. Permit residential and mixed-use projects to build above existing single-story retail buildings.

2. Stakeholder Interviews. Stakeholder interviews are used to identify housing needs and constraints, identify opportunity sites, and inform engagement City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
70

Page 507 of 1385 ends

Page 511 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 9 ends

strategies. To date, the outreach team has interviewed nine stakeholders, including representatives from Berkeley’s faith-based institutions and community organizations, affordable and market-rate housing developers, real estate and property management professionals, housing advocates, business owners, and advocacy organizations representing what HCD terms “special needs,” meaning a target population. The interview effort is ongoing and has raised the following issues thus far:
a. Affordable Housing. The current requirements for inclusionary housing and funding resources are insufficient to meeting the demands for affordable housing in Berkeley. There is also a need to provide subsidies for those who live in market-rate housing, particularly those with special needs including the disabled and transitional homeless. b. Neighborhood Character. The architectural character for lower density neighborhoods should be preserved and not interrupted, though consideration should be given to blocks where there are existing taller or denser buildings constructed prior to the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in the 1970s.
c. Gentrification. High housing costs and a large student population are driving increased rents throughout the city.
d. Height Limits. The current height constraints in many zoning districts do not take into consideration construction efficiency and the increased costs due to changes in construction type.
e. Streamlined Approvals. The housing entitlement process is frequently prolonged and unpredictable due to discretionary procedures, contentious neighborhood opposition, and resistance to higher density, regardless of zoning compliance.
f. Opportunity Sites. Higher densities should be developed around BART stations and near transit stops, as well as near or above existing community resources, such as child care facilities, senior centers and retail corridors. Residential should be allowed in more ground floor locations, given a decline in retail activity and increase in ground floor vacancies.

The interviews were conducted virtually, in groups of one to three, with one hour allotted for each session.

3. Online Survey. The Housing Element Online Survey was made available from October 28 through November 14, 2021 and includes the same three questions discussed at the October 27th public workshop: Housing successes, housing issues, and locations for new housing. Respondents need not have attended the workshop in order to respond to the survey. As of early November, the survey has received 460 responses.
71 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 508 of 1385 ends

Page 512 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 10 ends

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units8. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35).

Table 2: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5
th & 6th Cycles
Income Level
5th Cycle
RHNA Units
Units
Permitted
2015-20209
6th Cycle

DRAFT RHNA
Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 232 2,446
Low (50 – 80% AMI) 442 41 1,408
Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) 584 91 1,416
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) 1,401 2,579 3,664
Total 2,959 2,943 8,934
Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the City does not meet the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline for adopting new zoning, eligible affordable projects on rezoned sites from the 5
th Cycle would be approved ministerially. If the City
does not adopt its 6th Cycle Housing Element prior to March 31, 2023, it faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing 8 May 20, 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Draft Allocations. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023-2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf 9 Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
72

Page 509 of 1385 ends

Page 513 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
December 9, 2021

Page 11 ends

greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Housing Element team will make another presentation to the City Council at a worksession in 2022, to inform the Council of the Housing Element Update’s progress, share findings from community and stakeholder input, and receive project direction and recommendations from the Council on the immediate tasks ahead.

CONTACT PERSON
Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489 LINKS:

1. September 21, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 1 . Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/09_Sep/City_Council__0 9-21-2021_-_Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

2. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off- Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf

3. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/D ocuments/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concept s%20-%20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf

4. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021 -03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx 73 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 510 of 1385 ends

Page 514 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OVERVIEW
6th Cycle 2023-2031
City Council Work session #2
December 9, 2021
Agenda

1. Timeline Update

2. Preliminary Housing Needs Assessment & Program Evaluation

3. Sites Inventory Methodology

4. Residential Objective Standards

5. Public Outreach Feedback

6. Discussion & Direction
2 The 6th Housing Element Update Process – AB 215
3 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-23
Local Adoption
May
2023

STATE REVIEW/
CERTIFICATIONEnvironmental Review
& Rezoning
We Are Here
Council Work Sessions 1 32
AB 215
Jan 2023 Mar 2023

STATUTORY

DEADLINE

GRACE PERIOD

DEADLINE
The 6th Housing Element Update Process – AB 1397
4 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-23
Local Adoption
May
2023

STATE REVIEW/
CERTIFICATIONEnvironmental Review
& Rezoning
We Are Here
Council Work Sessions 1 32
AB 215
AB 1397
Jan 2023 Mar 2023Rezoning after Jan 2023 must provide for by -right approval • RReeuusseedd SSiitteess ffrroomm pprriioorr ccyycclleess.. Projects with 20% on-site units for 80% AMI or less (unless up-zoned prior to Jan 31)
• RReezzoonneedd SSiitteess ffoorr lloowweerr iinnccoommee RRHHNNAA.. Projects with 20% on-site units for 80% AMI or less to accommodate lower income RHNA (min 20 du/ac, max ≥ 30 du/ac, min. 16 units)
The 6th Housing Element Update – Public Input
5 Interviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Workshops
City-wide Survey
1 3
Council Work Sessions 1
2 Boards & Commissions
3 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-23
Local Adoption
Environmental Review
& Rezoning
2 We Are Here
May
2023

STATE REVIEW/
CERTIFICATIONAB 215

HOUSING NEEDS
& PROGRAMS

1. Population & Households

2. Housing Stock & Tenure

3. Housing Program Evaluation
6 Census ACS = small sample size over 1 to 5 years
Census 2020 was an unusual pandemic year
A NOTE ABOUT DATA SOURCES…
→→ IInnddiiccaattiioonn ooff ppoossssiibbllee ttrreennddss iinn BBeerrkkeelleeyy SStteeaaddyy GGrroowwtthh
Forecast for 2020-2030
122,580 to 136,000 (11%)
Population & Households
$$112255,,660000
Area Median Income for 4-
person household
~~2255%% SSttuuddeennttss
~71% of Cal students
live in Berkeley
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

22..44 ppeerr HHoouusseehhoolldd
34% Single Person
35% Married Couples
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019 SSoouurrccee UC Berkeley LRDP EIR 2020SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019 LLooww VVaaccaannccyy
~3.5% of rental housing
was vacant
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
Housing Stock & Tenure
MMaajjoorriittyy RReenntteerrss

57.1% of housing
is renter-occupied
RReenntt BBuurrddeenneedd

53.5% spend more than 30%
of income on housing
~~5522,,000000 uunniittss
Existing # of
housing units
SSoouurrccee Census 2020 and Dept. of Finance
22,,994433 ppeerrmmiitttteedd
Building Permits Issued
b/t 2015 and 2020
SSoouurrccee City of Berkeley 2020 revised APR
8833%% MMuullttii--FFaammiillyy 55++
13% ADU’s

1.6% 2-4 unit development
SSoouurrccee City of Berkeley 2020 revised APR
SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019 SSoouurrccee ACS 2015-2019
Program Evaluation
HHoouussiinngg TTrruusstt FFuunndd
$12.6M+ AHMF since 2015
1,530+ units
64% below 50% AMI
PPrrooggrreessss
29 out of 33 programs
recommended to be
continued/expanded.

RReehhaabbiilliittaattiioonn
640 of 663 units
589 Low Income (of 408)
Need more VLI (0 of 184)
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
Special Needs
HHoommeelleessss
2018: $4.2M in services
2020: $15.9M in services
2021: Harrison House
Centralized reservation system
506 permanent supportive units
250 shelter beds
5 family transitional beds
15 individual transitional beds
SSeenniioorr//DDiissaabblleedd
2015-2020: 22 units received
home repair loans.
2020: $1.56 million for
programs serving people with
disabilities. Remodeled 249
units for accessibility.

Berkeley Rides – Approx.
1,270 participants, $606k in
funding for FY 22
Meals on Wheels – Approx.
220 clients, $57k for FY22
FFeemmaallee--HHeeaaddeedd HHHH
7% of population, 14% w/
children below poverty line.

Berkeley Black Infant Health,
Approx. $250k funding/year
WIC Nutrition Program, Approx.
$530k funding/year
Family Support Services Program,
Approx. $420k funding/year

SITE INVENTORY

METHODOLOGY
11 Site Identification Steps
Identify
Likely
Sites
Identify
Under-
utilized
Sites
Screen for
Suitability
Evaluate
& Analyze
Calculate
Buildout
12 1 - Identify Likely Housing Sites and Production
VVeerryy LLooww
>>5500%% AAMMII
LLooww
5500--8800%% AAMMII
MMooddeerraattee
8800--112200%% AAMMII
AAbboovvee MMoodd
>> 112200%% AAMMII
RRHHNNAA 22,,444466
(27.4%)
11,,440088
(15.8%)
11,,441166
(15.8%)
33,,666644
(41%)
Subtract: ADU Trend ~240 ~240 ~240 ~80
Subtract: Pipeline Projects (COO after 6/30/2022) TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtract: Sites of Interest TBD TBD TBD TBD
Subtract: Reused 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites ~300 ~401 ~493 0

SSUUBBTTOOTTAALL
Add: 15-30% buffer = Additional Sites Needed
13 14
2 - Screen for Vacant and
Underutilized Parcels
• Vacant
• Underutilized
• No condos or apartments
• Low improvement ratio
• Older
• Low density or intensity
• Right-sized
3 - Screen for Suitability
15 • Environmental conditions: e.g., proximity to freeways, flood-prone areas, wildfire risk areas, and other potential hazards
Very High
Fire Hazard
Source: CalFire
Projected
Inundation
from 5' Sea
Level Rise
Source: NOAA
Figure F-11 Work Session #2 Presentation
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
74

Page 511 of 1385 ends

Page 515 ends

3 - Screen for Suitability
16 • Access to transit, parks, retail, food and other amenities Access to Transit
17 • !
3 - Screen for Suitability
• Socioeconomic
• Housing characteristics of the
area
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) requirements
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
18 4 - Evaluate and Analyze
• Aerial photos and field visits
• Remove inappropriate sites
5 - Calculate Buildout
VVeerryy LLooww
>>5500%% AAMMII
LLooww
5500--8800%% AAMMII
MMooddeerraattee
8800--112200%% AAMMII
AAbboovvee MMoodd
>> 112200%% AAMMII
RRHHNNAA 22,,444466 (27.4%) 11,,440088 (15.8%) 1 1,,441166 (15.8%) 3 3,,666644 (41%) Subtract: ADU Trend ~240 ~240 ~240 ~80
Subtract: Pipeline Projects (COO after 6/30/2022) TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtract: Sites of Interest TBD TBD TBD TBD
Subtract: Reused 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites ~300 ~401 ~493 0

SSUUBBTTOOTTAALL
Add: 15-30% buffer = Additional Sites Needed
Subtract: Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Screen for Suitability
Evaluate and Analyze
T

TOOTTAALL
Potential Buildout (70%)
Shortfall → Rezone
19 Housing Element Sites Inventory
20 Site
Address/Intersection
5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed (units/acre) Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity

MULTI-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL

OBJECTIVE

STANDARDS

1. Why objective standards?

2. Project Goal

3. Part 1 & Part 2 Overview

4. Part 1 Framework
21 www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards

MORE INFORMATION AT
Why are we creating Residential Objective Standards?
22 CALIFORNIA & BERKELEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

RECENT STATE LAW CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS HOUSING ELEMENT • SB 35 Streamlining for
Affordable Development
• Housing Accountability Act
• SB 330 Housing Crisis Act
• 2021 Housing Bills,
including SB 9, SB 478
• Housing Accountability Act
• Missing Middle Housing
• Eliminate Exclusionary
Zoning
• Affordable Housing Overlay
• Plan for 8,934 new units +
Buffer
• AB 1397 By-Right
Affordable Development at
default density for re-used
Housing Element sites
• Spring 2023 deadline
ALSO
Project Goal
23 CLEAR MULTI-UNIT

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
HE Sites
Inventory
Developm
ent Trends
Stakeholder,
Staff &
Public Input
Background
/ Feasibility
Analysis

STREAMLINEDPREDICTABILITY

SHORTENED ENTITLEMENT

PROCESS
A Two-Part Process
24 PART 1 – OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PART 2 – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WE ARE HERE (2021 to 2023) 2023 and later

SITE FORM/MASSING ARTICULATION FACADE
Density (units/acre)
Open Space
Zoning
Land Use
Building Placement
Part 1 Framework – Three Buckets
25 Housing
Element
Update
2-4
Units
(‘Plexes)
5+ Units
and/or
Mixed-Use
Min & Max Density
Re-zonings (if needed)
Multi-Unit 2-4
Confirm / Modify / Add
New Standards
Multi-Unit 5+ / Mixed-Use
Confirm / Modify / Add
New Standards

CONCURRENT WITH HOUSING ELEMENT

PUBLIC OUTREACH

1. Public Workshop #1 & Survey

2. Stakeholder Interviews
26 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), and Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021)
2 Black/African American Faith Institution, Market Rate Developers, Affordable Developers, Senior Center, Real Estate Professional, Property Managers, Homeless Services, Housing Advocacy, Disabilities Services Public Workshop & Online Survey
27 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
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 28 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
Preliminary Stakeholder Interviews
29 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
The 6th Housing Element Update Process – Council
30 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-23
Local Adoption
May 2023

STATE REVIEW/

CERTIFICATION
We Are Here
Council Engagement 1 32
Public Workshops 32
Planning Commission
ZORP Subcommittees
Tour Draft
3 31 2
2 41
1 4 5
AdoptionHousing Element +
Objective Standards
HCD Review
Discussion & Direction

1. Are there additional site selection criteria that should be considered?

2. If rezoning is needed to accommodate the RHNA, what areas of the city should be considered for allowing housing or increasing density? What areas should not be considered?

3. Is “Missing Middle” with 2-4 units appropriate in certain Commercial districts and in the MU-R?
• Commercial districts: Currently, two-family and multi-family 3+ uses require a use permit. • MU-R: Currently, two-family requires an AUP and multi-family 3+ requires a use permit

4. What City housing programs do you consider most successful? What are policies or programs that should be prioritized or created for the 6th cycle? 31 GENERAL FEEDBACK
ALSO
75 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 512 of 1385 ends

Page 516 ends

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards

SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update for the Statewide “6th Cycle” is underway alongside its counterpart project, Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards (“Objective Standards”). This report follows up on the December 9, 2021 Council worksession on the Housing Element and provides an update on progress to date. The purpose of this report and worksession is to:

1. Share the feedback from recent public engagement efforts.

2. Present the preliminary sites inventory and describe the environmental review process.

3. Present on the analysis and draft development standards for two- to four-unit projects in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R Districts outside of the Hillside Overlay.

4. Describe the preliminary methodology for analyzing and drafting development standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects.

5. Receive direction from the City Council on Housing Element policy, zoning standards for missing middle housing, and development criteria for residential projects with five or more units.

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Outreach Feedback
At of the time of the writing of this report, the Housing Element team had made presentations to 13 Berkeley boards, commissions, and committees1, conducted 18

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);

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
76

Page 513 of 1385 ends

Page 517 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 2 ends

stakeholder interviews, met with Housing Commission representatives from the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), held two public workshops with more than 60 participants each, and released two citywide online surveys.

Since the December Council Housing Element work session, the project team held a public workshop, completed a citywide online survey and held two concurrent meetings of the Planning Commission and Zoning Adjustments Board subcommittees. The following are key takeaways from these outreach efforts:

1. Public Workshop. The second public workshop occurred over Zoom on January 27, 2022. The goal for the workshop was to share insights from community engagement efforts, update the Berkeley community on Housing Element sites inventory methodology, introduce the Residential Objective Standards project, and receive input on zoning standards to facilitate housing production.

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

During the second public workshop, several key themes were reiterated:
a. Locations to facilitate housing production. Participants identified both higher density neighborhoods (Downtown, Southside) and lower density neighborhoods (West, North, and South Berkeley) as locations to consider for increasing housing capacity through added height and/or density.

Several comments highlighted the desire to avoid clustering affordable housing primarily along high traffic corridors.
b. Housing criteria. Proximity to community resources, including grocery stores and retail, are important criteria. Several participants commented on the need for active ground floor uses and more mixed-uses to further foster a walkable environment.
c. Multi-Unit 2-4. Participants generally supported the concept of increasing allowable density in low-density residential districts, particularly if constructed with objective standards to maintain appropriate neighborhood scale and adequate planting, landscaping, and open space. d. Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed Use. Participants shared support for encouraging innovative and creative design, as well as incentivizing community and shared open spaces, particularly for multi-family projects. Several commenters expressed that developments should minimize solar impacts on adjacent residential units.

Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021); Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021); Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Subcommittees (12/15/2021 and 2/16/2022); Civic Arts Commission (1/19/2022); City/UC/Student Relations Committee (1/28/2022).
77 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 514 of 1385 ends

Page 518 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 3 ends

2. D owntown and West Berkeley Tour and Online Survey. Two residential walking tours and online surveys were made available from November 24, 2021 through January 31, 2022. The goal of the tours was to inform and get feedback from community members on the diversity of housing types and building sizes in the City and to understand what makes residential development compatible with neighborhood scale.

The walking tours and surveys were advertised at the December 9, 2021 Council work session, on the flyer for the January Housing Element workshop, and emailed to more than 330 subscribers of the Housing Element email list in November, early January, and late January. They were also announced at the December and January Planning Commission meetings, at December subcommittee meetings of the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Planning Commission and the January 4x6 meeting.
a. The Downtown Walking Tour received a total of 23 survey responses and included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only developments. The most common features that participants found to be compatible were building height, massing, and design features such as building articulation, color and materials, and windows. Features that would establish more compatibility included additional landscaping, planting, architectural details, and vehicular access and loading.
b. The West Berkeley walking tour received a total of 26 survey responses and included 12 tour stops, with a range of “missing middle” housing types including multiple detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and mixed-use projects. The most common features that survey participants found compatible were placement of structures (setbacks and location on lot), heights, and overall building shape, size, and form. The features that would create more compatibility included building and parking orientation, and additional landscaping and planting.

3. S ubcommittee meetings of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board. These concurrent meetings occurred over Zoom on December 15, 2021 and February 16, 2022. The goal for the meetings was to introduce the Objective Standards project, discuss an analysis of Berkeley’s development standards for two- to four-unit residential projects and receive targeted feedback on a number of key issues. Analysis involved development of two to four-unit housing prototypes and an assessment of project feasibility based on current development standards. Over 25 members of the public attended the February meeting – many of whom were design professionals or interested residents – providing feedback on the technical nature of the material.

There was general support for ministerial approval of projects that met objective standards and tiered standards that incentivized density and preservation of City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
78

Page 515 of 1385 ends

Page 519 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 4 ends

existing housing stock. Commissioners and the public requested refinements or further research to:
• Create more flexible open space requirements.
• Understand shadow impacts to solar.
• Incentivize smaller units / denser projects which naturally encourage housing that is more affordable.
• Model adjacent and abutting lots for improved neighborhood context.

Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity and Environmental Review The City is required by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet the anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (AB 166)

2. Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 units. The sites must be zoned to allow for residential uses and the zoning standards must allow for the unit capacities assumed in the sites inventory.

The sites inventory process assessed capacity in three categories:

1. Likely Sites include projects that received their land use entitlement after 2018 but have not received their certificate of occupancy. For these projects, the affordability breakdown reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the “likely sites” category based on recent development trends and assumed levels of affordability based on ABAG’s Affordability of ADUs report

3. The North
Berkeley and Ashby BART stations are included under “likely sites” based on current planning efforts. The site inventory estimates 1,200 units to be developed at those sites during the 6th cycle, with 35% affordability split evenly between Very Low- and Low-Income affordability levels. The preliminary assessment of “likely sites” to develop account for over 5,100 units towards our 8,934 RHNA goal, and 33 percent of the lower income allocation.

2. Pipeline Sites include projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. The preliminary

2 AB 166 requires cities to demonstrate capacity is available for affordable units in the case that development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element. 3 September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents- mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file 79 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 516 of 1385 ends

Page 520 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 5 ends

assessment of “pipeline sites” account for over 2,400 units, and 10 percent of the lower income allocation.

3. Opportunity Sites are not associated with actual development proposals. These parcels are identified as “opportunity sites” or potential sites for future housing development using HCD’s criteria and methodology (outlined below). Berkeley’s zoning districts, with the exception of the C-AC district, do not have maximum density standards expressed in “dwelling units per acre”. As a result, unit assumptions for opportunity sites were calculated using the average mean of the base density from recent entitlement projects within the district (or districts with similar zoning standards if there were no recent projects within the district to analyze). The preliminary assessment of “opportunity sites” account for over 9,000 units distributed across 364 parcels, and accommodates 86 percent of the lower income RHNA goal.

AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low- Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households on-site. Preliminary analysis shows that this will affect approximately 18 opportunity sites (1,419 units), located along commercial corridors.

HCD’s criteria for selecting opportunity sites includes:
a. Vacant. Land is identified as vacant in the Alameda County Assessor’s land use data.
b. Underutilized. Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of

0.75 or less.
c. Older. Buildings on the parcel are greater than 30 years old for non- residential buildings and greater than 40 years old for residential buildings. d. Jurisdiction. Parcel is not Federal-, State- or county-owned. e. Historic or Landmarked. Parcel does not contain historic buildings or landmarked resources.
f. Existing Residential. Parcel does not contain condos, large apartment buildings, or rent-controlled units.
g. Supermarkets. Unless a developer has expressed interest in a particular site, HCD typically does not accept supermarkets as potential opportunity sites due to their long-term leases and community need.

HCD’s affordability assumptions are based on the premise that affordable units are more likely to be developed on larger sites that allow for higher densities and a greater total number of units. For the purposes of affordability assumptions on opportunity sites, HCD’s methodology combines the “lower income” categories, City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
80

Page 517 of 1385 ends

Page 521 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 6 ends

Very Low- and Low-Income. The affordability assumptions, based on the State’s guidance, are:
a. Parcel Size. On sites that are less than 0.35 acres, the potential unit capacity is included solely in the moderate and above-moderate categories. On sites that are greater than 0.5 acre, the affordability distribution is then dependent on the resulting density and unit capacity calculations. Note, adjacent parcels under the same ownership are included and consolidated to achieve a minimum 0.5 acre threshold. b. Density. The potential unit capacity from opportunity sites where the assumed density is less than 75 units per acre are placed in the Above Moderate-Income category. On sites where the assumed density is greater than or equal to 75 units per acre, the potential units are split among the three affordability categories (Lower-, Moderate-, and Above Moderate-Income) based on the number of units that can be accommodated on the site.
c. Unit Capacity. If a site can accommodate up to 30 units, then the potential capacity is categorized in the Above Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate between 31 and 50 units, the potential capacity is categorized in the Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate more than 50 units, the potential units are categorized in the Lower- Income category.

Preliminary analysis of Berkeley’s “Likely Sites”, “Pipeline Sites”, and “Opportunity Sites” using HCD’s methodology yields over 16,500 units and meets RHNA requirements within each income category. This suggests that the City’s existing zoning is adequate to meet HCD requirements for a compliant Housing Element.

Recent development activity, however, suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the City aims to achieve. Density Bonus and inclusionary units have fallen short of providing the overall 20% Very-Low and Low-Income units expressed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance in part because projects typically pay a fee in lieu of providing all or part of the inclusionary requirement.

City Council has provided direction on where and how to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types (see Attachment 1, Council Housing Referrals). Based on Council’s referrals and resolutions, the City is preparing a programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report 81 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 518 of 1385 ends

Page 522 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 7 ends

(DEIR) that will study potential environmental impacts that could result from up-zoning and new policies in the following areas, by traffic analysis zone (TAZ)4:

1. North Berkeley and Ashby BART TOD projects assumed a maximum of 2,400 units in its EIR5 and the Housing Element EIR will match that assumption. The Sites Inventory estimate currently assumes 1,200 units will be permitted during the Housing Element 2023-2031 cycle.

2. R- 1 and R-1A districts are anticipated to increase in density based on SB 9 and zoning amendments in response to Council’s referral for missing middle housing6 and resolution to end exclusionary zoning7. The Terner Center’s SB 9 modeling indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 new market-feasible units through SB 98. Using HCD’s 70th percentile methodology, the EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 and R-1A districts for the 2023-2031 period.

3. Southside Zoning Modification Project proposed an expansion of approximately 800 units over existing Southside Plan Area zoning in its July 2020 Initial Study9.

Given past development trends and the limited number of opportunity sites in the Southside, the Housing Element EIR assumes approximately 1,200 units total to accommodate up-zoning in the C-T, R-S and R-SMU districts.

As part of the environmental review process, the Housing Element team will be evaluating foreseeable physical impacts as well as a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation strategies to reduce or avoid potential environmental effects. The alternatives may consider increases in allowed heights and densities or find that higher unit capacities result in greater potential impacts. Ultimately, the EIR must study a realistic development potential for the eight-year period of the Housing Element Update

4 July 2014. Final Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Map. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ModelFinalTAZ_North-1.pdf 5 October 2021. Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station TOD EIR. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/Ashby%20and%20North%20Berkeley%20BART%20Stations%20Zoning%20Project%20DEIR% 20October%202021.pdf
6 April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04- 23_Supp_2_Reports_Item_32_Rev_Droste_pdf.aspx
7 February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02- 23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx
8 July 21, 2021, Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes? Terner Center. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Terner-Center-SB9-model-jurisdiction- output.xlsx
9 July 2020. Southside Zoning Ordinance Amendments Projects Initial Study. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/Final%20Southside%20Zoning%20Ordinance%20Amendments_Initial%20Study.pdf City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
82

Page 519 of 1385 ends

Page 523 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 8 ends

to avoid overestimating impacts and unduly burdening future development projects with increased mitigation measures.

Rezoning: Two to Four Unit Residential Objective Standards In alignment with the Housing Element Update and EIR, the Objective Standards team is studying modifications to zoning standards for residential development with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts outside of the Hillside Overlay. These standards are intended to implement the Council’s direction to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow for multifamily “missing middle” housing in Berkeley’s lower-density residential districts.

To inform the development of these standards, the City a) illustrated and analyzed existing development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts; and b) prepared four prototype models of example two- to four-unit development projects.

These models show a range of configurations for “missing middle” projects in Berkeley and highlight potential conflicts with existing standards (Attachment 2, Illustrated Missing Middle Models).

Key observations from the analysis of existing development standards and prototype feasibility include:

1. Lot Coverage. In R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum lot coverage varies between 35 percent and 50 percent depending on the location of a lot (internal or corner) and the height of the proposed development (one and two stories or three stories). Maximum lot coverage is a limiting standard, particularly for internal lots, and lot coverage standards that vary by number of stories are more complicated to apply.

2. O pen Space. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is currently required in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2. A minimum of 300 square feet and 150 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is required in the R-2A and MU-R, respectively. A minimum width and length of 10 foot by 10 foot is required for ground floor open space; a minimum length of six feet is required for above-ground usable open space. Two of the four prototypes studied do not meet minimum usable open space requirements due to side yard driveways and paved on-site parking area.

3. H eight and Stories. In R-1, R-2A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum average height is 28 feet and three stories. A maximum average height of 35 feet is achievable with an administrative use permit (AUP) and is commonly granted by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) with few—if any—modifications. For some buildings, it is possible to incorporate four stories into a 35-foot average building height, which would increase total habitable floor area.

4. S etbacks. In the R-1 and R-1A, a four-foot side setback is required for all floors, while setbacks in the R-2 and R-2A vary between the first two floors (four-foot side setback) and the third floor (six-foot side setback) and cannot be reduced 83 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 520 of 1385 ends

Page 524 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 9 ends

with an AUP. MU-R has no minimum side setback requirement. The upper floor setbacks add complexity to three-story construction. Three of the four prototypes studied do not meet the increased third-story interior side setback required in the R-2 and R-2A districts.

5. Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Achievable floor areas based on modeling of existing zoning standards demonstrate a range between 4,881 square feet on an internal lot in the R-2A to 7,800 square feet on a corner lot in the MU-R. There is no maximum FAR standard in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts; achievable floor area is limited by other standards such as lot coverage, height, stories, and setbacks. In MU-R, the maximum FAR is 1.5, which is a limiting standard where existing standards otherwise allow for 100% lot coverage, up to 10-foot setbacks, 35-feet height and three stories.

Based on the existing standards and prototype analysis, the Objective Standards team drafted proposed standards and alternative options for residential projects with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts outside of the Hillside Overlay (Attachment 3, Draft Proposed Multi-Unit 2-4 Development Standards). Proposed standards would apply only to two- to four-unit projects; single-family dwellings will continue to be subject to existing standards. The standards will be further revised and refined to address ZORP Subcommittees and Council input.

Key proposed zoning modifications for consideration include:

1. Lot Coverage. To promote housing production and allow for a range of project configurations, the draft proposed standards increase allowed lot coverage as the number of units increases.

2. O pen Space. To allow for flexibility in the location and configuration of usable open space while maintaining existing minimum dimensions, the draft proposed standards modify the standards to include outdoor area on the ground within front, street side, or rear setback areas and also above ground (e.g. balconies) used for active or passive recreation use.

3. H eight and Stories. To incentivize multi-unit housing production, the draft proposed standards allow maximizing height and increasing the maximum to four stories for projects with three or four units.

4. S etbacks. The draft proposed standards include applying a maximum front setback (measured from the front property line) to ensure consistent building placement with adjacent structures, and reducing minimum rear setbacks to be consistent with existing ADU and SB 9 requirements.

5. S tep backs. To enhance the feasibility for multi-unit configurations, the proposed draft standards apply a front step back (measured from the face of the building wall and not the property line) and removes all other upper-story setback and step back requirements.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
84

Page 521 of 1385 ends

Page 525 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 10 ends

6. Floor Area and FAR. The City Council previously directed the City Manager to consider scaling the FAR to increase as the number of units increase on a site.

The proposed draft standards increase height, number of stories, and lot coverage as the number of units on the site increases, which effectively increases achievable floor area as number of units increase without creating a new FAR standard.

7. P reservation. To incentivize preservation of existing housing units, the proposed draft standards consider an option to increase allowable floor area for sites with retained existing habitable space.

8. P ermit Requirements. City Council direction calls for allowing two-to four-unit projects in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, MU-R zoning districts. The proposed draft standards would allow two- to four-unit projects with a Zoning Certificate in the R- 1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. Two- to four-unit projects are currently permitted by-right in the R-1 under SB 9. Three- and four-unit projects are currently not permitted in the R-1A zones. Where permitted, two- to four-unit projects all require a Use Permit and a public hearing.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on the proposed zoning modifications and development standards for two- to four-unit projects in low-density residential districts.

Rezoning: Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed-Use Residential Objective Standards The City is in the preliminary stages of developing objective standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects (“multi-unit 5+”). The intent of this effort is to add, remove, or modify objective standards as needed to provide clarity and predictability for streamlined projects (e.g. SB 35), reduce the number of use permits a project requires, and to ensure that such projects are compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

The following is a summary of the overall methodology for developing multi-unit 5+ standards:

1. Analyze Recent Project Approval Findings. Using residential projects entitled since 2016, the Objective Standards team will compare the current Zoning Ordinance requirements to as-built dimensions and analyze the relevant non- detriment findings in the staff reports to inform potential objective standards. The initial list of development standards to review will be based on the standards currently being evaluated for two- to four-unit projects (e.g. coverage, height, setbacks).

2. I dentify Trends by Zoning District and Project type. The Objective Standards team will study recent development trends by zoning district and by residential project type (e.g., mixed-use, multifamily, or group living accommodations) to determine where modifying of existing standards is necessary. 85 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 522 of 1385 ends

Page 526 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 11 ends

3. Tailoring Draft Standards. Using the findings and trends analysis, the Objective Standards team will develop preliminary draft zoning standards. Draft development standards will recognize the different residential types and scales of multi-unit 5+ projects. For example, a three-story, five-unit residential-only building may require different objective standards from a five-story, 100-unit mixed-use building especially when transitioning between low-density residential neighborhoods and higher density, or mixed-use areas.

Included in this effort is consideration of how new development under revised building envelope standards may impact neighboring rooftop solar access where a Commercial or MU-R district borders a Residential district.

In the initial review of existing development standards for multi-unit 5+, the Objective Standards team has identified key early policy questions that require Council input.

1. Mixed-Use vs. Residential-Only. In all Commercial districts except the C-T, C- DMU, and C-AC, development standards vary between mixed-use residential and residential-only projects, providing significantly greater achievable floor area for mixed-use projects. These regulations were intended to encourage mixed-use development along the City’s commercial corridors; however, this incentive has resulted in unintended ground floor vacancies. This was noted in a 2017 Council referral requesting flexible ground floor uses10 to fill vacancies.

Modifying the development standards along the commercial corridors outside the nodes would provide residential-only projects the benefits afforded to mixed-use residential projects. This change would provide flexibility of uses while continuing to support areas of commercial activity and increasing housing capacity.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on whether residential-only projects on commercial corridors–outside designated nodes —should have the same built envelope and maximum floor area as mixed-use residential projects.

2. Height and Stories. In the C-DMU Core, the ZAB may issue a Use Permit to increase the height to a maximum of 180 feet for three buildings and a maximum of 120 feet for two buildings. To-date, one 180-foot building has been constructed, one 120-foot building has been issued building permits, one 180-foot building has been entitled, and one 180-foot building is awaiting entitlement. The Southside Plan’s preliminary environmental analysis projected up to three 12-story buildings that would include up to 500 units.

To provide clarity and predictability for future potential projects, and increase housing capacity in the limited number of identified opportunity sites in the Downtown and Southside areas (approximately 14 parcels in Downtown and nine

10 April 4, 2017. Referral to allow non-commercial ground floor uses. Wengraf et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/04_Apr/Documents/2017-04- 04_Item_21_Referral_to_the_Planning_Commission_to_Allow_Non-commercial_Use.aspx City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
86

Page 523 of 1385 ends

Page 527 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 12 ends

in Southside), rezoning provides an opportunity to increase maximum heights and/or the number of tall buildings allowed within C-DMU Core and Southside.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on potentially raising maximum heights and/or uncapping the number of tall buildings in Downtown and the Southside once objective standards and programmatic elements to incentivize affordable units are in place.

Project Timeline and Implications
In order to meet the Housing Element’s statutory deadline of January 31, 2023, the EIR timeline and HCD’s review periods, environmental review for this project has been initiated. Berkeley is on target to meet the statutory deadline for the Housing Element with little or no leeway in the timeline due to a 74-day decrease in timeline imposed by AB 215 which came in to effect on January 1, 2022.

The schedule will remain uncertain until the project nears completion. The project team is working diligently to meet the statutory deadline for a compliant Housing Element, but recognizes that final adoption requires various parties, within and outside the City, to act under very tight timelines. The Housing Element EIR will cover rezoning and Residential Objective Standards; however, adoption of these elements can occur a few months after adoption of the Housing Element without penalty from the State if additional time or review is required.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units11. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35).

Table 1: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles
Income Level 2015-2023 RHNA Units 2023-2031 RHNA Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 2,446
Low (50-80% AMI) 442 1,408
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 584 1,416
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 1,401 3,664
Total 2,959 8,934

11 December 16, 2021. Final RHNA Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/tools- resources/digital-library/proposed-finalrhnaallocationreport2023-2031pdf 87 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 524 of 1385 ends

Page 528 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 13 ends

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Based on Council direction, project findings, and stakeholder and public input to date, the Housing Element team will prepare and release a public draft Housing Element Update in early Summer 2022. The general public will have 30 days to review and submit comments, and the City must allocate a minimum of two weeks to address and respond to public comments before submitting a Draft Housing Element to HCD for a 90-day review. After incorporating HCD comments, a final Housing Element Update is anticipated to be submitted to Council in early 2023 for local adoption prior to submittal for State certification.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the State does not certify the 6
th Cycle Housing Element prior to May 31, 2023, the City faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources.

CONTACT PERSON
Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Housing Referrals

2. Illustrated Missing Middle Models

3. Draft Proposed Standards for Two- to Four-Unit Residential Development in the R- 1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
88

Page 525 of 1385 ends

Page 529 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 14 ends

LINKS:

1. December 9, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 2. Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/City_Council__1 2-09-2021_-_Special_Meeting.aspx

2. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows.

Supplemental Packet 3. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/202 1-11-
09_Item_20_Objective_Standards_Recommendations_for_Density,_Design_and _Shadows.aspx

3. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows.

Supplemental Packet 2. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/202 1-11-09_Supp_2_Reports_Item_20_Supp_Droste_pdf.aspx

4. September 21, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 1. Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/09_Sep/City_Council__0 9-21-2021_-_Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

5. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off- Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf

6. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/D ocuments/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concept s%20-%20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf

89 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 526 of 1385 ends

Page 530 ends

Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Page 15 ends

7. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021 -03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx Council Work Session #3
March 15, 2022

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
&& RReessiiddeennttiiaall OObbjjeeccttiivvee SSttaannddaarrddss 2 Required Element
of the General Plan
Must be updated every 8 years
and certified by HCD
Currently planning for the
6th cycle (2023-2031)
Statutory deadline is
January 31, 2023
Bay Area: 441,176 units
Berkeley: 8,934 units
Housing Element includes…
3 1 Housing Needs
Assessment
Demographic trends
and needs, including Special
Needs populations
2 Evaluation of Past
Performance
How we did in the 5th Cycle
Housing Element
3 Housing Sites
Inventory
Likely Sites, Pipeline Sites and
Opportunity sites, by income
level
4 Constraints Analysis
Barriers to housing
development
5 Policies & Programs
Address identified housing
needs
6 Community
Engagement
Residents, businesses,
stakeholders, policy-makers
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
4 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
Adoption
Jan 2023
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
Public
Draft
We Are Here
DEIR
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
5 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
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
Public
Draft
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Workshops
Public Survey
Boards & Commissions
Council Work Sessions
1 1 3 Adoption
2 3
2 Jan 2023
6 AGENDA – 2 PARTS
PART I – HOUSING ELEMENT

1. What We’ve Heard

2. Sites Inventory Capacity & Environmental Review

3. Sustainability & Resilience

4. Clarifying Questions
PART II – RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE STANDARD

1. 2-4 unit development standards

2. 5+ and mixed-use methodology

3. Residential Objective Standards & the Environment

4. Comments & Questions
WHAT WE’VE HEARD

1. Public Workshop #2

2. Stakeholder Interviews

3. Downtown Farmer’s Market

4. Residential Tour & Survey
Presented to 13 Berkeley Boards & Commissions1
Held 18 Meetings with 14 Stakeholder Interest Groups2
Held two online public workshops, ~60 participants
Received 745 responses from Nov ‘21 citywide survey
1 Planning Commission (9/1/21); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/21); Commission on Disability (9/1/21); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/21); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/21); Commission on Aging (9/15/21); Energy Commission (9/22/21); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/21), Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/21), Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/21), Civic Arts Commission (1/9/22), City/UC Committee (1/28/22), ZORP SC’s (2/16/22) 2 Black/African American Faith Institution, Market Rate Developers, Affordable Developers, Senior Center, Real Estate Professional, Property Managers, Homeless Services, Housing Advocacy, Disabilities Services, Latinx Advocacy, Institutions (BUSD, UC Berkeley), West Berkeley Business Owners/Neighborhood Assoc.

Received 49 responses from Residential Tours survey
Tabled at a Downtown Farmers Market
7 Public Workshop #2
8 Maintaining affordability & livability; age in place
Convert vacant homes and properties
In-fill in single-family neighborhoods
Higher density paired with better transit access
Higher density along corridors, student areas,
downtown, and industrial
Potential Housing Locations
Additional Stakeholder Meetings
9 Many new residential buildings look the same
Blend in with the architectural style and scale of
the neighborhood
Design Considerations
High costs for seniors, artists, students, and others
Repurpose unoccupied or deteriorated properties
Infrastructure, amenities for increased population
Finding and assembling land to build new housing
“
Downtown Farmers Market
10 Want diversity of housing types as household
needs change (e.g. student & artist housing,
apartments, homes with yards, senior and ADA)
Taller (and more units) in
Downtown/Southside/near BART and on major
corridors, such as San Pablo and University
Top 3 goals: Housing Affordability, Housing
Production, and Special Needs and Extremely Low
Income
What We Heard
Residential Types (and Heights)
Housing Goals & Objectives
Protect rights to sun and solar
Streamline permit process
Increase housing in all districts
Downtown and W Berkeley Residential Tour & Survey
11 Building Height
Massing
Design (color, materials,
articulation)
Landscaping, Planting
Architectural details
Vehicular Access and
Loading
Placement (setbacks and
Location on lot)
Building Heights
Overall shape, size, form
Building/Parking
Orientation
Additional Landscaping
and Planting
To create more compatibility…
Compatible with the neighborhood scale…

DOWNTOWN TOUR W BERKELEY TOUR

PRELIMINARY SITES

INVENTORY &

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW

1. Meeting the RHNA

2. HCD Methodology

3. Preliminary Sites Inventory
Capacity

4. Environmental Impact
12 CAPACITY ≠ HOUSING PRODUCTION
Using HCD’s Capacity
Methodology
Figure F-12 Work Session #3 Presentation
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
90

Page 527 of 1385 ends

Page 531 ends

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
13 532 232
2446
442
41 1408
584
91 1416
1401
2579
3664
5th Cycle RHNA
(2015-2023)
Units Permitted
(2015-2020)
6th Cycle RHNA
(2023-2031)
Very Low < 50% AMI
Low 50-80% AMI
Moderate 80-120% AMI
Above Moderate > 120% AMI
22,,995599 22,,994433
88,,994433
SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 + 202% 41%
16%
43%47%
20%
33%
88%
3%
9%
AApppprrooxx.. 5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State Dept of Finance
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
88,,994433
+ 17%
6600,,994433
14 > Adequate Sites
> Zoned Appropriately
> Available for residential use
> Capacity to provide units, by
income level, required by RHNA
> Meet HCD’s criteria (physical
characteristics, density)
Meeting the RHNA
A key certification criteria that HCD looks at closely
15 Likely Sites
ADU Trend
N Berkeley & Ashby BART
Approved Projects since 2018
Pipeline Sites
Projects under Review
Likely + Pipeline Sites
Anticipated
16 Opportunity Sites
Federal, State, County-owned
Condo or Large Apartment Bldg
Historically-sensitive
Rent-Controlled Units
Most Supermarkets
Historic, Rent-Control, UC-Owned, City Parks
Racial Diversity
Concentration of Poverty
Environmental Equity
Community Benefits
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Ensure affordable housing is distributed
and balanced in “high opportunity”
neighborhoods.
17 Opportunity SitesOpportunity Sites
Vacant Land Use
Non-residential Building > 30 yrs old
Built at ≤ 35% capacity (e.g. density, height)
Reused 5th Cycle Opportunity Sites to
accommodate Lower Income Units
AB 1397 Reused 5th Cycle
Sites for Lower Income Units
> 18 opportunity sites
> Accommodates 1,419 lower
income units
> Located mainly along commercial
corridors
Opportunity Sites
18 19
> City is not required to build or
finance the housing
> Does not automatically authorize
the construction of housing units
> No obligation by property owner to
take action
> Reliant on the development
industry (market rate/affordable)
to construct
Meeting the RHNA
RHNA
(8,943 units)
Sites Inventory
No Net Loss (SB 166)  Buffers
EIR

NOT ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
RHNA vs. Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity
20 4939
3209
8435
3854
1416
3664
Lower < 80% AMI Moderate 80-120% AMI Above Moderate >
120% AMI
Prelim Sites Inventory Capacity
RHNA
+130%
+127%
+28%
Potential Zoning Code Amendments
21 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,
allow 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
Southside Plan Area
Increased height and coverage;
12 story within the original R-
SMU and the C-T north of Dwight
JJuullyy 1122,, 22001166,, Allow increased development potential in the Telegraph Commercial (C-T) District between Dwight Avenue and Bancroft Avenue.[Link] AApprriill 44,, 22001177,, Create a citywide Use Permit process to allow non-commercial use on the ground floor .. [Link]
MMaayy 3300,, 22001177,, Develop a pilot Density Bonus program for the C-T District.. [Link] OOccttoobbeerr 3311,, 22001177,, Facilitate student housing by increasing the height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the portions of the R-SMU, R-S and R-3 District [Link] JJaannuuaarryy 2233,, 22001188,, More Student Housing Now Resolution. [Link] MMaayy 11,, 22001188,, Convert commercial space into residential use within all districts in the Southside located west of College Avenue. [Link] NNoovveemmbbeerr 2277,, 22001188,, Move forward with parts of More Student Housing Now resolution and implementation of SB 1227. [Link]
Southside Zoning Amendments
22 5 areas now zoned R-S and, one
area zoned R-3,  R-SMU
> Increased maximum heights
(from 4/5 to 6 stories)
> Increased lot coverage (from
70%/75% to 85%)
One area now zoned R-3  R-S
> Increased maximum heights
(from 4 stories to 5 stories)
> Increased lot coverage (from
70% to 75%)
EIR Project Description
23 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
8,943
16,583 16,583
Existing 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites
Inventory
Sites Inventory + EIR
Buffer
Existing Housing Units 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites Inventory Add'l EIR Buffer 6688,,558833
6600,,994433
RHNA
(8,943 units)
Sites Inventory
EIR
EIR Project Description
24 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
8,943
16,583 16,583
2,970
Existing 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites
Inventory
Sites Inventory + EIR
Buffer
Existing Housing Units 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites Inventory Add'l EIR Buffer + 37.6%
++1199,,555533
> +1,200 units at BART sites to
match current EIR assumptions1
> +770 units to accommodate for
R-1 and R-1A rezoning2
> +1,000 units to accommodate
Southside rezoning in
C-T, R-S and R-SMU.
3 7711,,5555336688,,558833
6600,,994433

AANNAALLYYZZEE AADDDDIITTIIOONNAALL UUNNIITTSS FFOORR EEIIRR

11.. OOccttoobbeerr 22002211,, AAsshhbbyy aanndd NNoorrtthh BBeerrkkeelleeyy BBAARRTT SSttaattiioonn TTOODD DDEEIIRR.. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/bartplanning

22.. JJuullyy 2211,, 22002211,, WWiillll AAlllloowwiinngg DDuupplleexxeess aanndd LLoott SSpplliittss oonn PPaarrcceellss ZZoonneedd ffoorr SSiinnggllee-- FFaammiillyy CCrreeaattee NNeeww HHoommeess?? Terner Center.. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/Terner-Center-SB9-model-jurisdiction-output.xlsx

33.. JJuullyy 22002200,, SSoouutthhssiiddee ZZoonniinngg OOrrddiinnaannccee AAmmeennddmmeennttss PPrroojjeecctt IInniittiiaall SSttuuddyy.. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/southsideplan
25 > Infrastructure proximity
> New construction standards
Sustainability & Resilience CLIMATE BENEFITS

HEALTH BENEFITS

CONNECTIVITY & COMMUNITY
> Air quality
> Active transportation
> Access
> Affordability
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS?
26 www.cityofberkeley.info/HousingElement

FOR MORE INFORMATION /

SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST
[email protected]

CONTACT US
Framework – Three Buckets
28 Housing
Element
Update
2-4
Units
(‘Plexes)
5+ Units incl
Mixed-Use
Re-zoning not required Confirm / Modify / Add
New Standards
Confirm / Modify / Add
New Standards
A Two-Part Process
29 PART 1 – OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PART 2 – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WE ARE HERE (2021 to 2023) 2023 and later

SITE FORM/MASSING ARTICULATION FACADE
Density (units/acre)
Open Space
Zoning
Land Use
Building Placement
Residential Objective Standards Timeline
30 Fall 2021
Background
Analysis
Spring-Summer 2022
5+ and Mixed-Use
Environmental Review
2-4 Unit
Southside
Zoning Map
Winter 2021-22
2-4 Units
Fall 2022
Draft Zoning &
GP Land Use
Winter 2022-23
2-4 Unit &
Southside Map
Spring 2023
5+ Unit &
Mixed-Use
We Are Here
5+ Unit
Zoning
June 2023
Housing
Element
27 Residential Objective Standards

1. Overview

2. Two to Four Units

3. Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed-Use

4. Residential Objective Standards & the Environment
91 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 528 of 1385 ends

Page 532 ends

2-4 Unit Residential
Objective Standards

1. 10 Existing Standards Models

2. 4 Prototype Models

3. Draft Development Standards
31 Standards for 2-4 Unit Residential
32 CLEAR MULTI-UNIT

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
JSISHL
State
Laws
(SB 9)
City
Council
Small-scale,
lower density

ANTICIPATED

OUTCOMES
> Creates a new “Multi-Unit 2-4” land use category
> Allows this use in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R Districts > Establishes development standards for this use
Existing Standards
33 > Illustrate and analyze existing standards in R-1, R- 1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts
> Use typical 5,200 sq. ft. lot (40’ by 130’)
> Show developable envelope (“glass box”) defined by
setbacks and height
> Identify achievable floor area and building volume
limited by lot coverage, step backs, FAR, and other
standards
Existing R-1 Standards
34 Model Outputs
Dwelling Units 1
Floor Area, Total 6,240 sf
Floor Area per Unit 6,240 sf
FAR 1.2
Density 8.4 du/ac
Summary of Existing Standards
35 Prototype Models
36 > Show potential configurations of three- to four-unit projects based on recent development in Berkeley
and surrounding jurisdictions
> Identify where the residential types and
configurations may conflict with existing zoning
standards
> Prepare new development standards for
consideration in each low-density Residential
District
Four Prototype Models
37 New Detached Building
Behind Existing
Attached Sidecourt
Four Prototype Models
38 Detached Cluster Attached Row Homes
Four Prototype Models – Context
39 New Detached Building
Behind Existing Attached Sidecourt Detached Cluster Attached Row Homes Front Setback
Four Prototype Models – Conflicts with Current Zoning
40 New Detached Building
Behind Existing Attached Sidecourt Detached Cluster Attached Row Homes # of Units per Lot
Lot Area per Unit
Lot Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height, Avg.
# of Stories
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Bldg Separation
# of Units per Lot
Lot Area per Unit
Lot Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height, Avg.
# of Stories
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Bldg Separation
# of Units per Lot
Lot Area per Unit
Lot Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height, Avg.
# of Stories
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Bldg Separation
# of Units per Lot
Lot Area per Unit
Lot Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height, Avg.
# of Stories
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Bldg Separation
Proposed Draft Standards
> Zoning districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-
2A, and MU-R outside of H overlay
> 2- 4 unit projects only
> Summary table with existing and
proposed new standards
> Options for certain standards
41 Proposed Draft Standards
 Density
 Lot Area
 Lot Area per Unit
 Lot Coverage
 Open Space
 Building Height
 Setbacks
 Step Backs
 Building Separation
 Floor Area Ratio
42 Floor Area and FAR and Preservation
43 Standards Achievable Floor Area
Height Stories Coverage Total Per Unit
Existing Standards
1 unit 28/35 ft. 3 40% 6,240 sf 6,240 sf
Proposed Standards
2 units 28 ft. 3 40% 6,240 sf 3,120 sf
3 units 35 ft. 3 45% 7,020 sf 2,340 sf
4 units 35 ft. 3 50% 7,800 sf 1,950 sf
Achievable floor
area increases as #
units increase
R districts: Height
and coverage
standards scale up
MU-R: FAR scales up
Option to increase floor area if existing front main residential building preserved.

R-1 District
Permits Required - Existing
44 Dwelling Types R-1 R- 1A R-2 R- 2A MUR
Single-Family UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP
Two-Family NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP
Multi-Family NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
ZC Zoning Certificate
UP(PH) Use Permit(Public Hearing)
AUP Administrative Use Permit
NP Not Permitted
Existing Permit Requirements
ZORP Subcommittees Feedback
> By-right approvals
> Unit sizes
> Preservation Incentive
> Shade and Solar Access Impacts
• Concern about impacts on adjacent rooftop solar (existing and potential future) • Concern about individual properties, as well as citywide renewable energy generation and climate resilience
• Requests for new objective standards for shade and solar access impacts 46 Q: Council feedback on proposed zoning modifications and development standards for two- to four-unit projects in low-density residential districts? Model for Solar Studies
Model is Geo-located to Berkeley, CA and
set on a grid aligned with true North
Models help us answer…
> Expected rooftop solar access impacts?
> Would these impacts constitute a detriment?
> Are new objective standards needed?
> If so, what is the best approach?
Solar Conditions
SSoollaarr EEnneerrggyy PPrroodduuccttiioonn MMoonntthhss Assuming February through October (the
summer half the year), but also knowing that
there are more months.

AApppplliiccaabbllee HHoouurrss ooff DDaayy
8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, 4pm
On average, May is the most sunny month with 324 hours of sunshine On average, December has the lowest amount of sunshine with 160 hours The average annual amount of sun hours is 33007722 hhoouurrss Permits Required - Proposed
45 Dwelling Types R-1 R- 1A R-2 R- 2A MUR
Single-Family UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP
Multi-Unit 2-4 ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Multi-Unit 5+ NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
ZC Zoning Certificate
UP(PH) Use Permit(Public Hearing)
AUP Administrative Use Permit
NP Not Permitted
Proposed Permit Requirements
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
92

Page 529 of 1385 ends

Page 533 ends

hhttttppss::////vviimmeeoo..ccoomm//668866993333449999
Multi-Unit 5+ and
Mixed-Use
Methodology

1. Overview

2. Proposed Methodology

3. Early Policy Questions
50 52
C-C, C-E, C-N, C-NS, C-SA, C-SO, C-U, C-WMixed Use vs.

Residential Only
> In most Commercial Districts,
development standards vary
between mixed-use and residential-
only projects
> Results in significantly greater
achievable floor area for mixed-use
projects
> Intended to encourage mixed-use
development along commercial
corridors
> Unintended ground floor vacancies
AApprriill 44,, 22001177.. RReeffeerrrraall ttoo AAllllooww NNoonn--ccoommmmeerrcciiaall GGrroouunndd FFlloooorr UUsseess.. Wengraf et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/04_Apr/Documents/2017-04- 04_Item_21_Referral_to_the_Planning_Commission_to_Allow_Non-commercial_Use.aspx Example: C-C District
Mixed-Use Residential-Only
Lot Area, min No min 5,000 sf
Bldg Height, max 40’, 50’ w/ UP 35’
# Stories, max 3, 4 w/ UP 3
Lot Coverage (Interior), max 100% 1-2 story: 45%
3-story: 40%
Lot Coverage (Corner), max 100% 1-2 story: 50%
3-story: 45%
Floor Area Ratio, max 3.0 No max
Approx. Max Floor Area on a
5,000 sf interior lot 15,000 sf 6,000 sf
53 Q: Should residential-only projects on commercial corridors— outside designated nodes—have the same built envelope and maximum floor area as mixed-use residential projects?
54 Max Height w/ Use PermitHeights & Stories
> Majority of the City allows a
maximum height of 35’ and 3 stories.
> In Downtown:

Max two 120-foot buildings + three
180-foot buildings in C-DMU Core
> In Southside:

Currently allows 45-75 with use
permit in R-3, R-S, R-SMU, C-T, C-SA
> In Southside Plan Initial Study: Up to
three 12-story buildings
Q: Should the City raise maximum heights and/or
uncapping the number of tall buildings in
Downtown and the Southside once objective
standards and programmatic elements to
incentivize affordable units are in place?
Standards for Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed Use
51 CLEAR MULTI-UNIT

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
JSISHL
Key
State
Laws
City
Council
Referrals/
Considerations

ANTICIPATED

OUTCOMES
> Considers diversity of project types, sizes, locations > Codifies typical City requirements
> Reduces reliance on subjective Use Permit requirements 55 > Prohibition of Natural Gas
Infrastructure in New
Construction
> Low Carbon Concrete
> EBCE Renewable 100
> Existing Buildings
Electrification Strategy
2019 GHG Inventory
EIR

DECARBONIZING BUILDINGS
SSoouurrccee 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, UC Berkeley and the Berkeley Lab are not included in the GHG Inventory
Reducing transportation emissions
56 THANK YOU
57 www.cityofberkeley.info/objectivestandards

FOR MORE INFORMATION
[email protected]

Page 530 of 1385 ends

Page 534 ends

WORKSESSION
September 20, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Residential Objective Standards: Middle Housing and Southside

SUMMARY
In response to City Council referrals, recent changes in housing-related State laws, and the requirement to update the City’s Housing Element, City staff are preparing Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes for:

1. Lower density districts, which include the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts, to create or modify objective residential development standards to encourage duplexes, triplexes/fourplexes, townhomes, and other small-scale multi-family housing types (“middle housing”) that have historically appeared in Berkeley neighborhoods comprised of single-family homes. The intent is to address the need for more housing options, including rental and ownership.

2. The Southside Area, to create or modify objective standards for building height, coverage, parking, ground-floor residential uses, and zoning district boundaries to increase residential development potential—particularly student-oriented housing—in portions of the R-3, R-S, R-SMU, C-SA, and C-T zoning districts within the Southside Area.

The proposed amendments are based on input from community engagement through the Housing Element Update as well as prior meetings with Council, Planning Commission, Southside Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Subcommittee, and the Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Subcommittees. The City Council is asked to receive a staff presentation and provide feedback on the proposed objective development standards and approaches.

Page 1 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
94

Page 531 of 1385 ends

Page 535 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 25 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
 Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
 Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
 Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning
2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
 Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
 End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Middle housing can meet the needs of renters as well as create more ownership opportunities by offering flexibility for a range of unit sizes and incentivizing housing types that are “affordable by design,” i.e. with less development cost per unit due to the increased density and other modified development standards.

The draft proposed standards are designed to increase the total number of units allowed based on lot size, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot as the number of units increases, and encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities. In the lower density Residential zoning districts, this is accomplished by marginally increasing allowed lot coverage and floor area ratios (FAR) as the number of units increases, but at a rate that results in lower average unit sizes for larger buildings. In the MU-R district, this is accomplished by increasing FAR as the number of units increases, as there is already no limit to lot coverage.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further discussed below and a detailed table listing all of the draft proposed development 1 November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows. Berkeley City Council. 2 February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. 3 April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council 4 The ES-R District is excluded from this program because new dwelling units are currently prohibited in that limited area due to extreme hazards and inadequate infrastructure.

Page 2 of 487 ends

95 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 532 of 1385 ends

Page 536 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 3 of 25 ends

standard changes can be found in Attachment 2. In addition, staff are considering strategies for wildfire mitigation, view preservation, and solar access and address these concerns in the report following the discussion on standards.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Lower Density Residential Standards Standard Recommendation Policy Goal
Minimum and
Maximum Densities
Set minimum and maximum
densities expressed in units
per acre
Encourage appropriate densities
Increase predictability of review process and
outcome
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density
residential districts
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Set a maximum FAR that
scales up as the number of
units increases
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density
residential districts
Encourage a mix of unit sizes that are
“affordable by design”
Comply with SB 478 which prohibits a local
agency from imposing a FAR less than 1.0
on a housing project with 3 to 7 units, or less
than 1.25 on a housing project with 8 to 10
units
Minimum Open Space
Reduce required minimum
open space, and set the
requirement based on
square feet of building area,
rather than per unit
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density
residential districts
Maximum Height
Set a maximum average
height and/or maximum
overall height without an
option to modify with a Use
Permit
Streamline the approval process
Increase predictability of review process and
outcome
Lot Coverage and
Setbacks
Increase allowable lot
coverage as the number of
units increases;
Reduce rear setbacks with
reduced building height.

Building Separation
Remove building separation
requirement where there is
more than one building on a
lot
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density
residential districts
Permits and Levels of
Discretion
Enable projects with two or
more units to be approved
with a Zoning Certificate
(ZC)
Maintain middle housing scale in low-density
residential districts
Streamline the approval process

Page 3 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
96

Page 533 of 1385 ends

Page 537 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 4 of 25 ends

Zoning Map Amendment
In response to City Council’s feedback at its March 15, 2022 worksession, the proposed R-1A and R-2 district standards have been merged to be one set of standards, identified as “Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2)”, which also would be reflected on a zoning map amendment (Attachment 1). Both R-1A and R-2 districts are in the same General Plan land use designation already: Lower Medium Density Residential (LMDR).

Permits and Levels of Discretion
Current Standards: Table 2 includes the current permit requirements in lower-density residential districts for residential and live/work projects that include more than one dwelling unit. The proposed standards do not change any permit requirements for Single-Family, Group Living Accommodation or Mixed-Use Residential 5 uses in these
zones, so those regulations are not listed.

Table 2. Current Permit Requirements
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Two-Family NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) NP UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP [1] Multi-Family NP NP NP UP(PH) NP UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP/UP(PH) [1] Live/Work NP NP NP NP NP NP NP AUP/UP(PH)[1]
[1] A Use Permit is required to establish a unit that is within 150 feet of an M or MM district; or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. (BMC 23.206.090(B)(8) MU- R Mixed Use-Residential District)
UP(PH) = Use Permit (Public Hearing); AUP = Administrative Use Permit; NP = Not Permitted Proposed Standards: The proposed standards, shown in Table 3, would combine Two- Family and Multi-Family Residential uses into a single Multi-Unit Residential use type.

The City would provide ministerial approval with a Zoning Certificate for Multi-Unit Residential and Live/Work projects that comply with all objective standards; no discretionary permit or public hearing would be required. A Zoning Certificate is a ministerial approval reviewed by staff to verify compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and is not appealable.

Table 3. Proposed Permit Requirements
R-1 R-1H R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Multi-Unit
Residential ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC[1]
Live/Work NP NP NP NP NP NP ZC[1]
[1] A Use Permit is required to establish a unit that is within 150 feet of an M or MM district; or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. (BMC 23.206.090(B)(8) MU- R Mixed Use-Residential District)
5 Mixed-use residential is allowed in the R-2 and R-2A, and involves combinations of residential use with other permissible non-residential uses, such as childcare center and religious assembly.

Page 4 of 487 ends

97 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 534 of 1385 ends

Page 538 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 5 of 25 ends

Minimum and Maximum Densities
In July 2017, Council directed staff to consider adoption of a numerical density and/or building intensity standard that can be applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis in an easy and predictable manner.
6 Current Standards: The Zoning Ordinance does not include any minimum or maximum density standards expressed in “units per acre” for low-density residential zones. In the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts, density is limited by requirements for a “minimum lot size per unit” standard and by specific residential land use types (e.g. “Single-Family”, “Two-Family”).
 The R-1 district currently permits only single-family uses. The resulting density on a 5,000 square foot lot is approximately nine units per acre. However, SB 9 State legislation applies throughout single-family zoning districts including in the Hillside Overlay (H) district, and permits up to two units ministerially on a lot and/or an urban lot split to subdivide an existing single-family parcel into two parcels.
 The R-1A district currently permits single-family and two-family uses. No more than two units are allowed on a lot. The resulting density on a 5,000 square-foot lot is roughly 17 units per acre.
 R-2 and R-2A districts currently permit single-family, two-family, and multi-family residential uses with a UP(PH), with density determined based on lot size. The resulting density on a 5,000 square-foot lot is roughly 17 units per acre in the R-2 district and 26 units per acre in the R-2A district.
 MU-R currently permits single-family and two-family uses with an AUP, and multi- family with a UP(PH) or AUP depending on project size and proximity to a M or MM district. The resulting density on a 5,000 square foot lot is roughly 35 units per acre.

Proposed Standards: Table 4 summarizes the proposed density standards expressed in units per acre, and includes the maximum number of units that may result from each standard on a typical 5,000 square foot lot in each zone. There is no minimum density requirement for lots in the H district. Minimum densities would apply for new development on vacant lots or redevelopment and infill of existing nonvacant lots.

SB 9 would no longer apply to the R-1 district because it would no longer be a single- family zone. Projects with five or more units that include affordable units on-site would be eligible to utilize the State Density Bonus Law.
6 July 11, 2017. Housing Accountability Act. Berkeley City Council.

Page 5 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
98

Page 535 of 1385 ends

Page 539 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 6 of 25 ends

Table 4. Proposed Density Standards
R-1 R-1H R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Minimum
Density
(units/acre)
10 No min. 10 No min. 20 No min. 20
Maximum
Density
(units/acre)
25 20 35 20 55 55 55
Example: Resulting units on a 5,000 sf lot
Minimum
Units 1 No min. 1 No min. 2 No min. 2
Maximum
Units 3 2 4 2 6 6 6
The proposed density standards do not include any eligible Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) permitted under recently-adopted ADU provisions. A maximum of one ADU is permitted on lots with more than one detached dwelling. A maximum of two detached ADUs or up to 25 percent of the total number of existing units may be converted into ADUs on a lot with a duplex or multiple attached dwelling units. In R-1H, R-2H, and R- 2AH, a maximum of one ADU or JADU is permitted.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Current Standards: The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific FAR standard in the R-1, R-1H, R-1A, R-2, R-2H, R-2A, R-2H and R-2AH districts. However, an effective maximum FAR of 1.2 can be calculated based on existing standards for lot coverage and maximum number of stories. The BMC includes a maximum 1.5 FAR in the MU-R district.

Proposed Standards: Table 5 summarizes the proposed maximum FAR standards. The existing effective FAR is applied to one-unit and non-residential projects, which would continue to require a use permit and public hearing process

7. No FAR limit is applied if a
project is subdividing existing habitable space to create additional dwelling units.

The City Council has referred consideration of an increase in the FAR as the number of units increases on a site. The recommended FAR standards also reflect guidance from the ZORP Subcommittees to encourage the development of smaller or medium-sized, cost-efficient units that are “affordable by design.”
8 In addition, SB 478 prohibits a local
agency from imposing a FAR less than 1.0 on a housing project with three to seven 7 The focus of the Middle Housing project is to facilitate multi-unit housing development; analysis of single-family development standards is not a part of this scope.
8 The ZORP Subcommittees also recommended development standards that would incentivize, but not require, the preservation of existing buildings. However, this would assume there is merit to preserving all existing street-facing buildings and that “preservation” can be objectively defined. For these reasons, the proposed FAR standards do not include a preservation bonus.

Page 6 of 487 ends

99 APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 536 of 1385 ends

Page 540 ends

Office of the City Manager

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 7 of 25 ends

units, or less than 1.25 on a housing project with eight to 10 units.

Table 5. Proposed Maximum FAR Standards
R-1 R-1H R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
1 Unit or Non-
Residential 1.2 [1] 1.2 [1] 1.2 [1] 1.2 [1] 1.2 [1] 1.2 [1] 1.5 [2] 2 Units 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.5
3 - 7 Units 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.25 1.5
8 + Units 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.5 1.5 1.75
[1] UP(PH) [2] AUP
Minimum Required Open Space
Current Standards: Table 6 summarizes current minimum open space requirements in lower-density districts, on a per unit basis.

Proposed Standards: The proposed development standard would require 150 sf of open space for every 1,000 sf of floor area on a project site in each of the lower density districts, not based on the number of units since individual units may vary in size and occupancy. The proposed standard is designed to permit greater flexibility in the configuration of open space on a lot while also preserving the requirement to provide residents with usable open space.

Table 6. Required Open Space
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Current Minimum Open Space
Per Dwelling Unit (sf) 400 300 150
Proposed Minimum Open Space
Per 1,000 sf Floor Area 150 -- 150
Maximum Height
Current Standards: The Zoning Ordinance generally limits average building heights for main buildings in most lower density residential districts to 28 feet and 3 stories, with a possible increase to 35 feet with an AUP. In the H district, the Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to increase the allowed average height (28 feet) and allowed maximum height (35 feet). In the R-1A district, rear main buildings are limited to 22 feet and 2 stories. In the MU-R, the maximum height is 35 feet and 3 stories without the need for an additional AUP. Current standards also limit the height of residential additions to 14 feet, with a possible increase to 35 feet with an AUP.

Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards for maximum building height include the following (see Table 7):
 Outside of the H District, the maximum average building height in lower-density residential districts would be 28 feet and the maximum overall height would be 35

Page 7 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
100

Page 537 of 1385 ends

Page 541 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

1 November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows. Berkeley City Council. 2 February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. 3 April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council 4 The ES-R District is excluded from this program because new dwelling units are currently prohibited in that limited area due to extreme hazards and inadequate infrastructure.

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 8 of 25 ends

feet. In addition, the maximum height would be reduced to 22 feet within 15 feet of a rear property line.
 Within the H District, the maximum overall building height would be reduced to 28 feet, to address concerns for both wildfire mitigation (e.g., less fire fuel in the form of building materials), structural fireground operations (e.g., ground ladder placement for access to windows and the roof), and view preservation.  The limit on the maximum number of stories would be removed; maximum height would be measured in feet.
 Maximum height standards for main buildings, rear buildings, and residential additions would be the same. (ADUs have separate regulations that would be unaffected.)
The proposed development standards largely preserve existing height limits, while providing a pathway for a nondiscretionary process based on objective standards. The proposed standards also include provisions that consider potential impacts on neighboring properties, such as lower maximum heights near the rear property line and reduced height limits in the H District. Attachment 3, Figure 3.5 includes height measurement diagrams that illustrate how the existing and proposed development standards consider sloped situations in the H District.

Table 7. Current and Proposed Height Standards
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Current Standards
Max. Average Height (ft) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 --
Max. Height (ft) -- 35 -- -- 35 -- 35 35
Max. Height with AUP (ft) 35 No
max 35 35 No
max 35 No
max --
Proposed Standards
Max. Average Height (ft) 28 -- 28 28 -- 28 -- --
Max. Height (ft) 35 28 35 35 28 35 28 35
Maximum Lot Coverage
Current Standards: Table 8 summarizes existing maximum lot coverage requirements.

Current requirements distinguish between interior and corner lots, and reduce maximum lot coverage for taller projects.

Table 8. Current Maximum Lot Coverage Standards
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Interior & Through-Lots
1 Story 40% 40% 40% 45% 45% 45% 45% 100%
2 Stories 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 100%
3 Stories 40% 40% 40% 35% 35% 35% 35% 100%

Page 8 of 487 ends

101

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 538 of 1385 ends

Page 542 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 9 of 26 ends

Corner Lots
1 Story 40% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100%
2 Stories 40% 40% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 100%
3 Stories 40% 40% 45% 40% 40% 40% 40% 100%

Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards, summarized in Table 9:
• Marginally increase maximum lot coverage in most lower-density residential districts.
• Use the total number of units in a project as the controlling factor for the standard, instead of the number of stories.
• Eliminates the distinction between interior/through lots and corner lots.

Table 9. Proposed Maximum Lot Coverage Standards
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
1 - 2 Units & Non-
Residential 40% 40% 5 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100%
3 - 7 Units 50% 5 0% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 100%
8 + Units 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 60% 60% 100%
Minimum Setbacks
Current Standards: The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates four types of setbacks:
• Front and Rear Setbacks: Front and rear setbacks are 20 feet in the R-1, R-1H, R-1A, R-2 and R-2H zoning districts, and 15 feet in the R-2A and the R-2AH districts.

In the MU-R zoning district, lots adjacent to a non-residential district have no rear setback, unless they abut a street, in which case a five-foot rear setback is required. A lot in the MU-R district adjacent to a residential district must provide a rear setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less. • Interior Side Setbacks: Interior side setbacks are currently four feet in the R-1, R- 1H, and R-1A, and increases based on building height in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R2A-H. At the second story, the interior setback increases to six feet in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R-2H districts. Interior side setbacks can be reduced to three feet or five feet with a ZC.

In the MU-R district, lots adjacent to a residential district must provide an interior side setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less.

There are no other interior side setback requirements in the MU-R. • Street Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks are four feet in the R-1, R-1H, and R- 1A districts, 10 feet in the R-2 and R-2H districts, and vary by height in the R-2A

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 9 of 25 ends

Corner Lots
1 Story 40% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100%
2 Stories 40% 40% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 100%
3 Stories 40% 40% 45% 40% 40% 40% 40% 100%
Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards, summarized in Table 9:
 Marginally increase maximum lot coverage in most lower-density residential districts.
 Use the total number of units in a project as the controlling factor for the standard, instead of the number of stories.
 Eliminates the distinction between interior/through lots and corner lots.

Table 9. Proposed Maximum Lot Coverage Standards
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
1 - 2 Units & Non-
Residential 40% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100%
3 - 7 Units 50% 50% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 100%
8 + Units 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 60% 60% 100%
Minimum Setbacks
Current Standards: The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates four types of setbacks:
 Front and Rear Setbacks: Front and rear setbacks are 20 feet in the R-1, R-1H, R-1A, R-2 and R-2H zoning districts, and 15 feet in the R-2A and the R-2AH districts.

In the MU-R zoning district, lots adjacent to a non-residential district have no rear setback, unless they abut a street, in which case a five-foot rear setback is required. A lot in the MU-R district adjacent to a residential district must provide a rear setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less.  Interior Side Setbacks: Interior side setbacks are currently four feet in the R-1, R- 1H, and R-1A, and increases based on building height in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R2A-H. At the second story, the interior setback increases to six feet in the R-2, R-2H, R-2A, and R-2H districts. Interior side setbacks can be reduced to three feet or five feet with a ZC.

In the MU-R district, lots adjacent to a residential district must provide an interior side setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less.

There are no other interior side setback requirements in the MU-R.  Street Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks are four feet in the R-1, R-1H, and R- 1A districts, 10 feet in the R-2 and R-2H districts, and vary by height in the R-2A and R-2AH districts (six feet at first story, eight feet at second story and 10 feet at third story).

Page 9 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
102

Page 539 of 1385 ends

Page 543 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 10 of 26 ends

and R-2AH districts (six feet at first story, eight feet at second story and 10 feet at third story).

In the MU-R district, lots adjacent to a non-residential district must provide a five- foot street side setback. Lots adjacent to a residential district must provide a street side setback of either 10 feet or 10 percent of the lot’s width, whichever is less. There are no other street side setback requirements in the MU-R.

A Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to reduce the minimum setbacks in the H District.

Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards include the following, as detailed in Table 2 of Attachment 2.
• Front Setbacks: Staff reviewed development patterns around Berkeley and found that many neighborhoods have existing setbacks of less than the zoning standard. Based on this, front setback standards are proposed to be reduced by five feet from the current standard, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. Furthermore, a project could provide a smaller setback based on the average of the front setback(s) of adjacent existing structure(s).
• R ear Setbacks: The rear setback in all lower-density residential districts would be reduced to four feet, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. As noted above, a building’s maximum height would be limited to 22 feet within 15 feet of the rear property line. The four-foot setback is consistent with the required setbacks for ADUs. The 15- and 20-foot rear setbacks required for H district lots help maintain defensible space. • I nterior Side Setbacks: The interior side setback in all lower-density residential districts would be a minimum of four feet, except in the H district where the interior side setback would increase to five feet, and in the MU-R, which would maintain its existing regulations. The increase from the current four-feet to a five- foot setback in the H district is to accommodate upcoming State Board of Forestry’s Zone Zero requirement for an ember-resistant zone within five feet of a structure in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Zone Zero is directed by AB 3074 (2020) and takes effect January 1, 2023 for new structures.

Newly constructed ADUs would continue to adhere to a minimum four-foot setback.
• S treet Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks in the R-1, R-1H and R-1A would be 4 feet. There would be no changes to street side setbacks in the MU-R.

Building Separation
Current Standards: Current building separation requirements are summarized in

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 10 of 25 ends

A Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to reduce the minimum setbacks in the H District.

Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards include the following, as detailed in Table 2 of Attachment 2.
 Front Setbacks: Staff reviewed development patterns around Berkeley and found that many neighborhoods have existing setbacks of less than the zoning standard. Based on this, front setback standards are proposed to be reduced by five feet from the current standard, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. Furthermore, a project could provide a smaller setback based on the average of the front setback(s) of adjacent existing structure(s).
 Rear Setbacks: The rear setback in all lower-density residential districts would be reduced to four feet, except in the H districts and MUR, which would maintain existing regulations. As noted above, a building’s maximum height would be limited to 22 feet within 15 feet of the rear property line. The four-foot setback is consistent with the required setbacks for ADUs. The 15- and 20-foot rear setbacks required for H district lots help maintain defensible space.  Interior Side Setbacks: The interior side setback in all lower-density residential districts would be a minimum of four feet, except in the H district where the interior side setback would increase to five feet, and in the MU-R, which would maintain its existing regulations. The increase from the current four-feet to a five- foot setback in the H district is to accommodate upcoming State Board of Forestry’s Zone Zero requirement for an ember-resistant zone within five feet of a structure in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Zone Zero is directed by AB 3074 (2020) and takes effect January 1, 2023 for new structures.

Newly constructed ADUs would continue to adhere to a minimum four-foot setback.
 Street Side Setbacks: Street side setbacks in the R-1, R-1H and R-1A would be 4 feet. There would be no changes to street side setbacks in the MU-R.

Building Separation
Current Standards: Current building separation requirements are summarized in Table 10:

Page 10 of 487 ends

103

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 540 of 1385 ends

Page 544 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 11 of 25 ends

Table 10. Current Building Separation Standards
R-1 R-1H R-1A R-2 R-2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
1 Story (ft) No min. No min. 8 8 8 8 8 No min.
2 Stories (ft) No min. No min. 12 12 12 12 12 No min.
3 Stories (ft) No min. No min. 16 16 16 16 16 No min.

Reduce with an AUP -- -- AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP --
Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards would eliminate all building separation requirements. Building and fire code requirements for fire rating and separation would continue to apply.

Front Street-Facing Façade Requirements
Currently there are no objective design standards for front-facing facades and elevations. During the June 1, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments expressing concerns about blank walls as viewed from the public right-of- way.

To create visual interest and prevent blank walls facing the street, the proposed development standards would require a minimum of 20 percent of the front façade elevation within the front 40 feet of a lot to be comprised of entries, windows or glazing, and/or railings. Trim, including window shutters, would be counted towards meeting this requirement; garage doors would not be included. Attachment 3, Figure 3.6 includes front façade elevation diagrams to illustrate how the proposed standard would be measured.

Neighbor Noticing
Similar to the current ADU notification requirement, City staff would mail notices to owners and tenants of adjacent, confronting, and abutting properties within ten working days of a building permit application submittal. Notification would include information on how to contact the applicant on the design and construction of the proposed project.

Wildfire Mitigation
The State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) develops initial boundaries for VHFHSZ throughout California, and the final boundaries of a VHFHSZ are adopted by each jurisdiction. The VHFHSZ formally adopted by the City is larger than originally proposed by CALFIRE and is consistent with the boundaries for Fire Zones 2 and 3, and largely follows the boundary for the H district.

The majority of sites in the H district are within R-1H, where SB 9 currently applies.

Middle housing projects in the H district would be subject to the same existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures that are currently applied to SB 9 projects. 9 9 SB 9 does not include an absolute prohibition on development in fire hazard areas. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, sites must adopt “fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).

Page 11 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
104

Page 541 of 1385 ends

Page 545 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 12 of 25 ends

Staff will continue to confer with the Berkeley Fire Department on objective wildfire mitigation measures for streamlined projects in the VHFSZ. Considerations include maintenance of defensible space, as well as standards that improve fireground operations and evacuation access.

View Preservation
Following the June 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments expressing concerns about potential private view impacts resulting from by-right development in the H District.

Currently, a new home in the H District requires a UP(PH), and a major residential addition requires an AUP. To approve an AUP for a major residential addition, the Zoning Administrator must find that the addition would not “unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, or views.” Under existing H District standards, a view corridor is defined as:

A significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property.

To approve a UP(PH) or AUP, the ZAB or Zoning Administrator must find that the proposed project “will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.” While the Zoning Ordinance does not define detriment, the City’s informational handout for AUPs and UP(PH)s states that a project resulting in the “unreasonable obstruction of a neighbor’s significant view” may be considered detrimental.

If by-right housing development is to be allowed in the H District, the City would no longer use the discretionary permit process and the non-detriment findings to consider potential neighbor view impacts resulting from proposed projects. For this reason, staff proposes to implement an objective 28-foot maximum building height standard in the H district, which cannot be adjusted by a discretionary permit (see Attachment 3, Figure

3.5 Height Measurement in the H district). This would reduce the maximum building height and provide a more predictable development envelope in order to reduce possible obstruction of neighbor views.

Solar Access
Members of the ZORP Subcommittees and community have expressed concern about how the proposed development standards may impact solar access to neighboring existing or planned rooftop solar panels. In response to this concern, staff produced solar models to evaluate shadow impacts in a “maximum impact scenario” (see Attachment 3, Figure 3.7 Solar Modeling Diagrams). The solar model considers:
 Building Height: A flat-roofed 35-foot building height compared to the shadow effects of a flat-roofed 28-foot height building;
 Building Volume: The entire building envelope (which in actuality would be reduced by FAR and coverage standards);

Page 12 of 487 ends

105

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 542 of 1385 ends

Page 546 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 13 of 25 ends

 Orientation: East-West and North-South building orientations;  Daytime: Between 8:00am and 4:00pm, although the highest solar generation is usually from 11:00am to 4:00pm when sun rays are at right angles to the panels;  Equinox: A solar equinox day (September or March), where there is greater differentiation between the shadows as compared to the winter solstice, where solar panels at both 28-feet height and 35-feet height would be more equally impacted by reduced daylight;
 No Other Shade: Clear skies and no existing trees or vegetation that could impact solar access.

In this “maximum impact scenario” model, the amount of increase in shadow area for the seven-foot height difference is less than 10 percent averaged over the course of a day. As a result of the solar model analysis, staff proposes:
 A 28-foot maximum average height, paired with a 35-foot maximum height to the ridge, and
 A maximum building height of 22 feet in the rear 15 feet of a lot.

These height standards would address solar access concerns in balance with the objective of providing opportunities for more housing development throughout the city.

Lastly, as a civil matter, State law allows for parties to voluntarily enter into solar or view easement agreements (e.g., where a neighbor may grant an easement to a solar system owner).

SOUTHSIDE PLAN AREA
The existing Southside Plan was adopted in 2011 and since 2016, the City Council has forwarded six referrals related to increasing housing production and availability in the Southside Area. The proposed standards in this section refer to the area located on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus, roughly bounded by Bancroft Way, Dwight Way, Fulton Street and Piedmont Avenue (see Attachment 1, Map 3. Southside Area – Existing Zoning). The intent of these proposed standards is to implement the City Council’s direction through revised zoning regulations.

Table 11 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the general direction of the recommended changes and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further discussed below and the specific development standard changes can be found in Attachment 2.

Table 11. Summary of Proposed Southside Area Standards
Standard Recommendation Policy Goal
Minimum and
Maximum Densities
Set minimum and maximum
densities expressed in units
per acre
Encourage appropriate densities
Provide predictability for the review process
and outcome
Facilitate calculations for State Density
Bonus and possible future local density
bonus

Page 13 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
106

Page 543 of 1385 ends

Page 547 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 14 of 25 ends

Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Set a maximum FAR that
scales up as units increase
Encourage housing development
Facilitate calculations for State Density
Bonus and future local density bonus
Minimum Open Space
Reduce required minimum
open space, and set
requirement to a per 1,000
square foot standard, rather
than per unit
Maximum Height
Set a maximum height limit
without option to exceed
with a Use Permit
Lot Coverage and
Setbacks
Increase lot coverage and
reduce setbacks
Building Separation Remove building separation
requirement
Encourage housing development
Increase predictability of development
outcomes
Minimum and Maximum Densities
The Zoning Ordinance does not include any minimum or maximum density standards for the Southside districts that are expressed in “units per acre”. A maximum density of 350 sf per resident is allowed for Group Living Accommodations (GLA) in the R-3, R-S, C-T, and C-SA Districts, and 175 sf per resident in the R-SMU. The ZAB may approve a UP(PH) to increase the GLA density.

Proposed Approach: The specific values for minimum and maximum dwelling units per acre are pending additional staff analysis and feedback from City Council, Planning Commission, and community engagement activities.

Maximum Height
In October 2017 and May 2018, Council referred staff to increase height in the R-SMU, R-S, and R-3
10, as well as to allow up to two 12-story buildings and increase height for six projects11 in the Southside Area, from Dwight to Bancroft and from College to Fulton.

For all Southside zoning districts, the proposal is to remove the Use Permit option to exceed height limits without added project quotas to provide clarity and predictability.

Height limits stated in the Zoning Ordinance will be the maximum building height allowed, unless waived through State or a local density bonus. The limit on the maximum number of stories would be removed; maximum height would only be measured in feet. Zoning standards for building height are proposed to be changed in the following ways:
 Allow up to 85 feet in R-SMU district (increase from 60 feet, four stories) and in C-T north of Dwight (increase from 65 feet, no stories given). This would feasibly 10 October 31, 2017. Increase Height and FAR in the Southside. Berkeley City Council. 11 May 1, 2018. Increase Student Housing in the Southside. Berkeley City Council.

Page 14 of 487 ends

107

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 544 of 1385 ends

Page 548 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 15 of 25 ends

permit a building of at least 12 stories if a project were to maximize State or a local density bonus.
 Allow up to 65 feet in the C-T district south of Dwight (currently 50 feet, or up to 65 feet with a Use Permit).
 Allow up to 55 feet in R-S district (increase from 35 feet, three stories).  Allow up to 45 feet in R-3 district (increase from 35 feet, three stories).  Allow up to 60 feet in the C-SA district (currently 36 feet if non-residential and 60 feet if residential).

The Council also requested zoning provisions to facilitate the construction of student housing through a process that does “not require additional CEQA review” 12 or through
a local density bonus in the R-SMU and/or C-T (north of Dwight) districts13. At this time, staff believes the zoning height amendments listed above provide opportunities to reach that height using State density bonus law. In Fall 2022, staff will be presenting to Planning Commission a local bonus program that reflects recent State law for student housing, without requiring the participation of UC Berkeley

14. Maximum Lot Coverage and Minimum Setbacks
Zoning standards for building setbacks and lot coverage are proposed to be changed in the following ways, as detailed in Table 4 of Attachment 2:
 Permit 70 percent lot coverage in R-3 district locations (increase from current 50 percent maximum)
 Permit 75 percent lot coverage in R-S district locations (increase from current 70 percent maximum).
 Permit 85 percent lot coverage in R-SMU district locations (increase from current 60 percent maximum).
 Permit 100 percent lot coverage in C-SA district locations (to match existing standard for non-residential land uses).

Change existing minimum setback requirements as follows, with no changes to C-SA district locations:
 No minimum front setback required for R-SMU, R-S, and C-SA districts (currently already allowed with an AUP in R-SMU and R-S, and by right in C-T).  No minimum street side setbacks required for R-SMU and R-S districts.  No minimum side setback required for the R-SMU district (currently already allowed with an AUP).
12 November 27, 2018. Advance More Student Housing Now. Berkeley City Council. 13 May 30, 2017. Pilot Density Bonus Program. Berkeley City Council. 14 SB 290, Skinner. Gov. Code §65915 Density Bonus.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV

Page 15 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
108

Page 545 of 1385 ends

Page 549 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 16 of 25 ends

 Reduce the various lower-story and upper-story side setbacks for R-SMU, R-S, and R-3 districts to a single setback of 4 feet.
 Reduce lower-story and upper story rear setbacks for R-SMU, R-S, and R-3 districts to a single setback of 4 feet. No minimum would be required in the C-SA within the Southside Area, except when adjacent to a Residential District.  Eliminate requirement for shade studies in the C-T district.

For all Southside districts, remove specified discretionary review option to modify setbacks and lot coverage.

Minimum Required Open Space
Current Standards: Table 12 summarizes current minimum open space requirements in Southside Area zoning districts.

Table 12. Current Required Open Space
R-3 R-S R-SMU C-SA
Mixed Use
C-SA
Residential
Only
C-T
Per Dwelling Unit (sf) 200 50 40 40 200 40
Per GLA Resident (sf) 90 20 20 No min. 90 No min.

Proposed Approach: Similar to the proposed Middle Housing standards, staff propose creating an open space standard for the Southside districts based on a ratio per 1,000 sf of building floor area instead of on the number of units. The proposed open space standard would be designed to increase floor area dedicated to residential development while also preserving the requirement to provide residents with common and/or private usable open space.

Page 16 of 487 ends

109

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 546 of 1385 ends

Page 550 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 17 of 25 ends

Building Separation
Current Standards: Current building separation requirements are summarized in Table

13. Table 13. Current Building Separation Standards
R-3 R-S R-SMU C-SA C-T
1st story 8 ft
2nd story 12 ft
3rd story 16 ft
4th story 20 ft
5th story 24 ft
6th story 28 ft
No
minimum
Proposed Standards: The proposed development standards would eliminate all building separation requirements. Building and fire code requirements for fire rating and separation would still apply.

Ground-Floor Residential Use
Proposed Approach: Zoning standards for ground-floor residential use are anticipated to be changed to allow ground-floor residential throughout the C-T District if it is located behind a commercial use that fronts the street. In all Southside locations where there is ground-floor residential use, zoning provisions would also include design standards to incentivize or require ground-floor activation, consistent with the C-T District’s purpose to “encourage those uses and structural architecture that reinforce, and discourage those uses and architecture that interrupt, the pedestrian orientation of the district.”

OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum and maximum standards for parking spaces will remain unchanged for lower density districts and in the Southside Area. Current standards include:
 Minimum Parking: No minimum parking requirement, except for parcels located along narrow roads in the H District. If located on a roadway less than 26 feet in width, a minimum of one parking space per unit for projects with fewer than 10 units. For projects with 10 or more units, one parking space per 1,000 sf of gross floor area is required.
 Maximum Parking: With limited exemptions
15, a maximum of 0.5 spaces per unit
is allowed for residential projects with two or more dwelling units on a parcel if a project is located within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop or along a transit corridor with 15-minute headways during peak periods.
15 Off-Street Parking Maximums for Residential Development. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.322.070(A)(2)

Page 17 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
110

Page 547 of 1385 ends

Page 551 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
As stated in prior reports1, the City Council referred staff to consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
• Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes through by-right and ministerial approvals.
• Increase certainty for applicants by removing subjective judgements from project approvals.
• Reduce the administrative costs and burden associated with needing to provide qualitative justifications for discretionary review.

LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS
Over the past year, staff have worked to implement the City Council’s direction to end exclusionary zoning2 and allow for “missing middle” development3 in Berkeley’s lower density zones4. As cited in the Council referrals, the intent is to:
• Foster a broader range of housing types across Berkeley in areas with access to essential components of livability like parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services; and
• End single family residential zoning, which has its roots in racist exclusionary zoning policy and leads to racial and economic segregation.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed standards, the recommended changes, and the policy rationale for each recommendation. Each standard is further

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 18 of 25 ends

Newly constructed residential units are not eligible to receive parking permits under the Residential Permit Parking Program (RPP) as provided in BMC 14.72 Preferential Parking Program.
16 Proposed changes to parking-related standards include:
 Tandem Parking: Currently, an AUP is required to provide off-street tandem parking spaces for all residential uses except ADUs. The proposed standards would allow tandem parking without an AUP to encourage reduced driveway widths and curb-cuts.
 Front Setback in the H District: Currently in the H district, the Zoning Officer may approve an AUP to reduce the minimum required front setback. The proposed standard would maintain the existing front setback requirement, but permit surface parking within the front setback to allow for off-street parking. 17  Landscape Buffer: Another commonly requested AUP is for an exception to the landscape buffer that is required along off-street parking spaces, driveways, and other vehicle-related paving. The landscape buffer is not commonly provided in existing sites and the proposed standards would eliminate the requirement to align with existing conditions.

DISCUSSION ON RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FRAMEWORK When considering policies to address objective residential standards, including density, solar access, or view preservation, State law prohibits: a) the adoption of any new subjective development standards for housing development projects; and b) the adoption of new objective standards that would reduce the number of achievable residential units.
 Do the proposed development standards and approaches achieve the goals of the City Council referrals, namely encouraging the development of middle housing in lower density districts and increasing housing production and availability in the Southside Area?
 Are there provisions of the proposed zoning standards that should be changed or revised?
 Are there additional considerations that remain unaddressed by the proposed development standards?
16 Preferential Parking Program. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/14.72.080 17 Small accessory structures, such as sheds, that are less than 120 square feet and eight feet in height will continue to be allowed without requiring a permit.

Page 18 of 487 ends

111

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 548 of 1385 ends

Page 552 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 19 of 25 ends

BACKGROUND

CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
The proposed objective standards are presented to respond to the following City Council referrals:

Table 14. City Council Referrals and Reports
Residential Objective Standards
Housing
Accountability
Act (7/11/2017)
Requested research into a set of objective zoning standards for new development projects in the following four areas:
 Density and/or building intensity
 Public health and safety standards
 Design review standards
 Views, shadows, and other impacts that underlie detriment findings Objective
Standards for
Density, Design,
and Shadows
(11/9/2021)
Consider and codify objective zoning standards with the goal of encouraging the creation of additional residential development and affordable homes. Further purposes include:
 Address State laws that seek to reduce time involved in permitting processes  Increase certainty for applicants
 Reduce administrative costs and burden associated with discretionary review.

Lower Density Districts
Missing Middle
Housing
(4/23/2019)
Examine methods to provide for a broader range of housing types in areas of Berkeley with access to parks, schools, employment, transit, and other services.

The Council directed the City Manager to explore opportunities to allow “missing middle” housing types in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A zoning districts.

Eliminating
Exclusionary
Zoning
(2/23/2021)
Allow multi-family housing in residential neighborhoods throughout Berkeley, and to allow for small-scale multi-family development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A zoning districts. As part of this effort, the resolution calls for the city to also:
 Protect public safety in all neighborhoods
 Allow for new housing that reflects the existing mix of multi-family housing types within neighborhoods
 Provide strong anti-displacement and tenant protections  Accommodate families in new and rehabilitated multi-family housing developments
 Ensure that new development does not demolish any rent-controlled or below market-rate housing
 Explore incentives for projects to contribute to the need for affordable housing  Carry out a robust community process when developing zoning changes.

Southside Area
Community
Benefits within
C-T (7/12/2016)
Allow increased development potential in the Telegraph Commercial (C-T) District between Dwight Avenue and Bancroft Avenue and develop community benefit requirements, with a focus on labor practices and affordable housing.

Page 19 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
112

Page 549 of 1385 ends

Page 553 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 20 of 25 ends

Non-
Commercial
Ground Floor in
C-T (4/4/2017)
Create a Use Permit process to allow non-commercial use on the ground floor in appropriate locations, where commercial might otherwise be required. A pilot project is suggested for the C-T District.

Pilot Density
Program in C-T
(5/30/2017)
Develop a pilot Density Bonus program for the C-T District to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents.

Increase Height
and FAR
(10/31/2017)
Facilitate student housing by increasing the height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the portions of the R-SMU, R-S and R-3 District which are located within the Southside area west of College Avenue.

Increase
Student Housing
(5/1/2018)
Convert commercial space into residential use within all districts in the Southside located west of College Avenue.

More Student
Housing Now
(11/27/2018)
Convert commercial space in the C-T to residential use, expand the Car-Free Housing overlay in the Southside, allow two high-rises for student housing, and consider micro-units and modular units.

Affordable Housing Overlay
Affordable
Housing Overlay
(11/9/2021)
Consider an affordable housing overlay to permit increased height and density, with ministerial approval, for qualifying 100% affordable housing projects in the R-1, R- 1A, R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, MUR, and all C-prefixed zoning districts.

PRIOR FEEDBACK ON LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
City Council Worksession Feedback
As part of the Housing Element Update, staff received feedback pertinent to middle housing standards at the March 15, 2022 City Council worksession. 18 Councilmembers
identified the following key considerations:
 Permit higher density equitably throughout the City, including in high resource, high income neighborhoods, and consider provisions of the H District.  Create an incentive for adaptive reuse and smaller, more affordable units, including allowing for more than four units in lower density districts.  Consider adopting the same standards for the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A districts (i.e., merging zoning districts) and treating Residential zones similarly.  Embrace climate adaptation and resilience through local power generation, but solar access should not be a barrier to creating more housing.

ZORP Subcommittees Feedback
To advise staff on the development of objective standards, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board appointed members to two ZORP Subcommittees. 18 March 15, 2022. Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards. City Council Worksession.

Page 20 of 487 ends

113

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Page 550 of 1385 ends

Page 554 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 21 of 25 ends

The Subcommittees met concurrently on two occasions. On December 15, 2021, the Subcommittees met to receive a background presentation and to approve the Objective Standards Framework and overall project approach. On February 16, 2022, the Subcommittees met to provide feedback on an initial version of the proposed middle housing development standards.

In their two meetings, the ZORP Subcommittees identified the following considerations when determining appropriate objective development standards:
 Encouraging smaller units that are “affordable by design.”  Permitting more density while discouraging financial speculation.  Balancing the environmental trade-offs between protecting rooftop solar access and higher densities.

Planning Commission
Staff presented preliminary standards for lower density districts to the Planning Commission on June 1, 2022 to elicit feedback from commissioners and the community.

At the meeting, commissioners identified the following as important items:
 Encourage smaller unit sizes and consider eliminating minimum lot size requirements.
 Reduce minimum required open space dimensions -- currently a minimum width and length of 10 feet is required, or a minimum of six feet for balconies.  Consider a “shared solar budget” or arrangement between incumbent solar owners and neighbors whose projects may create new shadows.

PRIOR FEEDBACK ON SOUTHSIDE AREA STANDARDS
Planning Commission
On December 17, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed and provided input on the proposed project description for the Southside EIR. Planning staff returned on February 5, 2020, with the proposed scope of ordinance changes and zoning map amendments to include in the EIR Project Description. A public hearing and EIR Scoping Session was held on September 2, 2020 to receive a project update and hear from stakeholders and members of the public on issues that the EIR should address. Notable comments from the Scoping Meeting included ensuring an adequate analysis of recreation and parks resources and the accuracy of the EIR’s buildout assumptions.

Southside EIR Subcommittee
On December 17, 2019, the Subcommittee held a meeting to review options to consider in the project description. The Subcommittee was generally supportive of the options provided by staff. Their main concern was whether the current boundary of the Southside contains enough opportunity sites to justify the EIR and zoning changes.

Page 21 of 487 ends

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
114

Page 551 of 1385 ends

Page 555 ends

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

Page 22 of 25 ends

RELATED CONCURRENT PROJECTS
Housing Element
This focus area includes policies that ensure compliance with State Housing Element law and implement zoning policies proposed in the 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element to meet the City’s approximately 9,000-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and a minimum 15 percent buffer. A first draft of the Housing Element Update was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 10, 2022.

The proposed middle housing standards are featured in the draft Housing Element Update under Program 29-Middle Housing, and the Southside zoning map and development standard amendments are featured under Program 27-Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors. The Housing Element draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes 1,745 additional units throughout the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MUR districts. An additional 1,000 units in the C-T, R-S, and R-SMU districts within the Southside Area is also analyzed for the 2023-2031 planning period.

As part the Housing Element process, the City has received public input on residential objective standards at City Council worksessions, public workshops, stakeholder meetings, and outreach events. The proposed objective standards allow for increased housing capacity and streamlined residential development consistent with the updated Housing Element.

Proposed Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements
In March 2022, Planning Commission recommended to City Council the approval of a comprehensive update to the City’s affordable housing requirements 19, which would
apply to all new residential development including middle housing projects, establish a per-square-foot in-lieu fee instead of assessing fees on a per-unit basis, and consider a sliding scale reduced fee for projects with less than 12,000 gross residential square feet. Staff are preparing an item for possible City Council action in Fall 2022 to update the Citywide affordable housing requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.

Demolition Ordinance Update
The Demolition Ordinance prohibits demolition of specified dwelling units where a building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years or “there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.” Applicants are generally required to provide relocation benefits, including moving expenses and differential rent payments. In addition, displaced tenants are provided a right of first refusal to rent new units. The City is currently reviewing the demolition ordinance to ensure compliance with State density bonus, SB 330, and other laws, and will amend 19 March 2, 2022. Public Hearing on Amendments to Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Planning Commission.

Page 22 of 487 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 18, 2023

Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023