Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

115

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

the administrative procedures, fee, and replacement requirements accordingly. Staff will bring recommended amendments to Planning Commission in Fall 2022.

Affordable Housing Overlay and Local Density Bonus
At its meeting on July 6, 2022, the Planning Commission heard a staff report20 and provided feedback on two items:
1) A May 2017 City Council referral to develop a local density bonus program for the C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial) zoning district to allow density bonuses without requiring on-site affordable units and to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low income residents; and 2) A November 2021 City Council referral to request to consider an affordable housing overlay to permit increased height and density for housing projects comprised entirely of affordable units.

The Planning Commission communicated to staff that it wanted to move forward with a local density bonus program. Staff will present two options for such a program to the Planning Commission in Fall 2022. One will be based on SB 1227 (Skinner), which provided for student housing through the State density bonus, and a second will be based more directly on the City’s affordable housing impact fee program.

The Planning Commission provided feedback on the affordable housing overlay referral and referred a number of the specific recommendations to other work which will focus on multi-family housing in the higher-density zoning districts.

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

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Middle Housing. Staff anticipate presenting a draft ordinance for Middle Housing to the Planning Commission in Spring 2023 after the final Housing Element Update and final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are adopted. Upon receiving further direction and recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff will return to the Council with a final recommended Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes.

Southside. Throughout the Fall 2022 semester, City staff will conduct outreach and engagement with Southside Area stakeholders, including UC Berkeley students and campus planning, affordable and market-rate residential developers, and neighborhood groups. Based on City Council direction and initial engagement efforts, staff will return 20 July 6, 2022. Affordable Housing Overlay ad Southside Local Density Bonus Program. Planning Commission.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
116

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

to the Planning Commission in late Fall with revised development standards for Southside, to be presented in concert with options for a local density bonus methodology. Upon receiving further direction and recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff will return to the Council with a final recommended Zoning Ordinance and zoning map changes.

As part of separate upcoming project, “Phase 2 Residential Objective Standards for Higher Density Residential and Commercial Districts”, the Planning Department will consider confirming, modifying or creating objective design and development standards for projects in higher density residential and commercial districts, which may include R- 3, R-4, and all C Districts. These policies will provide clarity and predictability for State- streamlined projects (e.g. SB 35, AB 1397) and create a pathway for additional local streamlined projects in order to reduce reliance on the use permit process and non- detriment findings.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
In addition to staff time, the City has budgeted $350,000 to hire a consultant to assist in preparing objective design standards for higher density residential and commercial districts.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Maps of Lower Density Zoning Districts and Southside Plan Area

2. Existing and Proposed Development Standards Tables

3. Lower Density Residential Diagrams
Referenced City Council and Planning Commission Referrals and Reports

4. July 12, 2016. Community Benefits within C-T District. Berkeley City Council.

5. April 4, 2017. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T District. Berkeley City Council.

6. May 30, 2017. Pilot Density Program in C-T District. Berkeley City Council.

7. July 11, 2017. Housing Accountability Act. Berkeley City Council.

8. October 31, 2017. Increase Height and FAR in Southside. Berkeley City Council.

9. May 1, 2018. Increase Student Housing. Berkeley City Council.

10.November 27, 2018. More Student Housing Now. Berkeley City Council.

11.April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing. Berkeley City Council.

117

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Middle Housing Objective Development Standards WORKSESSION September 20, 2022

12.February 23, 2021. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning. Berkeley City Council.

13.November 9, 2021. Affordable Housing Overlay. Berkeley City Council.

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

Supplemental Packet 2. Berkeley City Council.

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

Supplemental Packet 3. Berkeley City Council.

16.March 3, 2022. Public Hearing on Amendments to Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Planning Commission Staff Report.

17.March 15, 2022. Housing Element and Residential Objective Standards.

Berkeley City Council Worksession.

18.July 6, 2022. Affordable Housing Overlay and Southside Local Density Bonus Program. Planning Commission Staff Report.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
118

Residential Objective Standards
September 20, 2022

MIDDLE HOUSING & SOUTHSIDE

CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
Why are we creating Residential Objective Standards?
2 City Council Referrals + Reports

1. Community Benefits within C-T (2016)

2. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T (2017)

3. Pilot Density Program in C-T (2017)

4. Increase Height and FAR in Southside (2017)

5. Housing Accountability Act (2017)

6. Increase Student Housing (2018)

7. More Student Housing Now (2018)

8. Missing Middle Housing (2019)

9. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning (2021)

10. Objective Standards for Design, Design, Shadows (2021)

11. Affordable Housing Overlay (2021)
Residential Objective Standards
Lower Density Districts
Southside Area
What are Objective Standards?
3 SUBJECTIVE
“A side setback can be reduced if
appropriate given the architectural
design of surrounding buildings.”

OBJECTIVE
“The minimum side setback is 4 feet.”
Measurable, verifiable, and knowable
to all parties
Often require interpretation and
personal judgement

OUTCOMES

HOUSING

ELEMENT
RECENT
STATE
LAWS

COUNCIL

REFERRALS
What is the goal of Residential Objective Standards?
4 STREAMLINED PREDICTABILITY

REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE

BURDEN & COSTS

CLEAR MULTI-UNIT

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA

HOUSING

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND AFFORDABLE HOMES
5 “What type of housing would you like to see more of?” 6 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 Council, Commission, and Committee Feedback
7 Permit higher density equitably throughout
the City, including the Hillside Overlay
City Council (3/15)
Consider merging zoning districts
Embrace climate adaption, but solar access
should not be a barrier to creating more
housing
Incentive for adaptive reuse and smaller, more
affordable units, allow more than four 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
Encourage smaller unit sizes
Planning Commission (6/1)
Reduce minimum open space dimensions
Neighbor negotiation over solar & shadows
Concern about blank facades
8 AGENDA – 2 PARTS
PART I – MIDDLE HOUSING

1. Draft Proposed Standards

2. Wildfire, Views, and Solar
PART II – SOUTHSIDE AREA

1. Draft Proposed Standards

DISCUSSION
9 LOWER DENSITY DISTRICTS SOUTHSIDE AREA
R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MUR R-3, R-S, R-SMU, and C-T

MIDDLE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

1. Merging Zoning Districts

2. Allowed Uses & Permits Required

3. Min and Max Density (Units per Acre)

4. Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

5. Min Open Space

6. Max Height

7. Min Lot Coverage & Setbacks

8. Min Separation
10 NOT A BLANK SLATE
• Existing Standards
• Development Patterns
• City Council Referrals
• State Laws
• Environmental/Social/Economic/
Demographic Factors
Middle Housing Map Amendment – Merge R-1A and R-2
11 Land Use & Permits & Noticing Required
12 R-1 R- 1H R-2 R- 2H R-2A R-2AH MU-R
Residential Multi-Unit 1 Residential Multi-Unit 2 Residential Multi-Unit 2A Mixed-Use Residential
Multi-Unit Residential ZONING CERTIFICATE*
*Discretionary permit still required for -
• Structures of Historic Merit  Structural Alteration Permit • Cortese List Hazardous Waste and Substances site
Neighbor Notification required
within 10 days of submittal
SB 9 applies
Minimum & Maximum Density (Units per Acre)
13 R-1 R-2 R- 2A MU-R R- 1H R-2H R-2AH
Min. Density (du/ac) 10 10 20 20 No min. No min. No min.

Max. Density (du/ac) 25 35 55 55 20 20 55
*ADUs allowed per https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.306 • More than 1 detached dwellings  max 1 ADU
• Duplex or attached multi-family dwellings  max 2 detached ADUs OR 25% of # existing units converted Note: Minimum densities would apply for new development on a vacant lot or redevelopment of a nonvacant lot. 23 24 6 66Max. # Units
1 No min.1 No min.2 No min.2Min. # Units
Resulting units on a 5,000 sf lot…
Varies*+ ADUs!
In Hillside Overlay
Density - Examples
14 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.

Floor Area Ratio: Encourage a mix of housing types
16 FAR - Examples
17 0.95 FAR 0.76 FAR
5 units, Avg. 636 sf/du
1911 Ninth Street 1744-1756 10th Street1028-1030 Grayson Street

1.2 FAR
5,000 sf (0.11 ac)
4 units, Avg. 1,265 sf/du
6,505 sf (0.15 ac)
3 units, Avg. 2,060 sf/du
4,200 sf (0.096 ac)
Photo Credit: Workshop1, Inc.

Building Height Standards
18 28-foot max average height AND 35-foot max height
• Except MUR, which maintains 35-foot max height only
• Reduce to 22 feet max height within rear 15 feet of lot • Reduce to 28 feet max height in the H Overlay
• Limit by height in feet; not # of stories
• Main buildings and additions treated the same
35’ Max Height
28’ Max Average Height
22’ Max Height in rear
Floor Area Ratio: Encourage smaller unit sizes
15 Figure F-13 Work Session #4 Presentation
119

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

19 34’11” maximum height
29’6” average max height
25’3” eave
1911 Ninth
6,505 sf (0.15 ac)
20 2411 Fifth Street
Structure of Merit property
7,051 sf (0.16 ac)
30’6” average max height
25’2” average max height
33’6” max height
28’5” max height
Four Prototype Models & Neighborhood Context
21 New Detached Building
Behind Existing Attached Sidecourt Detached Cluster Attached Row Homes Development Standard Considerations
22 Lot Coverage
More Units
 More Coverage
For most lots, max lot
coverage is 50 or 55%.

Setbacks
Match neighbors (front);
Match ADUs (side/rear)
Remove “wedding cake”
requirements
Open Space
Ratio based on ttoottaall
fflloooorr aarreeaa, not per unit
More flexible,
Still usable
Bldg Separation
Remove “wedding cake”
requirements
Front Elevation Facade
23 MIN 20% VISUAL INTEREST
• Entries
• Windows or glazing, incl. trim, shutters
• Railings
Parking Spaces
24 No Minimum Parking Required
Except parcels located along narrow
roads in the H district: 1 space per unit
No Maximum Parking Required
Except projects located within 0.25 mile
of a major transit:

0.5 space per unit,
including H District
H District: Options to Consider
• Removing the max parking limit
throughout Fire Zone 2
• Requiring minimum off-street parking
either on a per unit basis, or a sliding
scale of residential floor area.

OTHER

CONSIDERATIONS

1. Wildfire

2. Views

3. Solar Access
25 26
Berkeley
Fire Zones
Wildfire Hazards Mitigation
27 Interior Side Setback:

Increased to 5 feet
Height: Reduced height
from 35 to 28 feet
Private View Impacts
Existing rules:
• AUP or Use Permit required for major residential addition or new home
• Residential additions may not “unreasonably obstruct
sunlight, air, or views”
• Additions and new homes may not be “detrimental or
injurious” to adjacent properties
• A project resulting in the “unreasonable obstruction of a neighbor’s significant view” may be considered detrimental 28 Private View Impacts
• Proposed standards would allow
middle housing by-right
• The City would no longer use the
discretionary permit process to
consider potential neighbor view
impacts
• Proposed standards include
changes to building height
standards to address private view
impacts for middle housing
projects
29 Hillside Overlay Height Standard
30 Shadow Studies
PPuurrppoossee::
• Better understand and quantify
potential shadow impacts on
adjacent rooftops
• Assess whether additional
standards are needed
• Consider how effective
additional standards would be
in reducing shadow impacts
https://vimeo.com/711872142
Max Building Envelope Modeled
Maximum Building
Envelope for a
north-south parcel
Maximum Building
Envelope for an
east-west parcel
Model Methodology
• Projected shadows from allowed
building envelopes on the equinox
(March or September 21)
• Calculated the percentage of
adjacent rooftops shaded at 8am,
10am, noon, 2pm, and 4pm
Result: Less than a 10%
difference in shadow impact
when building height
increases from 28 to 35 feet
34 SOUTHSIDE

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

1. Background

2. Fall 2022 Outreach & Engagement

3. Zoning Map Amendments

4. Allowed Uses & Permits Required

5. Max Height

6. Min Lot Coverage & Setbacks

7. Min Open Space

8. Min Separation
Southside Background
35 City Council Referrals + Reports

1. Community Benefits within C-T (2016)

2. Non-Commercial Ground Floor in C-T (2017)

3. Pilot Density Program in C-T (2017)

4. Increase Height and FAR in Southside (2017)

5. Housing Accountability Act (2017)

6. Increase Student Housing (2018)

7. More Student Housing Now (2018)

8. Missing Middle Housing (2019)

9. Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning (2021)

10. Objective Standards for Design, Design, Shadows (2021)

11. Affordable Housing Overlay (2021)
• Zoning map adjustments
• New development standards
• Revised permitted land uses
• Administrative Draft EIR
 Housing Element EIR
Southside Zoning Ordinance
Amendments Project (2020)
These proposed standards
encourage more development
than the 2020 proposal
Outreach & Engagement Fall 2022
36 East Bay 4
Everyone
ASUC Housing
Commission
Berkeley
Design
Advocates
Southside
Neighborhood
Consortium
We are here
Farmers
Market
Online SurveySproul Plaza
Tabling
Planning
CommissionUC Campus
Planning
Proposed Standards Based on Model Results
● Proposed height and setbacks standards are
sufficient to address rooftop solar impacts;
additional standards are not needed
● Proposed middle housing standards, including
lot coverage and FAR limitations, are sufficient
to address privacy and aesthetic impacts on
adjacent properties
● Homeowners may establish a solar easement
with their neighbor to guarantee no future
reduction in solar access (not enforced by the
City)
33 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
120

Southside Map Amendments – Expand R-SMU
37 Current
Proposed
Southside Map Amendments – R-3 to R-S
38 Current
Proposed
Proposed Southside Development Standard Changes
39 Land Use & Permits
Permit residential uses
at the ground floor in
the C-T
Maximum Heights
Increase maximum
heights by 10 ft to 20 ft
Open Space
New ratio based on
ttoottaall fflloooorr aarreeaa, not per
unit
Bldg. Separation
Eliminate building
separation
requirements
(Fire and Building Code
still apply)
Lot Coverage
Increase lot coverage to
between 70% and 85%
Minimum Setbacks
Reduce most setbacks
in the R-S and R-SMU
Reduce side setbacks in
the R-3
Southside: Pending additional analysis & input
40 Density…
Floor Area Ratio….

Sliding scale?
Per unit? Per room? Per bed?
State (& local) density bonus
Housing Element RHNA:

Separate living quarters
Possible Future Actions
HCD Review
DEIR
Housing Element Update
Winter/Spring 2023
Housing Element
Adoption
Residential Objective Standards
Planning Commission
Spring 2023
Residential Objective
Standards Adoption
Housing Element
Planning Commission
We Are Here
Outreach & Engagement City Council City Council

THANK YOU
42 [email protected]

CONTACT US
PPhhoottoo CCrreeddiitt Jessica Christian / The Chronicle LINK Meeting the Referral Goals?
Do the proposed development standards achieve
the goals of the City Council referrals, namely
encouraging the development of middle housing in
lower density districts and increasing housing
production and availability in the Southside area?
Changes or Revisions?
Are there provisions of the proposed zoning
standards that should be changed or revised?Additional Considerations? Are there additional considerations that remain
unaddressed by the proposed development
standards?
121

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

F3 PLANNING COMMISSION
In addition to meeting with City Council, Housing Element Update presentations were given at three Planning Commission meeting between September 2021 and May 2022. These meetings provided an update to Commissioners and members of the public on the Housing Element, and sought input on key stakeholders for outreach. Staff specifically requested comments on the scope and content of the EIR, on issues that the EIR should address, as well as feedback on the Sites Inventory and proposed housing programs. Each subsection will include the staff memo and associated presentation.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
122

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2021
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Grace Wu, Senior Planner
Alene Pearson, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort

RECOMMENDATION
Receive information about the update to the Housing Element of the General Plan , discuss potential community partners to be included on the stakeholder list, and identify a commissioner to participate in publ ic outreach efforts related to the Housing Element Update who will report back to the Planning Commission at future meetings.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Element Update will serve as the City of Berkeley’s housing plan for the next eight-year cycle (the 6th cycle, 2023-2031), consistent with mandates of State law and regional planning efforts . It is an important opportunity for Berkeley’s residents and community members to come together on assessing housing needs, identifying policy and resource priorities, an d finding solutions to implement a wide range of housing choices. The plan contains goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City’s decision-making around the development and rehabilitation of housing and necessary zoning amendments to accommodate a substantial increase in the amount of housing, including affordable housing, in the city.

Racial and social equity, and protections for vulnerable and historically impacted communities, are key factors in this Housing Element U pdate. State law also req uires that the Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housin g and examines its policies and programs to ensure they prevent poverty concentration and segregation.

As part of the outreach effort for the Housing Element Update , 10 boards and commissions were identified as having a role in the outreach and policy preparation process because their recommendations may have direct implications on the City ’s housing policies, programs, and residential development standards

1. Each Board or
1 Commission on Aging; Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission; Commission on Disability; Energy Commission; Housing Advisory Commission; Homeless Services Panel of Experts; Homeless Commission; Landmarks Planning Commission; Planning Commission; Zoning Adjustments Board. 123

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Staff Memorandum Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort September 1, 2021 Commission is being asked to identify a member to participate in the public outreach efforts by joining the email list, attending three public workshops over the course of 18 months, and providing project updates at their respective board or commission meetings.

Key Components of a Housing Element
The content of the Housing Element and the methodologies used for analyzing constraints and sites inventory are dictated by State law and guided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) . The Housing E lement includes the following components:

1. Housing Needs Assessment : Examine demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identify existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., large families, persons with disabilities).

2. Evaluation of Past Performance: Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs.

3. Housing Sites Inventory : Identify available sites for housing development to ensure there is enough land zoned to meet the future need at all income levels.

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

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

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

State law does not require that jurisdictions build or finance new housing, but cities are required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Overall, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6 th cycle,
compared with 187,990 for the 5 th cycle (2015 -2023). Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of units across income levels , called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 2, that must be planned for in the Housing Element Update .

Berkeley’s draft RHNA is 8,934 residential units . The City did not appeal its draft RHNA allocation, recognizing that the allowable circumstances for appeals out lined in Government Code Section 65584.05 were not applicable to the City of Berkeley 3. The 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
3 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Process. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing- needs-allocation/2023-2031-rhna-appeals-process
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
124

Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Staff Memorandum Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort September 1, 2021 final target RHNA will be issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in December 2021.

Table 1 provides a comparison of Berkeley’s RHNA numbers at all income levels during the 5th cycle, the number of new units that have been issued building permits between 2015 and 2020 , and the draft RHNA for the upcoming 6th cycle. While the total units issued building permits over the last five years are in line with the 5th cycle RHNA, challenges remain for meeting lower and moderate income housing targets.

Table 1: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles
Income Level4
5th Cycle
RHNA Units
Units
Permitted
2015-20205
6th Cycle

DRAFT RHNA
Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 232 2,446
Low (50 – 80% AMI) 442 41 1,408
Moderate (80 – 120% AMI) 584 91 1,416
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) 1,401 2,579 3,664
Total 2,959 2,943 8,934
Timeline
Due to strict deadlines imposed by the State and severe penalties for missed deadlines
6, it is critical that the Housing Element Update stay on schedule and is approved by City Council and certified by HCD by January 31, 2023 . This means that the majority of the housing needs analysis and assessment, sites inventory, and rezoning will be identified within the first six months of the 18 -month project in order to allow for sufficient time to conduct a thorough and legally defensible environmental review (see Figure 1: Housing Element Project Timeline).

Figure 1: Housing Element Project Timeline
4 2021 income levels by family size are available at
https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/2021IncomeandRentLimits.pdf 5 Based on revised 2015-2020 APR unit counts, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 6 Failure to comply would impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. Many state and regional grant and loan programs require a compliant Housing Element, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), the Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) One Bay Area Grant transportation funding. 125

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Overview of the Upcoming Housing Element Update and Staff Memorandum Request to Identify a Member to Participate in the Public Outreach Effort September 1, 2021 Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and engagement are integral parts of this project from initiation to adoption.

The overall plan for outreach and engagement includes 20 stakeholder interviews, a community-wide survey, 20 small format meetings, three work sessions with the City Council, and three public workshops . Based in part on the feedback received from the 10 boards and commissions, City staff—working with an outreach consultant—will invite community partners and stakeholders to participate in the interviews and small format meetings.

DISCUSSION

1. Which community partners should be included on the stakeholder list, with the goal to further fair housing and engage racially and socially disadvantaged communities?

2. Which member of the Planning Commission is interested and able to participate in the Housing Element Update public outreach effort? Participation includes joining the email list, attending three public workshops over the course of 18 months, and providing project updates at future commission meetings.

Prepared by: Grace Wu, Senior Planner, [email protected], 510-981-7484 LINKS

1. April 30, 2021. Housing Element Off-Agenda Memo. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf

2. April 28, 2015. Adopted 2015-2023 5th Cycle Housing Element. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_ 3_-_Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/2015-
2023%20Berkeley%20Housing%20Element_FINAL.pdf
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
126

Internal

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OVERVIEW
6th Cycle 2023-2031
City of Berkeley Boards and Commissions
September 2021
Grace Wu, Senior Planner
Internal
Agenda

1. The Berkeley General Plan

2. Housing Element Overview

3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
o Berkeley RHNA 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle
o RHNA & Sites Inventory

4. Sites Inventory

5. Housing Considerations

6. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Process

7. Discussion
2 Internal
3 The Berkeley General Plan is a
comprehensive and long-range
statement of priorities and
values developed to guide
public decision-making in
future years.

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

The Berkeley General Plan contains the
following “Elements”:

1. Land Use

2. Transportation

33.. HHoouussiinngg  We are here

4. Disaster Preparedness and Safety

5. Open Space and Recreation

6. Environmental Management

7. Economic Development and Employment

8. Urban Design and Preservation

9. Citizen Participation
Internal
Housing Element Overview
4 • Required Element of the General Plan
• Must be updated on an 8-year cycle, certified by HCD
• Currently planning for the 6th cycle (2023-2031)
• The certification process takes several months and the statutory deadline is January 31, 2023 Internal
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
For each region, the State analyzes:
+ Jobs to homes ratio
+ Proximity to jobs and education centers
+ Expected job and population growth
+ Demographic trends that affect housing demand
= # of units to plan for in each region, by income level = Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA
5 • The methodology for distributing the RHNA was approved in January 2021 • The Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units during the 6th cycle (vs. 187,990 in 5th cycle) • Berkeley’s draft 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 units
• The final RHNA will be issued by ABAG in December 2021 State of CA
Councils of
Government
Local
Jurisdiction
Internal
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th Cycle
6 5th Cycle 2015-2023: 2,959 units
6th Cycle 2023-2031: 8,934 units
SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 Progress 2015-2020: 2,943 units
+ 202%
Internal
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)
7SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 Not meeting Lower
and Moderate
Internal
RHNA & Sites Inventory
8 Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
Sites Inventory
• Must show enough land zoned for housing to
meet our RHNA
• Include a buffer (no net loss by income level)
• More feasibility analysis required for:
• Small Sites less than 0.5 acres
• Large Sites greater than 10 acres
• Non-vacant sites
• New rules for reused sites
*If actual housing production is less than RHNA,
certain affordable projects are subject to a
streamlined approvals process (SB 35)
Internal
• City is not required to build or finance the housing, but must plan and accommodate for it • Does not automatically authorize the construction of residential developments • Private Property - No obligation by property owner or tenant to take action • Reliant on the development industry to construct housing units Sites Inventory
9 Publicly-owned or
leased sites
Vacant sites that could be
developed with residential
Nonvacant sites that
could be developed with
housing units or more
housing units
Nonvacant sites that
could be rezoned for
residential or more
housing units
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
Photo: Jerome Paulos
Internal
Housing Considerations
10 LIKELIHOOD OF DEVELOPMENT
Internal
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
11 Fall 2021
Housing Needs
Assessment,
Production
Constraints
Winter 2021-22
Sites Assessment
& Inventory
Spring 2022
Goals, Programs,
Policies
Summer 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Fall 2022
Local Adoption
Jan 2023
STATE

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

Environmental Review
Internal
Discussion

1. Which community partners should be included on the stakeholder list, with the goal to further fair housing and engage racially and socially disadvantaged communities?

2. Which member of your board or commission is interested and able to participate in the Housing Element Update public outreach effort? • Join the email list
• Attend three public workshops (Oct 2012, early 2022, summer 2022) • Report back at future board / commission meetings.
13 Internal
Links to Slides
14 1. The Berkeley General Plan

2. Housing Element Overview

3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
o Berkeley RHNA 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle
o RHNA & Sites Inventory

4. Sites Inventory

5. Housing Considerations

6. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Process

7. Discussion
Internal
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
12 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
Public Survey
Boards & Commissions
1 3
1 3
STATE

CERTIFICATION
Council Work Sessions 1
2 2
2 3
NNoottee This is a general timeline and actual timing may change.

Environmental Review
Figure F-14 Planning Commission Meeting #1 Presentation 127

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]
DATE: February 9, 2022
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Alene Pearson, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session

INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley is currently updating its Housing Element, which will serve as the City’s housing plan for the next eight years (2023-2031). An Environment Impact Report (EIR) is required to evaluate the potential physical environmental impacts that could result from actions required to implement the policies and programs proposed in the Housing Element Update. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been issued and a 30-day comment period is underway (see Attachment 1). In this scoping session, the Commission will receive a status report on the Housing Element Update and NOP, consider public testimony, and provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley is preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate that requires each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected needs for households with varying income- levels in the community. The Housing Element Update will establish goals, policies, and actions to address the existing and projected housing needs in Berkeley according to State law and guidance from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH).

Berkeley’s Final RHNA
Each jurisdiction in California receives a target number of housing units to plan for during each eight-year housing element cycle, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), based on local economic and demographic trends. On December 16, 2021, the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducted a public hearing and adopted the Final RHNA Plan for the 2023-2031 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
128

Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session housing cycle. Berkeley’s RHNA is 8,934 residential units. For comparison with Berkeley’s RHNA from the previous cycle (2015-2023), see Table 1.

Table 1: Berkeley’s RHNA
Income Level 2015-2023 RHNA Units 2023-2031 RHNA Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 2,446
Low (50-80% AMI) 442 1,408
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 584 1,416
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 1,401 3,664
Total 2,959 8,934
Housing Element Site Inventory Analysis
An essential component of the Housing Element is to identify sufficient sites that can accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA. Sites are considered suitable for residential development if they are zoned appropriately and available for residential use during the planning period. HCD provides a framework for determining if the current zoning regulations, physical conditions of parcels, and existing land uses on parcels provide adequate sites to accommodate Berkeley’s RHNA.

The staff report that accompanied the City Council Worksession on December 9, 2021 provided a detailed overview of the steps necessary to identify sufficient sites (see Attachment 2). In summary, jurisdictions must complete the following five steps:

1. Identify Likely Housing Sites and Production

2. Screen for Vacant and Underutilized Parcels

3. Screen for Suitability of Parcels

4. Evaluate and Analyze Sites

5. Calculate Potential Buildout of Sites
The final site inventory will include a detailed data table, according to a template provided by HCD, that lists potential sites that have been identified to meet Berkeley’s RHNA. The site inventory table provides characteristics of each potential site (including existing use, zoning, address), calculates allowable buildout by income category, documents the viability of each parcel to build housing (with photos and descriptions), and shows the results of the AFFH analysis.

Note, the inventory does not require development of any particular site and is not indented to imply that a site will be developed at a certain density, only that it could be based on the HCD framework. The intent is to demonstrate that the City has adequately planned and zoned for appropriate development that could be attractive to private, non-profit and public housing developers at appropriate densities to meet the projected demand for housing in a variety of income categories. 129

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session Preliminary Site Inventory Analysis
The process summarized above is iterative, and not necessarily linear. The project team has completed the first round of steps 1 and 2 and has conducted a preliminary analysis of potential buildout (step 5) in order to understand the capacity of sites under current zoning and to identify the outside limits of the project to be analyzed in the EIR.

Although this may seem premature, the CEQA timeline and HCD’s review periods require the start of environmental review at this stage in order to meet the Housing Element’s statutory deadline of January 31, 2023.

The first two steps in the site inventory process require identification of adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Attachment 3 provides a preliminary assessment of sites, presented in three categories, described below:
• Sites Likely to Develop
• Sites in the Pipeline
• Opportunity Sites or Potential Additional Sites
Sites that are likely to develop include projects that received their land use entitlement after 2018 but have not yet been built. For these projects, the affordability breakdown in the table reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include future ADUs in the category of “sites likely to develop” based on past development trends. Furthermore, HCD’s methodology provides assumed levels of affordability for ADUs. Lastly, development at the BART sites is included as “sites likely to develop” based on current planning efforts -- because project specifics are not known at this time, a conservative total estimate of 1,200 units is being used with 35% affordability split evenly between Very Low and Low Income affordability levels. The preliminary assessment of sites likely to develop accounts for over 5,100 units.

Sites in the pipeline include projects that are under review or are actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels for sites in the pipeline reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. The preliminary assessment of sites in the pipeline accounts for over 2,400 units.

Opportunity sites or potential additional sites do not have specific projects associated with them. This category includes parcels that are assessed based on HCD criteria as potential opportunity sites for future housing development. HCD’s criteria includes the following:
• Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. • Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. • Buildings on the parcel are greater than 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings.
• Parcel does not have historic buildings and rent controlled units. • Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. • Parcel is not State- or county-owned.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
130

Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session Buildout Potential and Income Limits of Opportunity Sites Berkeley’s zoning districts do not have maximum density standards expressed in “dwelling units per acre”, so the preliminary number of potential units for opportunity sites was calculated using 70% of the upper limit of a density range that reflects recent projects that have been built within the district. The project team is following HCD guidance to develop accurate density estimates and buildout potential and is still in the process of researching and refining these numbers.

Because opportunity sites are not associated with actual development proposals, HCD provides guidance on assigning assumed income categories to the units that could be developed on these (or similar) parcels. The HCD methodology is based on allowable density, with increased density serving as a proxy for more affordability. Parcels that are zoned to allow 30 dwelling units per acre or more are categorized in the “lower income” category (Very Low- or Low-Income households) and parcels with zoning that allows less than 30 units per acre in the Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income categories.

The HCD guidance for this stage of the analysis is an admittedly blunt approach to considering the issue of housing affordability. Berkeley has other tools at its disposal for addressing the affordability of new development, preservation of existing units, and other aspects of housing policy, which will also be described in the Housing Element.

The focus in the EIR, however, is on the physical development activity necessary for meeting the overall RHNA; additional analysis will be provided in subsequent discussions about the other policies and programs that will be included in the Housing Element Update.

Potential Rezoning and EIR
Based on the units already accounted for in “Sites Likely to Develop” and “Sites in the Pipeline”, HCD certification will require that the Housing Element identify opportunity sites to accommodate approximately 2,000 units. Preliminary analysis of opportunity sites identified over 8,000 units, suggesting that current zoning is adequate to meet HCD’s RHNA requirements for a compliant Housing Element.

Although Berkeley’s current zoning seems to be sufficient to meet RHNA, recent development activity suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed- restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the City aims to achieve. In particular, density bonus and inclusionary units have fallen short of providing the overall 20% Very Low and Low Income units expressed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.

Furthermore, City Council has provided direction through referrals and resolutions (see Attachment 4) regarding where and how to encourage additional housing, with a focus on affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types. In order to allow these actions to occur, the Housing Element EIR needs to study potential environmental impacts that could result from up-zoning and new programs. The project description for the EIR will broadly cover requested actions from Council in order to 131

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session provide flexibility as the Housing Element Update proceeds and opportunity sites are identified.

DISCUSSION
Public Review Period and Scoping Meeting
The Planning Department has hired Rincon Consultants to prepare the CEQA analysis, including the NOP, which informs public agencies and the community early in the process of the broad strokes of the process. The NOP was released on January 17, 2022, beginning a 30-day review period, which will close on February 16, 2022.

This scoping meeting informs the community and public agencies about the Housing Element and EIR, and solicits comments from the Planning Commission and the public regarding the EIR scope, issues of concern, potential alternatives, and mitigation measures. These comments, along with the comments collected through the entire review period, will be considered in the preparation of the EIR. The result of the EIR analysis will inform future Planning Commission discussion and the recommendations submitted to the City Council for adoption.

CEQA and Zoning -- Next Steps
Following the close of the NOP comment period, the Draft EIR will be prepared and circulated for the required 45-day public comment period. Although the Housing Element Update would not approve any physical development (e.g., construction of housing or infrastructure), the EIR will assume that such actions are reasonably foreseeable future outcomes of the Housing Element Update. As such the EIR will evaluate the potential physical environmental impacts that could result from future actions for implementing the policies and programs, and resulting development, at a programmatic level.

The Draft EIR will also examine a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, including the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative and other potential alternatives that may be capable of reducing or avoiding potential environmental effects while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project. In addition, the EIR will address cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and other issues required by CEQA.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
132

Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Session The estimated timeline for the public portions of the CEQA review are as follows:

Description Timing Public Review
Process
Development and Release of
Public Draft of Notice of
Preparation (NOP)
December 2021 -
January 2022
2/9/22 -- Planning
Commission review
30-day NOP Comment Period January 17 – February
16, 2022
Scoping Meeting at
2/9/22 Planning
Commission
Draft EIR released for 45-day
review and comment period
July 15 – August 29,
2022
Planning Commission
hearing
Discussion of Housing Element
EIR changes
September – November
2022
Subcommittee and
Planning Commission
review
Final EIR and
Final Housing Element adopted
November 2022 –
January 2023
Planning Commission
recommendation; City
Council action

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should review the NOP, provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR, and receive comments from members of the public, organizations and interested agencies on issues the EIR should address. Written comments can be directed in writing to Grace Wu, Senior Planner either by mail or electronically:

Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected].

Comments must be received on or before 5pm on Monday, February 21, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice of Preparation

2. Staff Report from December 9, 2021 Housing Element Update Work Session

3. Preliminary Site Capacity Analysis

4. Housing Element Related Referrals and Resolutions
133

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
6th Cycle 2023-2031
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Notice of Preparation (NOP) Scoping Meeting
February 9, 2022
AGENDA

1. Housing Element Overview

2. Preliminary Sites Inventory
Capacity

3. CEQA and EIR Scoping Meeting
2 [email protected]
www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement
3 Housing Element includes…
4 1 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
5 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
4 5
Adoption
Jan 2023
We Are Here
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
6 Spring 2022
Preparing Draft
Housing Element
Summer/Fall 2022
Draft Housing
Element & Review
Winter 2022-2023
Local Adoption
May 2023
Interviews
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Workshops
Public Survey
Boards & Commissions
1 3
Council Work Sessions 1 2 3
Environmental Review

STATE REVIEW/

CERTIFICATION
HCD Review
We Are Here
4 5
Adoption
Jan 2023
Winter 2021-22
Sites Inventory,
Programs, Policies
2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
5th & 6th cycle
7 532 232
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,,994433
88,,994433
SSoouurrccee Revised 2015-2020 APR, accepted by HCD on July 14, 2021 AApppprrooxx.. 5522,,000000 hhoouussiinngg uunniittss SSoouurrccee Census 2020, State Dept of Finance
BBeerrkkeelleeyy ccuurrrreennttllyy hhaass
+ 202%
5522,,000000
88,,994433
+ 17%
6600,,994433
8 Meeting the RHNA
A key certification criteria that HCD looks at closely
Meeting the RHNA: Sites Inventory
9 Likely Sites Opportunity Sites
ADU Trend
N Berkeley & Ashby BART
Approved Projects since 2018
Vacant Land Use
Non-residential Building > 30 yrs old
Built at ≤ 35% capacity (e.g. density, height)
Federal, State, County-owned
Condo or Large Apartment Bldg
Historically-sensitive
Rent-Controlled Units
Most Supermarkets
Pipeline Sites
Projects under Review
10 Opportunity SitesScreen & Evaluate
+ Transit, Jobs and Schools,
Amenities (e.g. Services and
Parks), Grocery and Retail
Racial Diversity
Concentration of Poverty
Environmental Equity
Community Benefits
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Ensure affordable housing is
distributed and balanced in “high
opportunity” neighborhoods.
- Wildfire, Flood, Pollution
Potential Zoning Code Amendments
11 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/ 2019-04-23_Supp_2_Reports_Item_32_Rev_Droste_pdf.aspx
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents /2021-02-23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
Downtown, University, San Pablo,
Shattuck, Telegraph
Adeline (not included)
Transit + Commercial Corridors
Min. 15-minute peak headways
R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A
Up to 2-3-4 units per parcel
(including ADUs, JADUs), and
division of units.

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

PRELIMINARY SITES

INVENTORY CAPACITY

1. Meeting the RHNA

2. HCD Methodology

3. Preliminary Sites Inventory
Capacity

4. Environmental Impact
12 CAPACITY ≠ HOUSING PRODUCTION
13 Meeting the RHNA
RHNA
(8,943 units)
Sites Inventory
No Net Loss (SB 166)  Buffers
EIR

NOT ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Preliminary Sites Capacity
14 HCD Opportunity Sites Capacity Methodology
15 > 0.5 acres
Max Density ≥ 75 du/ac
Capacity for
up to 30 units
Capacity for
31-50 units
Capacity for
more than 50 units

0.35-0.5 acres
< 0.35 acres
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Max Density < 75 du/ac
< 0.35 acres

0.35-0.5 acres
> 0.5 acres

0.35-0.5 acres 0.35-0.5 acres
> 0.5 acres > 0.5 acres
x70%
x70%
Figure F-15 Planning Commission Meeting #2 Presentation City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
134

626 632 255
3615
137 45
68 1666
1527 1527 2351
3171
Very Low < 50% AMI Low 50-80% AMI Moderate 80-120%
AMI
Above Moderate >
120% AMI
Likely Sites
Pipeline Sites
Opportunity Sites
Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity
16 HCD combines
Lower < 80% AMI
22,,220044 22,,667744
88,,445522
RHNA vs. Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity
17 4494
2674
8452
3854
1416
3664
Lower < 80% AMI Moderate 80-120% AMI Above Moderate >
120% AMI
Prelim Sites Inventory Capacity
RHNA
Existing  RHNA  Sites Inventory  EIR
18 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
8,943
15,620 15,620
Existing 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites
Inventory
Sites Inventory + EIR
Buffer
Existing Housing Units 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites Inventory Add'l EIR Buffer 5522,,000000
6600,,994433
RHNA
(8,943 units)
Sites Inventory
EIR
Additional EIR Buffer
19 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
8,943
15,620 15,620
1,770
Existing 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites
Inventory
Sites Inventory + EIR
Buffer
Existing Housing Units 6th Cycle RHNA Preliminary Sites Inventory Add'l EIR Buffer + 35%
++1188,,660000
6699,,3399006677,,662200
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
CEQA

1. Purpose

2. Draft EIR

3. CEQA Topics

4. EIR Process

5. Scoping Meeting & Comments
20 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Purpose of CEQA:
> Disclose the potential significant environmental
effects of proposed actions
> Identify ways to avoid or reduce adverse
environmental effects
> Consider feasible alternatives to proposed actions
> Foster interagency coordination in the review of
projects
> Enhance public participation in the planning process 21 What’s in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?
> A project description
> An environmental setting
> Evaluation of environmental impacts
> Thresholds of significance
> Mitigation measures
> Project alternatives
> A meaningful discussion of project alternatives that
would reduce adverse environmental impacts
22 List of CEQA Topics
23 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Process
24 Planning
Commission and
Council Hearings
We Are Here
Purpose of the Scoping Meeting
> Inform the community and concerned agencies about
the project and the EIR
> Solicit input regarding the EIR scope, issues of concern, potential alternatives, and mitigation measures
> Inform the community about future opportunities for
input
25 We Welcome Comments Regarding:
> The scope, focus, and content of the EIR
> Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce environmental effects > Alternatives to avoid or reduce environmental effects > Please submit written comments by Monday, February 21, 2022 to:

Grace Wu
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Or via email [email protected]
26 135

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division
DATE: May 4, 2022
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Grace Wu, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update : Preliminary Sites, Goals, Policies, and Programs

INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley is currently updating its Housing Element, which will serve as the City’s housing plan for the eight-year period between 2023-2031. Under state law, the Housing Element must provide a Sites Inventory that catalogs a jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element must also identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. This report provides a preview of the preliminary Sites Inventory and the Goals, Policies, and Programs that will be included in the public draft of the Housing Element Update, which will be available in June 2022. The Draft Housing Element will then undergo further review by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and comment be incorporated prior to returning to Planning Commission for recommendation and City Council for local adoption.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley is preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to comply with the State mandate that requires each local jurisdiction to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected needs of households at varying income- levels in the community. The Housing Element Update will establish goals, policies, and programs to address the existing and projected housing needs in Berkeley according to State law and guidance from the HCD. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH).

Housing Element Site Inventory Analysis
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
136

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

The staff reports that accompanied the Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 20221 and the City Council Worksession on March 15, 20222 provide a detailed overview of the criteria and steps necessary to identify land suitable for residential development that can be feasibly developed during the 2023-2031 period. In summary, the City adhered to the following five steps:

1. Identify Likely sites, reflecting recently entitled projects since 2018 and current BART planning efforts at North Berkeley and Ashby stations. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) trends are also incorporated within Likely sites.

2. Identify Pipeline sites, based on projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application.

3. Identify Opportunity Sites, or potential sites for future housing development, based on HCD’s criteria:
a. Land is vacant as identified in the existing land use data. b. Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of 0.75 or less. c. Buildings on the parcel are greater than 40 years old for residential buildings and 30 years old for non-residential buildings.
d. Parcel does not have historic buildings and rent controlled units. e. Parcel does not have condos or large apartment buildings. f. Parcel is not State- or county-owned.

4. Evaluate and analyze Opportunity Sites for realistic feasibility.

5. Calculate overall Sites Inventory capacity, by income category (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary Sites Inventory Capacity
Income Distribution
Sites/Projects Total Net
Units Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Likely Sites 4,685 622 628 249 3,186
ADU Trend 800 240 240 240 80
BART Properties 1,200 210 210 0 780
Entitled Projects 2,685 172 178 9 2,326
Pipeline Sites 2,414 204 180 68 1,962
Applications under review 2,126 178 86 68 1,794
Anticipated 288 26 94 0 168
Opportunity Sites 9,028 1,649 1,649 2,886 2,845
Total Site Capacity 16,127 2,475 2,457 3,203 7,993
2023-2031 RHNA 8,934 2,446 1,408 1,416 3,664
RHNA Surplus +7,193 +29 +1,049 +1,787 +4,329
1 February 9, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element EIR Scoping Session. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/2022-02- 09_PC_Item%2010.pdf
2 March 15, 2022. City Council Housing Element Worksession #3. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2022/03_Mar/Documents/2022-03- 15_Item_01_Housing_Element_pdf.aspx
137

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

The preliminary Likely and Pipeline sites are detailed in Attachment 1. For projects under Likely sites, the affordability categories reflect actual project plans, including density bonus units. For Pipeline sites, the affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. For ADUs, the City assumed levels of affordability based on the draft Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
3 Opportunity Sites: Density and Affordability Assumptions The Opportunity Sites includes a detailed table, in accordance with HCD’s template, that lists potential sites that have been identified to have the realistic capacity to meet Berkeley’s RHNA (Attachment 2). The table provides characteristics of each opportunity site (including assessor parcel number, existing building age, vacancy status, existing zoning, density assumption, and capacity assumption) to calculate allowable buildout by income category.

The City estimated development potential for Opportunity Sites by calculating the average density achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district. This calculation is critical since the majority of the City’s zoning districts do not have density standards. The density assumptions listed in Table 2 were used to calculate the capacity of Opportunity Sites.

Table 2 Achieved Density Trends and Density Assumptions District Average Density
Based on 2 or More
Projects (du/ac)
Density Assumption
for RHNA (du/ac)
Methodology Overview
R-1 6.1 6.0
ES-R 1.2 1.0
R-1A 16.4 15.0 Based on 2 projects with densities from

14.6 to 18.2 du/ac
R-2 21.6 20.0 Based on 3 projects with densities from

12.9 to 36.9 du/ac
R-2A 26.9 25.0 Based on 13 projects with densities from

12.9 to 50.8 du/ac
R-3 45.9 40.0 Based on 9 projects with densities from

21.4 to 85.1 du/ac
R-4 86.1 75.0 Based on 5 projects with densities from

26.8 to 150.6 du/ac
R-S 102.5 100.0 Based on 3 projects with densities from

64.5 to 129.1 du/ac
R-SMU 212.0 200.0 Based on 2 projects with densities from 189.5 to 234.6 du/ac
C-C 143.1 125.0
Based on 2 projects with densities from
112.6 to 173.5 du/ac. Note that 1 project
was approved under the former C-1
zoning designation but is now zoned C-C
3 September 8, 2021. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022- 2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
138

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

C-U 158.8 150.0
Based on 5 projects with densities from

17.5 to 268 du/ac. Note that 3 of these
projects were approved under the former
C-1 designation but are now zoned C-U
Neighborhood
Commercial
(C-N, C-E, C-

NS, C-SO)

58.1 50.0 Based on 3 projects with densities from

28.6 to 94.7 du/ac
C-SA 183.5 180.0 Based on 7 projects with densities from 106.7 to 207.8 du/ac
C-T 168.1 160.0 Based on 10 projects with densities from

31.3 to 442.9 du/ac
C-DMU Core 339.8 320.0 Based on 9 projects with densities from 188.1 to 457.4 du/ac
C-DMU Outer
Core 247.4 225.0 Based on 6 projects with densities from 143.4 to 390.0 du/ac
C-DMU
Corridor 167.8 150.0 Not enough projects so based on C-DMU Buffer projects
C-DMU Buffer 167.8 150.0 Based on 6 projects with densities from 129.3 to 190.5 du/ac
C-W 136.8 135.0 Based on 22 projects with densities from

53.4 to 272 du/ac
C-AC 210.0 210.0 70% of max density defined in recently adopted Specific Area Plan
MU-R 28.0 34.8 Based on 9 projects with densities
between 20.0 to 34.8 du/ac
State law (AB 2342, Government Code 65583.2) uses density as a proxy for income levels and affordability for the sites inventory. Under state law, the “default density” for most jurisdictions in urban counties is 30 units/acre. Default density refers to the density considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing.

Table 3 shows the site characteristics used to determine affordability for the sites inventory. In general, zones with lower assumed densities and smaller parcel sizes are presumed to produce units that are affordable to moderate and above moderate households. The sites inventory assumes that sites with densities of at least 30 du/acre are affordable to lower income households.

Table 3 Affordability by Density, Size, and Site Capacity Income Level Site Characteristics
Lower
< 80% AMI
Site size is between 0.35 and 10 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites; AND
Density assumed is at least 30 du/ac; AND
Site capacity is at least 50 units
Moderate
80-120% AMI
Site size is between 0.10 and 0.35 acres alone or in consolidation with adjacent sites; AND
Site capacity is between 30 and 50 units
Above Moderate
> 120% AMI
Density assumed is less than 30 du/ac; OR
Site capacity is less than 30 units
Housing Element Sites Inventory and Opportunity Sites
139

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

This report includes a preliminary list of Opportunity Sites, and the assumed income category by parcel, that met the above criteria. This list is assessed to ensure that the units identified to accommodate the RHNA—particularly lower income units—will affirmatively further fair housing and are not disproportionately concentrated in areas with larger populations of interest or special needs populations such as racial and ethnic minority groups, persons with disabilities, and cost-burdened renters.

This list is being shared prior to the June 2022 release of the Housing Element public draft to allow additional time for discussion and review. The Sites Inventory will undergo further review by HCD this summer, after responses to public review comments are incorporated.

Note, the Sites Inventory, including the Opportunity Sites, does not require development of any particular site and is not intended to imply that a site will be developed at a certain density or income level, only that it could be based on HCD’s framework. The intent is to demonstrate that the City has adequately planned and zoned for appropriate development that could accommodate private, non-profit and public housing developments at appropriate densities to meet the projected demand for housing in a variety of income categories.

However, if actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35). Determinations are calculated at the mid-point and end of each eight-year planning period based on progress of a pro-rata share of the City’s RHNA. Currently, the City of Berkeley has made insufficient progress toward its very low and low income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50% affordability.

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

Goals, Policies, and Programs
Berkeley’s Housing Element Update must include goals, policies and programs that will address identified housing needs—including special needs populations, respond to governmental and non-governmental constraints, and facilitate the development of housing to meet RHNA.

Through outreach and engagement – at public workshops, board and commission meetings, Council worksessions, interviews and small-format meetings, tabling events, and surveys – the Housing Element team has compiled a comprehensive set of goals and policies that reflect feedback received. The preliminary set includes six main goals and 33 policies to enact those goals (Attachment 3). The six goals and their objectives are:

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
140

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

Goal A Housing Affordability. Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need.

Goal B Housing Preservation. Existing housing should be maintained and improved.

The City promotes energy efficiency and electrification improvements in new and existing residential buildings in order to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged.

Goal C Housing Production. Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs. New housing should be developed to expand housing opportunities and choices in Berkeley to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient.

Goal D Special Needs Housing and Homelessness Prevention. Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes.

Goal E Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley.

Goal F Governmental Constraints. Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing.

This list of goals was shared with staff from departments and divisions throughout the city
4 to identify specific programs (existing and proposed) that would facilitate implementation of policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives.

HCD requires that Housing Element Programs be well developed. Programs must include specific action steps to achieve the City’s goals and policies and take into account the following:
• Include a timeline for implementation,
• Identify staff resources (by Department and/or Division) that will be responsible for implementation,
• Describe the City’s specific role in implementation and resources (e.g. providing funding, dedicating staffing), and
• Identify specific and measurable outcomes.
4 Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS), Rent Stabilization Board (RSB), Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA), City Manager’s Office-Neighborhood Service Code Enforcement (NSCE) Unit, Building and Safety, Office of Energy and Sustainability.
141

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Preliminary Sites, Policies, and Programs

In this preliminary set, City staff identified 37 housing programs (Attachment 4), offered through several City departments and divisions. They each address one or more goals and policies outlined above. Many of the housing programs reflect City Council referrals that are funded and/or staffed and are already included in the future workplans for departments.

DISCUSSION
Are there gaps in the preliminary Sites Inventory?
Are there gaps in the proposed housing programs? If so, what are specific implementation steps, metrics, and timelines that can be identified for them? With the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), the City must identify neighborhoods that the City will direct additional efforts and resources to address disparities in the availability of affordable housing, housing conditions, and neighborhood conditions. What are specific neighborhoods and actions where certain Housing Programs can focus on?

ATTACHMENTS

1. Preliminary Likely and Pipeline Sites

2. Preliminary Opportunity Sites

3. Preliminary Goals and Policies

4. Preliminary Housing Programs
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
142

Planning Commission #3
May 4, 2022

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Preliminary Sites Inventory & Housing Programs
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
The 6th Housing Element Update Process
3 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
Housing Element includes…
4 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
level4 Constraints Analysis
Barriers to housing
development
5 Policies & Programs
Address identified housing
needs
6 Community
Engagement
Residents, businesses,
stakeholders, policy-makers
5 AGENDA
I. PRELIMINARY SITES INVENTORY

1. Meeting the RHNA

2. Criteria and Analysis

3. Sites Inventory Capacity
II. PRELIMINARY GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS

1. Outreach & Engagement

2. Goals & Policies

3. Preliminary Housing Programs
III. DISCUSSION

PRELIMINARY SITES

INVENTORY

1. Meeting the RHNA

2. HCD Methodology

3. Preliminary Sites Inventory
Capacity
6 CAPACITY ≠ HOUSING PRODUCTION
Using HCD’s Capacity
Methodology
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
7 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
8 > 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
Likely Sites
Pipeline Sites
Opportunity Sites
9 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
10 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”
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 12 *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. 13 > 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

PRELIMINARY

GOALS, POLICIES,

AND PROGRAMS

1. Outreach & Engagement

2. Goals & Policies

3. Housing Programs Highlights
14 Outreach & Engagement
15 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 @ Downtown Farmers Market & Berkeley Bowl
Figure F-16 Planning Commission Meeting #3 Presentation 143

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Housing Goals
16 A Housing Affordability
Residents should have access
to quality housing at a range
of housing options and prices.

B Housing Preservation
Existing housing should be
maintained and improved for
resiliency:
-Energy, Water, Seismic
-Reduce GHG emissions
C Housing Production
Provide adequate housing
capacity to meet current and
future housing needs.

D Special Needs
Housing &
Homelessness
Prevention
Expand supply of housing to
special needs groups, including
extremely low incomes.

E Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing
The City should continue to
take meaningful actions to
affirmatively further fair
housing choices in Berkeley.

F Governmental
Constraints
Identify and mitigate barriers
to construction and
improvement of housing.

Draft Housing 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
17 Housing Preservation
H-8 Maintain Housing
H-9 Rental Housing
Conservation
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
Governmental
Constraints
H-31 Reduce Gov’t
Constraints
H-32 Streamline Review
Process
H-33
Incentivize
Affordable
Housing

A B C D E F
• Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS)
• Rent Stabilization Board (RSB)
• Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA)
• City Manager’s Office Neighborhood Service Code
Enforcement (NSCE) Unit
• Planning & Development: Building & Safety, Office of
Energy & Sustainability, Land Use Planning
Agencies/Departments/Divisions
Preliminary Housing Programs
HP-1 Affordable Housing
Berkeley
HP-9 Lead-Poisoning
Prevention
HP-17 Building Emissions
Saving Ordinance (BESO) HP-25 Shelter Plus Care HP-33 Streamlined Permit Processes & Timelines
HP-2 Housing Choice
Vouchers
HP-10 Housing Quality
Standards
HP-18 BayREN Residential
Energy Incentive Programs
HP-26 Community Agency
Contracting
HP-34 By-Right Approval on
Reused Sites for Affordable
Housing
HP-3 Citywide Affordable
Housing Requirements
HP-11 Home Modification for
Accessibility & Safety
HP-19 Priority Development
Areas (PDAs)
HP-27 Housing for Homeless
Persons w/ Disabilities
HP-35 Zoning Code
Amendments: Special Needs
Housing
HP-4 Affordable Housing
Overlay HP-12 Accessible Housing HP-20 BART Station Area Planning
HP-28 Fair Housing Outreach
& Enforcement
HP-36: Zoning Code
Amendments to Facilitate
Housing Development
HP-5 Preservation of At-Risk
Housing
HP-13 Senior & Disabled
Home Improvement Loans HP-21 Middle Housing HP-29 Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections
HP-37: Permit Processing
Procedures
HP-6 Replacement Housing,
Demolition Ordinance
HP-14 Seismic Safety &
Preparedness Programs
HP-22 Accessory Dwelling
Units HP-30 Tenant Survey
HP-7 Rental Housing Code
Compliance
HP-15 Pilot Climate Equity
Fund HP-23 Monitoring RHNA Sites HP-31 Housing Preference Policies
HP-8 Housing Code HP-16 Existing Buildings
Electrification (BEBE) Strategy
HP-24 1000 Person Plan to
End Homelessness
HP-32 Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act (TOPA) 18
HCD requires Programs to be:
• Specific and Implementable (fundable)
• Contain concrete actions
• Have clear timelines
• Contain metrics to evaluate success
Preliminary Housing Programs
HP-1 Affordable Housing
Berkeley
HP-9 Lead-Poisoning
Prevention
HP-17 Building Emissions
Saving Ordinance (BESO) HP-25 Shelter Plus Care HP-33 Streamlined Permit Processes & Timelines
HP-2 Housing Choice
Vouchers
HP-10 Housing Quality
Standards
HP-18 BayREN Residential
Energy Incentive Programs
HP-26 Community Agency
Contracting
HP-34 By-Right Approval on
Reused Sites for Affordable
Housing
HP-3 Citywide Affordable
Housing Requirements
HP-11 Home Modification for
Accessibility & Safety
HP-19 Priority Development
Areas (PDAs)
HP-27 Housing for Homeless
Persons w/ Disabilities
HP-35 Zoning Code
Amendments: Special Needs
Housing
HP-4 Affordable Housing
Overlay HP-12 Accessible Housing HP-20 BART Station Area Planning
HP-28 Fair Housing Outreach
& Enforcement
HP-36: Zoning Code
Amendments to Facilitate
Housing Development
HP-5 Preservation of At-Risk
Housing
HP-13 Senior & Disabled
Home Improvement Loans HP-21 Middle Housing HP-29 Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections
HP-37: Permit Processing
Procedures
HP-6 Replacement Housing,
Demolition Ordinance
HP-14 Seismic Safety &
Preparedness Programs
HP-22 Accessory Dwelling
Units HP-30 Tenant Survey
HP-7 Rental Housing Code
Compliance
HP-15 Pilot Climate Equity
Fund HP-23 Monitoring RHNA Sites HP-31 Housing Preference Policies
HP-8 Housing Code HP-16 Existing Buildings
Electrification (BEBE) Strategy
HP-24 1000 Person Plan to
End Homelessness
HP-32 Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act (TOPA) 19
20 HP-3 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements
Specific Actions &
Timeline
In 2022, amend Berkeley Municipal Code
(BMC) Chapter 23.38, updating the citywide
Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) in the
Zoning Ordinance.

In 2022, adopt a Resolution addressing
regulations for a voucher program and
establishing an in-lieu fee pursuant to BMC
Section 23.328.020(A)(2).

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
Planning/HHCS
Funding Source(s) General Fund; SB 2 Grant Funding; Enterprise Fund – Community Planning Fee
AFFH
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Disproportionate Needs
Policies
Implemented
H-2, H-3, H-4, H-6, H-18, H-31, H-33
21 Housing Trust Fund
Specific Actions &
Timeline
Fund a minimum of 500 units of
nonprofit affordable housing
Fund a minimum of 35% affordable housing
at Ashby & North Berkeley BART
Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
HHCS
Funding Source(s) Measure O, AHMF, Condo Conversion
Mitigation Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, HOME
AFFH
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Disproportionate Needs
Policies
Implemented
H-2, H-3, H-4, H-6, H-18, H-31, H-33
22 HP-13 Senior & Disabled Home Improvement Loans
Specific Actions &
Timeline
Provide two interest-free loans up to $100,000
annually for a total of 16 loans over eight years.

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
HHCS
Funding Source(s) CalHome Reuse Account (program income) and CDBG
AFFH Housing Mobility
Policies
Implemented
H-25, H-26, H-28, H-29
23 HP-31 Housing Preference Policies
Specific Actions &
Timeline
By 2023, the City will adopt a housing preference
policy. The City plans to conduct outreach on an
ongoing basis, coordinate preferences with the
Alameda County Housing Portal for applications,
and collect data and monitor annually to asses
impact.

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
HHCS
Funding Source(s) General Fund
AFFH Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
Policies
Implemented
H-1, H-7, H-28
24 HP-19 Priority Development Areas
Specific Actions &
Timeline
During 2022-2024, develop San Pablo PDA
Specific Plan. Conduct analysis, public and
stakeholder engagement, and policy options,
including zoning and General Plan amendments,
with the goal of adopting Specific Plan summer
2025.

By June 2023, complete Telegraph PDA/Southside
Plan Area zoning map amendments and up-
zoning.

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
Planning
Funding Source(s) General Fund, ABAG/MTC PDA Planning Grant AFFH New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Policies
Implemented
H-15, H-16, H-18, H-20, H-21, H-31, H-33
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
San Pablo, Southside
25 HP-21 Middle Housing
Specific Actions &
Timeline
By Summer 2022, amend Affordable Housing Fee
schedule.

By Summer 2023, amend Zoning code to allow
two- to four-unit development on one lot.

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
Planning
Funding Source(s) General Fund
AFFH
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protection
Targeted outreach in lower density Residential
districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-RPolicies
Implemented
H-2, H-3, H-4, H-18, H-24, H-31, H-32, H-33
26 HP-36 Zoning Code Amendment to
Facilitate Housing Development
Specific Actions &
Timeline
By January 2024, as part of the Multi-Unit
Residential Objective Standards project,
minimum densities will be applied to all
residential and mixed-use developments with five
or more units.

By 2026, develop Objective Design Standards for
residential and mixed use developments.

Lead Department(s)
/ Agency
Planning
Funding Source(s) General Fund
AFFH
Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood
Improvements
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Policies
Implemented
H-18, H-31, H-32

UPCOMING EVENTS
27 https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-
development/land-use-development/general-plan-
and-area-plans/housing-element-update

FOR MORE INFORMATION /

SUBSCRIBE TO THE EMAIL LIST
[email protected]

CONTACT US
SAVE THE DATE!
Wednesday, June 29, 6pm
Public Workshop #3
Saturday, May 14, 2-5pm –
Roses in Bloom event at the Berkeley Rose Garden
(1200 Euclid Ave.)
Thursday, May 19, 5-8pm –
Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party at Grove Park
(1730 Oregon St.)
By Sunday, May 8th - Renter Survey (4 minutes, $10
Berkeley Bowl gift card to first 100 respondents!)
Discussion

1. Are there gaps in the preliminary sites inventory?

2. Are there gaps in the proposed housing programs? If so, what are specific implementation steps, metrics, and timelines that can be identified for them?

3. What are specific neighborhoods and actions where certain Housing Programs can focus on?
With the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), the City must identify neighborhoods that the City will direct additional efforts and resources to address disparities in the availability of affordable housing, housing conditions, and neighborhood conditions. 28 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
144

F4 BOARDS & COMMISSION

MEETINGS
Throughout the Fall and Winter of 2021, staff met with the following Boards & Commissions to introduce the Housing Element Update, seek input on key stakeholder for outreach, and identify a liaison to participate in ongoing Housing Element outreach efforts.

Figure F-17 Boards & Commission Meetings
Boards & Commissions
(excluding the Planning
Commission)
Meeting Dates
Homeless Services Panel of Experts September 1, 2021
Commission on Disability September 1, 2021
Landmarks Preservation Committee September 2, 2021
Zoning Adjustments Board September 9, 2021
Commission on Aging September 15, 2021
Energy Commission September 22, 2021
Children, Youth, and Recreation
Commission
September 27, 2021
Housing Advisory Commission September 30, 2021
Rent Stabilization Board November 18, 2021
Civic Arts Commission January 19, 2022
City/UC/Student Relations
Committee
January 28, 2022
Each of these boards and comissions received the same memo and presentation as the one presented to at the Planning Commission Meeting #1, shown on pages 83-87. 145

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

F5 SURVEYS
Three surveys were shared with the public between October 2021 and May 2022.

In October 2021, a city-wide survey asked for thoughts and ideas on housing needs and strengths. The second survey served as a method to obtain feedback from two self-guided walking tours that took residents around Downtown Berkeley and West Berkeley, and asked participants to assess different types of housing (ADU, 2-4 unit, 5+ unit, etc.) and provide feedback on objective standards, features that contribute to or detract from the surrounding neighborhoods, and share more general thoughts about housing in Berkeley. The third survey specifically asked renters for feedback on tenant-focused housing programs and policies in Berkeley.

This section includes an overview of all three surveys, summaries of the responses, and demographics of the respondents. All surveys were available on the Housing Element webpage and in print at the Permit Service Center.

F5.1 CITY-WIDE SURVEY - OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2021

OVERVIEW
As part of the City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update engagement effort, the public was invited to share thoughts and ideas on housing needs and strengths in Berkeley. The survey was open from October 28th through November 14th, 2021.

A total of 747 individuals submitted survey responses.The survey consisted of three housing questions and eight demographic questions. This report summarizes the responses. Responses are used to inform the Housing Element’s assessment of needs and constraints as well as the identification of new housing locations.

City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031
146

SUMMARY OF INPUT
What is working well with housing?
Respondents were asked to respond to the following
prompt:
“Which of the following does Berkeley do well (select up to 3)? If other(s), please specify.”
Results are tabulated in the chart below. The top
two choices were “sufficient tenant protections” and
“building new accessory dwelling units (ADUs),” and
more than a quarter of respondents also selected
“building new multi-unit housing” and “incentives for
energy efficiency and climate adaptation.”
Write-In Responses
“Other” was also a top choice (26.4%) and the write-in
comments are summarized below. Some responses to
“Other” reiterated one or more of the multiple-choice
options. To avoid double-counting, those responses
were not added to the multiple-choice tabulation.

Additionally, many of the write-in responses focused
on Berkeley’s housing challenges; those responses
are included in the summary of Berkeley’s Housing
Issues below.

Historic Preservation
• Maintaining the existing character of
neighborhoods and older buildings through
landmark and structure-of-merit designations
2 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results December 2021

Write-in Responses
“Other” was also a top choice (26.4%) and the write-in comments are summarized below. Some responses to “Other” reiterated one or more of the multiple-choice options. To avoid double-counting, those responses were not added to the multiple-choice tabulation. Additionally, many of the write-in responses focused on Berkeley’s housing challenges; those responses are included in the summary of Berkeley’s Housing Issues below. The complete list of comments is included in the Appendix.

Historic Preservation
• Maintaining the existing character of neighborhoods and older buildings through landmark and structure-of-merit designations
Financial Incentives for Retrofits
• Providing incentives for housing rehabilitation, including seismic retrofitting, energy efficiency, and climate adaptation
Tenant Support and Services
• Maintaining affordable housing prices with rent control • Providing helpful services to tenants through the Rent Board Housing Production
• Building new multi-dwelling housing (affordable and market-rate) in appropriate locations along major corridors such as Shattuck Ave, University Ave., and San Pablo Ave • Building new multi-unit rental and affordable housing • Building new market-rate and luxury housing stock
Figure F-18 City-wide Survey Response to "What is working well with housing in Berkeley?" 147

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Financial Incentives for Retrofits
• Providing incentives for housing rehabilitation,
including seismic retrofitting, energy efficiency,
and climate adaptation
Tenant Support and Services
• Maintaining affordable housing prices with rent
control
• Providing helpful services to tenants through
the Rent Board
Housing Production
• Building new multi-dwelling housing (affordable
and market-rate) in appropriate locations along
major corridors such as Shattuck Ave, University
Ave., and San Pablo Ave
• Building new multi-unit rental and affordable
housing
• Building new market-rate and luxury housing
stock
Transportation
• Developing new alternatives to automobile
transportation to reduce the need for off-street
parking associated with housing projects
Policymakers
• Electing policymakers who are increasingly
committed to affordable housing production,
preservation, and protections
Fiscal Policy
• Offering property tax refunds to very low-
income homeowners
• Generating revenue for affordable housing
Housing Challenges
Respondents were asked to respond to the following
prompt:
“What are the three most critical housing issues or
challenges Berkeley faces? If other(s), please specify.” Results are tabulated in the chart to the right. The
top three choices were “homelessness,” “high cost of
homeownership,” and “high rental costs.”
December 2021 BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results| 3 Transportation
• Developing new alternatives to automobile transportation to reduce the need for off-street parking associated with housing projects
Policymakers
• Electing policymakers who are increasingly committed to affordable housing produc tion, preservation, and protections
Fiscal Policy
• Offering property tax refunds to very low-income homeowners • Generating revenue for affordable housing
Berkeley’s Housing Challenges
Respondents were asked to respond to the following prompt:
“What are the three most critical housing issues or challenges Berkeley faces? If other(s), please specify .” Results are tabulated in the chart below. The top three choices were “homelessness,” “high cost of homeownership,” and “high rental costs.”

Write-in Responses
The “Other” write-in comments are summarized below. Some responses to “Other” reiterated one or more of the multiple-choice options, but to avoid double-counting, those responses were not added to the multiple- choice tabulation. The complete list of comments is included in the Appendix.

Figure F-19 City-wide Survey Response to "What are the issues or challenges with housing in Berkeley?" 148
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Write-In Responses
The “Other” write-in comments are summarized
below. Some responses to “Other” reiterated one
or more of the multiple-choice options, but to avoid
double-counting, those responses were not added to
the multiple-choice tabulation.

Exclusionary Neighborhoods
Exclusionary Neighborhoods
• Exclusive neighborhoods that lack housing
options for low-income families and continue to
perpetuate economic segregation
• Affordable housing requirements that fail
to address exclusionary neighborhoods
that currently serve wealthy single-family
homeowners
• Persistent failure to diversify the housing
options in many neighborhoods holds Berkeley
back
Opposition to new housing
• Organized opposition to new housing
developments of nearly any size and location
• Many NIMBY, anti-development members of the
community who obstruct the creation of new
housing
Government and Regulations
Arduous Permitting Process
• Lengthy, complicated, unpredictable, non-
streamlined, and costly process for approving
new housing
• Slow process that leads to higher costs and
increased overreach from opponents
• Resultant disincentives for maintenance, repairs,
remodeling, and new construction
Lack of Historic Preservation
• Not preserving historic homes and
neighborhoods
• Allowing historic homes to be demolished
• Need to renovate and add units to historic homes
to preserve the character of Berkeley
Challenges to Section 8 program
• Lack of investment in the Section 8 vouchers and
the long waitlist
• Barriers to access to affordable housing based
on vouchers or minimum income required
• Connect Section 8 voucher-holders with the
owners in need
Challenges with rent control and rent stabilization
policy
• Severe policies and bureaucracy of the Rent
Stabilization Board
• Restrictions on evictions that are too stringent
and prevent the necessary removal of some
tenants
• Rent control regulations that discourage the
development of ADUs as rentals
• Loss of housing stock and disincentives to
investment and development due to rent control
• Statewide legislation that gutted City rent
stabilization (i.e., The Costa-Hawkins Law
destroyed rental housing affordability by
enforcing vacancy decontrol.)
Lack of oversight
• Lack of oversight from the City for illegal rent
increases on below market-rate units
• Poor living conditions in below market-rate
units
High property taxes
• High City property taxes and fees that are not
reflected in the quality of current city amenities
• Property taxes that are too high for new
homeowners and too low for longstanding
homeowners
• Need to raise taxes on wealthy property owners
and use the revenue to build housing for all levels
of income with a particular focus on extremely
low income or no-income individuals
Unrepresentative housing engagement
• Opposition to housing at public meetings that is
not representative of community sentiment
• Lack of involvement of local neighborhoods
and homeowners in decisions around proposed
housing developments at BART station locations
• Lack of specific information for residents that
makes it difficult to participate in the process
149

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

(e.g., how many new ADUs, how many single
family-units are being built, what are affordable
housing requirements, how many low-income
housing units are required, etc.)
Local leadership
• Failure of City to understand core causes and
solutions in considering the need for new
housing
• Several City Council members who are
unsupportive of new housing developments
• Overrepresentation of YIMBY's on the City
Council
New Housing Development
High land cost
• High land costs that make building new housing
stock challenging
Private building on public land
• Allowing for-profit housing on public land
• Public land that is used for other than public
housing
• Allowing market-rate housing on public land,
including the BART stations
Vacant spaces
• Vacant and underutilized retail space on the
ground floor of mixed-use buildings that could
be used for housing
• Current underutilization of closed schools and
other vacant buildings
• Thousands of unused vacant rental units,
some of which are public nuisances, should be
rehabilitated and made available for tenancy
Lack of parking in new developments
• Parking requirements that are too low for the
parking need
• Lack of parking requirements that makes
existing residents more resistant to new housing
Housing Stock Imbalances
Limited housing stock
• Not enough housing of all types including multi-
unit and single-family homes
• The scarcity of housing inventory, which leads to
higher prices for land and homes
• Market-rate rental market shift from family-
owned to corporate assets, creating transient
renters who are either unable to save for a house
because of high rent or forced to move where
they can afford a house
Oversaturation of market-rate housing
• Wrong housing balance, resulting in the
displacement of those who can’t afford market-
rate housing
• Need to limit the construction of market-
rate housing, as it does not solve the housing
shortages for those most needing housing
Insufficient amount of affordable and low-income
housing
• Need for more affordable housing rather than
primarily market-rate housing
• Lack of affordability for many of the City’s
residents of housing defined as “affordable”
• Lack of affordable housing explicitly for Berkeley
residents or that gives priority to Berkeley
families
• Lack of deeply affordable housing and those
below $50K household income
High Housing Costs and Displacement
High cost of rentals
• New rental units that are not affordable to much
of the community, including teachers, residents,
or young people who have grown up in Berkeley
• Lack of support for the working class, those
making minimum wage, and the middle class
High cost of homeownership
• The high cost of homeownership, which prevents
many residents from owning a home
• Need increased resources and programs to
support first-time homebuyers
Displacement
• Lack of solutions to prevent displacement due to
the high cost of rentals and homeownership
Special Needs Housing
150
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Lack of solutions for housing homeless and supportive
housing
• Homeless health and safety issues as a product of
housing issues
• Lack of strong overarching strategy to deal with
the ongoing crisis
• Need increased resources to help those
struggling with mental illness and addiction, to
prevent individuals living on the street
Inadequate senior housing options
• Lack of support for seniors who still have a
mortgage and need help staying in their homes
• Not enough downsizing options for seniors
• Lack of affordable senior housing
• Lack of senior housing in the hills
Lack of sufficient housing for people with disabilities • Need to improve the availability of accessible
and inclusively-designed housing
• Implement recommendations from the
Commission on Disability and involve the
community in engagement on this topic
Insufficient student housing and consideration for UC
Berkeley students
• Impacts of increased student enrollment at UC
Berkeley on available housing
• Involve students in housing discussions in
Berkeley since they make up such a large portion
of the residents
• Prioritize making housing more accessible and
affordable for students
• Work with the co-ops to expand affordable
housing options for students
• Oppose the practice of UC Berkley ground leasing
new private dorms
Related Challenges
Population growth
• Unsustainable population growth
• No clear long-term limit on population
Lack of solutions to address the climate emergency
• Need to create more policies and solutions for
how housing can mitigate instead of add to the
climate emergency
• Plan for environmental hazards
Housing Types and Locations
The City of Berkeley must identify sites to
accommodate over 9,000 new units through 2031.

Survey respondents were asked to:
“Identify up to five neighborhoods where more new
housing should be prioritized in that area.”
Participants could select up to five neighborhoods,
and for each neighborhood, they were asked to select
one or more housing types that are appropriate in
that area. The preferred locations by housing type are
shown in the bar charts below. Additional bar charts
of preferred housing types by location are included in
the appendix.

Overall, respondents preferred greater density and
varied housing types in all neighborhoods. Generally,
respondents also indicated that:
• All neighborhoods are appropriate for condos
(multi-unit owned).
• Permanent supportive housing (homeless,
transitional) should be located in all
neighborhoods.
• Downtown is not suitable for 2-4 unit ‘plexes.
• Apartments (multi-unit rental) should be
prioritized in Downtown and Southside.
• Berkeley Hills is not an appropriate location
for senior housing and housing for people with
disabilities.

WRITE-IN RESPONSES
Respondents were also asked to provide any other
thoughts they may have about the location or type of
housing in Berkeley. The main themes are summarized
below. The complete list of responses is included in
the Appendix.
151

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Location-Focused Comments
All neighborhoods
• New housing should be built in all neighborhoods
across Berkeley.
• All neighborhoods should have a balance of all
types of housing.
• Overarching principles of equity should be used
in the geographic distribution of housing.
• Senior housing, supportive housing, and
housing for people with disabilities should not
be segregated to particular areas but integrated
and accessible across the city
Corridors
• Housing density should be concentrated along
major corridors such as University Ave., San
Pablo Ave., Shattuck Ave., and MLK Jr. Way.
• Housing along corridors provides needed access
to transportation, businesses, and amenities.
• High-density housing should be in underutilized
commercial zones where there is existing
infrastructure and transportation as shown
in the General Plan (Shattuck Ave., Adeline St.,
University Ave., San Pablo Ave.).

North Berkeley BART
• Build new housing at a scale comparable to the
existing neighborhood.
• Include commercial uses such as cafes as well as
residential.
• Preserve some parking spaces.
• Do not build more than six stories.
• Develop mixed-income housing.

Berkeley Marina
• Develop new housing in the Marina.

Downtown
• Build affordable senior housing, permanent
supportive housing, and housing for people
with disabilities to access existing resources and
amenities.
• Concentrate larger apartment buildings
Downtown.
• Reduce the negative impacts on existing
communities by focusing new larger
developments in neighborhoods designed for
higher density, such as Downtown.

Berkeley Hills
• Build low-income and denser housing that has
traditionally been absent from the Hills.
• Build taller structures that are designed to utilize
natural terrain to protect views/yards.
• Provide new housing for students and for those
who desire to bike from the Hills.
• Do not build new housing in the Hills due to
lack of public transportation, narrow roads, and
threats from fire.
• If ADU development is limited in the hills, then all
expansion must be limited in the hills including
any expansion within existing footprints
• Buy the properties in the Hills, tear them down
and re-wild the entire hills region and have it
become a part of Tilden Park.

West Berkeley
• Do not locate more transitional or housing for
the homeless in West Berkeley, which is already
overburdened with this type.
• Do not build new housing developments in West
Berkeley, which already has seen sufficient new
housing developments and multi-unit apartment
buildings.

UC Berkeley Campus
• Build larger buildings (7 – 12+ stories) around
campus.

Vacant units and land
• Build housing on existing vacant land.
• Use eminent domain to convert abandoned or
underused commercial property to affordable
housing.
• Develop a program to fast-track building on
empty lots, such as for tiny homes, prefab
housing, and storage container homes.
• Prioritize filling existing vacant units; do more
to encourage people to rent out the existing
empty units.
• Repurpose empty first-floor retail spaces into
housing.
152
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• Rehab vacant buildings for housing.
• Develop in place of dilapidated or abandoned
buildings currently along Shattuck Ave. and
University Ave.

Fire zones
• Do not encourage housing in high-risk fire zones
2 and 3.

Higher-income neighborhoods
• Lower-income housing should be built
in historically economically exclusive
neighborhoods.
• New housing should be concentrated in areas
that have historically resisted new housing to
help reduce economic and racial segregation.
• Build a mix of housing types in wealthier
neighborhoods, including multi-unit condos,
multi-unit apartments, and permanent
supportive housing.
• Improve public transit in these areas to
accommodate population growth from new
housing.

Transit-oriented development
• Concentrate new multi-unit larger-scale
development near public transportation
including BART and bus lines.
• Sites near public transit options should be
prioritized to reduce car traffic, reliance on cars
and serve those without a car.
• Improve frequency and expand coverage of the
public transportation network across the city,
including bus routes and safe bike paths.

Regionally
• Do not encourage more housing within Berkeley
but rely on other cities in the Bay with more
open space.

Housing Types
Affordable housing
• Recognize housing as a human right.
• Ensure no one is priced out of living in the city.
• Build permanently deeply affordable housing
through regulations such as increased
inclusionary housing requirements.
• Create housing that is affordable to residents at
all income levels.
• Prioritize affordable housing in areas that have
been traditionally underserved and redlined.
• Distribute affordable housing evenly throughout
neighborhoods.
• Prioritize affordable housing in areas that have
not historically had it.
• Specifically focus on redressing inequitable
decisions that have been made around housing
in Berkeley in the past.

Low-income housing
• Prioritize building low-income housing.
• Increase the number of very low-income units.
• Ensure low-income housing is inclusive of
families, people with disabilities, seniors, and
other special needs groups.

Workforce housing
• Create workforce housing.
• Prioritize housing for City staff and teachers.

Senior housing
• Do not segregate senior housing into specific
areas.
• Ensure necessary services are located near
senior housing, including places to shop.
• Build senior housing in areas close to public
transportation and services.

Housing for people with disabilities
• Create new housing that is accessible and
inclusively designed.
• Be cognizant of all types of disabilities and how
housing may need to reflect unique challenges.

Supportive and transitional housing for homeless
• Distribute supportive housing across the city; do
not concentrate it in one area.
• Homeless transitional housing should be owned
and operated by the City.
• Prioritize getting people off the streets and into
appropriate supportive housing.
153

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

• Provide adequate social services to homeless
individuals.
• Consider how to mitigate any adverse effects of
supportive housing on existing neighborhoods.

UC Berkeley and student housing
• Coordinate housing needs with UC Berkeley.
• Ensure UC Berkeley builds more University-
owned and managed housing to accommodate
all students.
• Create housing that is accessible and affordable
to UC Berkeley students, which will also benefit
other neighborhoods since students will be able
to live closer to campus
• Renters should be granted subsidies from UC
Berkeley, since the abundance of students
introduces so much competition for rental
properties.

Family housing
• Ensure there is appropriate housing that fits the
needs of families.
• Preserve existing family housing.
• Recognize there are sometimes difficulties with
families living in housing with shared walls as
children can be noisy and neighbors are often
unsupportive toward families in multi-unit
housing.

Single-family housing
• Do not build any new single-family.
• Recognize single-family housing is essential as
both an entry-level and family-friendly housing
option.
• Balance mix of single-family housing with multi-
unit apartments.
2 – 4 unit ‘plexes
• Build 2 – 4 unit ‘plexes everywhere.
• Prioritize 2 – 4 unit ‘plexes in less dense
neighborhoods.

Multi-unit housing
• Build multi-unit apartments and condos
throughout Berkeley but prioritize locations
close to public transportation.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
• Encourage ADUs.
• Give priority to ADUs with off-street parking.
• ADUs are well suited for existing residential
neighborhoods.
• Streamline the process and reduce the cost
to build multiple ADUs in single-family
neighborhoods.

Market-rate housing
• The City should not support market-rate housing
on public land.

Luxury housing
• Locate luxury housing by freeway onramps like
developments on West University Ave.
• Do not build luxury housing on publicly owned
land such as BART stations.

Cooperative housing
• Create more mixed-income cooperative housing.
• Build cooperative housing for teachers and
first responders like St. Francis Sq co-op in San
Francisco.

Land trusts
• Create land trusts as an alternative
homeownership model.

Environment and Climate
Climate action
• New development needs to take care to protect
mature trees; planting saplings does nothing to
significantly help remediate climate change or
establish an urban forest.
• Build new housing with strategies in mind to
combat the climate emergency.
• Build new housing that is environmentally
sustainable and carbon neutral.

Green space
• Design new housing that has ample green space.
• Center new housing around parks and plazas.
• Encourage and plan for new green spaces
accompanying new housing for health and
sustainability benefits.
154
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• Do not build new housing in existing green or
open spaces that currently serve the city.
• Recognize the importance of backyards.

Housing Design and Character
Design
• Require setbacks for both aesthetics and safety.
• Build new housing that has unique aesthetic
design over generic box-like structures.
• Prioritize good design and balance it with the
cost and time required to build housing.
• Ensure the design of new housing does not
produce shadows that limit solar options or
block light in such a way that people cannot have
gardens.

Parking
• Develop new housing, especially multi-unit, with
off-street parking for all residents.
• Reduce parking only in locations that are well
served by transit.
• Build multi-unit apartments close to transit
without parking to help meet climate goals.
• Rather than sacrifice parking spaces at BART,
replace less-desirable buildings with new denser
housing.

Neighborhood context
• Preserve existing neighborhoods.
• Develop new housing that complements the
existing neighborhood context and culture to
encourage social cohesion.
• Ensure policies are sensitive to the impact of
new housing on established communities while
making clear to residents of those areas what
benefits new development will bring.
• Do not be afraid of changing the “feel” of a
neighborhood to create enough housing.

Regulations and Planning
Housing Element and required RHNA units
• Housing Element plan must be realistic and
credible; the plan must represent likely actual
construction in the eight-year horizon.
• Reexamine the 9,000-unit requirement, which is
too high and unrealistic.
• Include the hundreds of empty new apartments
that no one either wants or cannot afford in the
count.
• Dedicate all 9,000 units to low-income, homeless,
seniors, and people with disabilities.
• Develop a sufficient long-term plan instead of a
9,000 unit push now which will result in high-
density towers.

Zoning
• Upzone all neighborhoods to encourage new
housing of all types everywhere.
• Prioritize upzoning in low-density
neighborhoods such as the Hills to allow more
multi-story apartments.
• Create more mixed-use zoning; separation of
uses through zoning promotes higher car usage.

City Systems
Infrastructure
• Ensure sufficient infrastructure to accommodate
all current and future residents.
• Mitigate effects of increased population on
infrastructure systems including maintenance
of roads, sewage system, water, gas pipes, utility
lines, and off-grid power.

Amenities and services
• Ensure new housing has access to amenities.
• Consider how the whole community functions
and how services can be integrated.
155

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

8 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results December 2021 Preferred Location by Housing Type

Figure F-20 City-wide Survey - Preferred Location by Housing Type 156
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

December 2021 BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results| 9

157

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

10 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results December 2021

158
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Figure F-21 City-wide Survey Participation Demographics December 2021 BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results| 17 Participation Demographics
There were eight demographic questions in the survey, intended to help staff refine the engagement process and track participation in the Housing Element Update process. Responses to the questions are shown below. 159

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

18 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results December 2021 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table B25003

160
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

December 2021 BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results| 19

Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table S0101

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table B03002. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separately from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the Hispanic or Latinx racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group.
161

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

20 | BERKELEY HOUSING ELEMENT – Survey Results December 2021

Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table S1901

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element Data Package. U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015 -2019), Table B18101 162
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

F5.2 RESIDENTIAL WALKING
TOURS

OVERVIEW
As part of the City’s Housing Element Update and
Residential Objective Standards projects, two walking
tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for
West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for
residents to provide input on the development of
housing options in Berkeley (see tour booklets on
pages 48-61). Each tour included an associated
survey that asked the following questions for each
residential project highlighted on the tour:

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood?;

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility?; and

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
The surveys were open to the public from November
23, 2021 to January 31, 2022. This document
provides summary data from the individual walking
tours as well as highlights some key themes across
both surveys. All open-ended responses received are
included in the later portion of this document and
organized by tour and stop number.

DOWNTOWN BERKELEY TOUR
The Downtown Berkeley Tour (map shown below)
received a total of 23 survey responses with 74%
ofrespondents completing the entire survey. The
Downtowntour included 11 tour stops, primarily
mixed-use residential projects with five or more units
in addition to two smaller residential-only projects.

When asked what features made the project
compatible with the surrounding area, the most
common answers across all tour stops were:

Common site features mentioned in the “Other”
category included:
• Building facade and articulation (bays, recesses,
• and parapets)
• Building materials and colors
• Unique architectural elements (“Berkeley” style)
• Location of parking
• Windows
When asked what other features would create
more compatability, respondents most frequently
answered with:
• Other features;
• Massing; and
• Yard space (See Table B)

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet
48 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Outer
Units 205 (18 BMR)
Year Under Construction
Height 6-stories, up to 75’
FAR 4.0
Density 182 units per acre
Coverage 84%
We would like your feedback!
For more information, visit:
www.cityofberkeley.info/Objective Standards
For questions, contact:

[email protected]
Downtown Berkeley Self-Guided

RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOUR
Addison St
Allston Way
Center St
Grant St
Berkeley Way
University Ave
Milvia St
Kittredge St
Kala Bagai Way
Hearst Ave
McKinley Ave
Bonita Ave Walnut St
Harold Way
Henry St
Shattuck Ave
Martin Luther King Jr Way
Martin Luther King Jr.

Civic Center Park
N
As part of the City’s Housing
Element Update and Residential
Objective Standards projects,
this tour is an opportunity
for you to provide input on
the development of housing
options in Berkeley.

For all new residential construction in Berkeley,
projects must be found to be compatible with
the scale and character of the neighborhood.

With that in mind, please use the walking tour
map below to explore a range of multi-unit
and mixed-use residential development in
the downtown area.

The tour takes approximately one hour.

Please be courteous to residents and stay on the sidewalk. 2101 University Ave. Acheson Commons11
City
Hall
Nov-Dec 2021
11 1
2 10
9 8
3 6
7 5
4 Mixed Use 5+
2010 MilviaMixed Use 5+
1935 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
2101 University
Mixed Use 5+
2120 Allston
Mixed Use 5+
1805 University
5+ Units
2124 McKinley
Mixed Use 5+
1950 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
2055 Center
Mixed Use 5+
2119 University
2-4 Units
1807 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
1885 University

TAKE THE ONLINE SURVEY
Scan this QR code or go to
www.surveymonkey.com/r/GW2L8L3
OR

DROP OFF AT
1947 CENTER STREET, 3RD FLOOR
MON-THUR, 8:30AM-1:00PM
Write down your comments on the
following pages and drop it off at the
City of Berkeley Permit Service Center
during regular business hours.

After the tour, here are TWO ways you can let us know your thoughts:
1 2
Figure F-22 Downtown Berkeley Walking Tour
Pamphlet Cover & Map
• Building height;
• Massing;
• Placement;
• Lot coverage; and
• Other features (See
Table A)
163

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

1 As part of the City’s Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards projects, two walking tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for residents to provide input on the development of housing options in Berkeley (see tour booklets on pages 48-61). Each tour included an associated survey that asked the following questions for each residential project highlighted on the tour:

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?;

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?; and

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? The surveys were open to the public from November 23, 2021 to January 31, 2022. This document provides summary data from the individual walking tours as well as highlights some key themes across both surveys. All open-ended responses received are included in the later portion of this document and organized by tour and stop number (pages 3-47).

Berkeley Self-Guided

RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOURS SUMMARY
Downtown Berkeley Tour
The Downtown Berkeley Tour (map shown on right)
received a total of 23 survey responses with 74% of
respondents completing the entire survey. The Downtown
tour included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only projects.

When asked what features made the project compatible
with the surrounding area, the most common answers
across all tour stops were:
• Building height;
• Massing;
• Placement;
• Lot coverage; and
• Other features (See Table A)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Building facade and articulation (bays, recesses,
and parapets)
• Building materials and colors
• Unique architectural elements (“Berkeley” style)
• Location of parking
• Windows
When asked what other features would create more
compatability, respondents most frequently answered
with:
• Other features;
• Massing; and
• Yard space (See Table B)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Landscaping, greenery, and open space
• Vehicular access and loading areas
• Architectural details
• Building materials and colors
• Street trees and planters
• Parks or other public spaces
• Building orientation to the street
16%
20%
22%
22%
30%
31%
33%
67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Placement
Balconies/Terraces
Lot Coverage
Stepbacks
Height
Yard Space
Massing
Other (please specify)
Percent of Total Responses
11%
27%
29%
52%
53%
57%
59%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Yard Space
Balconies/Terraces
Stepbacks
Lot Coverage
Placement
Other (please specify)
Massing
Height
Percent of Total Responses
A
B
Figure F-23 Responses to question "What features made the project compatible with the surrounding area?" (A) and "What other features would create more compatibility?" (B).

Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category included:
• Landscaping, greenery, and open space
• Vehicular access and loading areas
• Architectural details
• Building materials and colors
• Street trees and planters
• Parks or other public spaces
• Building orientation to the street
1 As part of the City’s Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards projects, two walking tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for residents to provide input on the development of housing options in Berkeley (see tour booklets on pages 48-61). Each tour included an associated survey that asked the following questions for each residential project highlighted on the tour:

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?;

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility?; and

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? The surveys were open to the public from November 23, 2021 to January 31, 2022. This document provides summary data from the individual walking tours as well as highlights some key themes across both surveys. All open-ended responses received are included in the later portion of this document and organized by tour and stop number (pages 3-47).

Berkeley Self-Guided

RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOURS SUMMARY
Downtown Berkeley Tour
The Downtown Berkeley Tour (map shown on right)
received a total of 23 survey responses with 74% of
respondents completing the entire survey. The Downtown
tour included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only projects.

When asked what features made the project compatible
with the surrounding area, the most common answers
across all tour stops were:
• Building height;
• Massing;
• Placement;
• Lot coverage; and
• Other features (See Table A)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Building facade and articulation (bays, recesses,
and parapets)
• Building materials and colors
• Unique architectural elements (“Berkeley” style)
• Location of parking
• Windows
When asked what other features would create more
compatability, respondents most frequently answered
with:
• Other features;
• Massing; and
• Yard space (See Table B)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Landscaping, greenery, and open space
• Vehicular access and loading areas
• Architectural details
• Building materials and colors
• Street trees and planters
• Parks or other public spaces
• Building orientation to the street
16%
20%
22%
22%
30%
31%
33%
67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Placement
Balconies/Terraces
Lot Coverage
Stepbacks
Height
Yard Space
Massing
Other (please specify)
Percent of Total Responses
11%
27%
29%
52%
53%
57%
59%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Yard Space
Balconies/Terraces
Stepbacks
Lot Coverage
Placement
Other (please specify)
Massing
Height
Percent of Total Responses
A
B
164
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 49 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 98 (8 BMR)
Year 2017
Height 8 stories, 89’6” max
FAR 6.13
Density 188 units per acre
Coverage 71%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Outer
Units 44 (9 BMR)
Year 2004
Height 6 stories
FAR 3.03
Density 145 units per acre
Coverage 97%
2010 Milvia St.1 2119 University Ave.10Stonefire Bachenheimer Apartments No natural gas serves these apartments. Learn
more about all-electric at www.switchison.org.
the building and sidewalk soften the landscape
but are unfortunately poorly maintained. It
appears that there is a large and attractive patio
on the grounds mostly invisible to the public but
a very nice amenity. (It would have been helpful
to have been able to inspect courtyards and roof
gardens, which seem to be essential amenities in
such a dense neighborhood.) Of course, I would
have like to see more BMR units in this building,
but overall it is very successful.
• The building is really over bearing, the only
thing positive about it is that is not a solid box
building.
• Building is ok for downtown area. I like that it
isn’t one solid endless facade, like the ugly UC
building across University Ave. from this.
• Steel material on the lower portions gives life to
the surface, relating better to people and feeling
more organic.
• The use of bays on the facades and the roof
caps visible from street level relate to Berkeley
historically, though I would not say that all
buildings should have them. I also appreciate
the balconies on the second floor, which make
the building a little more social, a little less
anonymous, even if no one is actually sitting
there.
• The high tower on the corner is reminiscent of
other Berkeley buildings
• Open decks for public
• None
• Really tall, even for downtown. -Attractive
architectural style, insets and false balconies
(railings only a few inches in front of windows)
create faced interest, -Teeny little bit of green
(planters, street trees) - could be better!
• Parking for all residents or a no-car requirement
are desperately needed, as are increased parking
for shoppers and movie/theatre goers and
means to improve traffic conditions.
• Ground floor amenities such as retail and
childcare. Lighting that illuminates the sidewalk
at night. street trees.
• Nice building, diversity of textures, somewhat
activated ground floor (could be better), good
scale for the location.
• I am at this corner all the time.

OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES DOWNTOWN

BERKELEY

1. 2010 MILVIA ST.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Overall, I find this a very attractive and well
designed building and appropriately sited on
a major downtown intersection. The use of
bricks on the ground alongside the sidewalk add
definition to the building space. Exterior details
and construction materials are very pleasing
(and appear to be high end...thus I understand
this is one of the most expensive apartments in
the city.) Very large terra cotta planters along
165

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• I wish all buildings would have some kind of
landscaping or planters along the sidewalks but
if they are not maintained they will create an
eyesore.
• Two less floors would make the feel of the
building pleasant and not so over bearing. We
expect in the future to have many more people
in Berkeley. We need to be thinking of wide
sidewalks and setbacks that put open space in
front between building edge and sidewalk.
• Materials: Corten steel is heavy for the character
of the neighborhood and not aging well/difficult
to clean grafitti
• Empty storefronts totally suck for pedestrian
experience. If it is going to be a storefront
mashed entirely up to the sidewalk, it shouldn’t
be empty for more than three or four months.

This shouldn’t be allowed.
• Space for commons, public gathering,
greenspace. These buildings are massive and
hard. Not much that lends to a sense of a human
scale.
• 1. Massing is overly blocky, especially given the
upper floor materials. 2. More creative ground
floor retail frontage.
• While the building is better than some, it is bulky
and out of scale with its neighbors.
• Make these buildings taller!!
• Grocery stores are needed in new high density
housing areas. Mass transit options must be
improved and costs lowered for in town use of
mass transit.
• More height and more units, especially close to
public transportation.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• An example of a commercial/residential
intersection that has no aesthetic or softening
features is at Dwight Way and MLK. Each building
is fully built out without only a few cracks in the
sidewalk where green (weeds) grow. I hope we
will not repeat that mistake!
• Rooftops covered with solar would be a common
good. Everyone would be better off if rooftops
were prohibited from being credited as open
space and that money went to expanding and
maintaining city parks instead.
• I understand the height and size for the district,
but the lots next door have some of the nicest
outdoor seating/garden space in most of
downtown. If all of downtown gets this tall and
massive, then these few outdoor patio spaces
will become increasingly needed. The tall
looming buildings only work because they are
next to smaller low rise buildings which allow
passage of light to the street. Milvia is a very
tiny street for such a large building. I hope some
consideration for maintaining access to open
sunny spaces can be made, rather than allowing
absolutely all lots to be built to this size. Publicly
accessible ROOFDECKS would help: could allow
for taller build up everywhere, but also allow
public access to sunlight, sky, and green spaces
downtown.
• Given the increase in density, it is essential
that construction of hardscape also include
greenspace and commons, places for people to
recreate and socialize.
• The retail space should be used for an indoor
community area because it’s constantly empty.
• Additional height and density in the this building
would better suit the area. This area already
contains many high rise apartment structures,
and will be best aided by the addition of new
units, regardless of concerns about sight lines or
massing mismatch.
• This is not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
• This building is better than many but overall
architecturally undistinguished and out of scale
• Too high and wrong design or style.
• Just having a railing rather than real balcony
seems kind of disappointing though I realize it is
a safety measure the sliding door/windows
• As a 20+ year Berkeley single family home owner,
I see many of these housing plans as a danger
to the quality of living in the city. Homeowners
need protections against neighborhood
construction projects that add noise (how about
limiting construction noise hours), too few
parking places for new multifamily dwellings,
and multistory (OVER 3 stories) for traditional
166
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 50 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Core
Units 91
Year 2001
Height 10 stories
FAR 5.52
Density 267 units per acre
Coverage 97%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-1 Gen. Commercial
Units 148 (22 BMR)
Year 2010
Height 5 stories, 54’
FAR 3.3
Density 148 units per acre
Coverage 82%
2120 Allston Way 1885 University Ave.9 2Gaia Apartments Trader Joe’s landscaped ground space. Both of those features
seem important in very large buildings.
• The building itself works and Trader Joes on the
first floor is a welcome asset to the neighborhood
not just the people in the building. TJ was a
terrific part of the plan and since TJ has great
staffing the TJ parking lot also works.
• Great that it has some step back on the Berkeley
Way side, but I still think it looms too much over
the small house on that side of the building. I
think this height is better than the Stonefire on
Milvia. -I like the breaking up of the mass into
smaller perceived units, rather than a single
mass on the whole block. Pretending to be
several smaller buildings works on the space.

I like the courtyard-like insets away from the
street on MLK and University sides.
• Its close to public transportation, local
community colleges, on top of a grocery store.
• 1. Ground floor texture is good. 2. Recesses in
the massing improves proportions.
• The division of this building into distinct blocks
(each 5 window bays wide on the University
side) moderates the size. Funny how when this
building went up, 5 stories seemed tall. Now
it seems short. The ground floor is fairly open,
visually, and I appreciate the generous covered
retail entrance at the corner. The residential
entrance is more subtle, which is appropriate.
• The architecture is comparable with the
Berkeley style
• Don’t create traffic and parking nightmares!
• Ground floor amenities such as retail and
childcare. elimination of setbacks (i.e. building
close to the sidewalk) is ideal as it makes for a
better pedestrian experience and more efficient
use of lot space.
• Great building. Wonderful color, amazing work
with the tile and terra cotta insets. I don’t
generally favor overtly traditionalist styles, but
this is very well executed, and I imagine many
in Berkeley think it’s attractive. Ground floor
activation is not great, but it’s wonderful having
a grocery store here (which I frequent), and I
understand that a grocery store does not need
many entrances.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This building incorporates many of the materials
and details of older buildings in the downtown
area and in
• Berkeley in general. This helps to create the
impression that it is a series of buildings
(because of the vertical “setbacks” along MLK
and Berkeley Way. Trader Joe’s and the Greek
Coffee Shop make it feel well used and vibrant.
• Coming up University I could see that there is
a roof terrace but I don’t know if there is any
neighborhoods

2. 1885 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
167

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Every time I go to Trader Joes I se people calling
and waiting for Uber/Lyft. Part of the design for
all large multiunit buildings needs to include a
loading zone specifically for people pick up and
drop off and deliveries.
• Architectural style too traditional for a new
building
• Great that it has some step back on the Berkeley
Way side, but I still think it looms too much over
the small house on that side of the building. -I
totally can’t tell what outdoor spaces residents
have, but I assume some nice roof garden/terrace
something? -Driveway cut on University is a bit
unfortunate, but I like that the heavily trafficked
TJ’s parking lot has the cul-de-sac on Berkeley
Way where its ok for there to occasionally be a
mess of cars because it doesn’t have thru-traffic
to block; it would be much worse to always plug
up University Ave. w/ a line of cars trying to get
into TJ’s.
• More green planting.
• Grocery functions on University create a dead
zone that’s often too busy for pedestrians to feel
safe/comfortable.
• Additional stories on the University side would
increase compatibility with the future of
Berkeley. Let’s look ahead!
• Right style for area and community. Just too
high.
• Zero green, except for street trees.
• Parking, noise and traffic must be addressed.
• More height and density, especially close to
public transportation.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Same for rooftop deck as for building 1.
• Again, I think this is ok because the surrounding
buildings on commercial lots are low. That
maintains light down on the street. Once all
buildings on all sides are built up, it will feel much
darker. Its great to fit a whole grocery store with
parking on the same lot as housing. I hope other
lots that are largely surface parking, witheither
grocery or CVS...etc. can add housing to the lot
AND keep grocery/drug store w/ parking....etc.

Best of both worlds.
• There needs to be an increased in the
requirement of providing open space and green
space when constructing for greater density.
• Happy to have a grocery store function here,
despite the problems of how loading were dealt
with.
• I live in the adjacent neighborhood. It’s
remarkable how little impact this project has
had on traffic. It’s really negligible.
• This is a gorgeous building and its mixed use
nature fits well into the commercial space along
University. The neighborhood would be better
served however by greater density on the lot,
particularly since this is a desired area to live in.
• Out of all newer buildings this is the best style to
fit its existing community.
• Hate the mustard color (but that’s a personal
opinion). Over-decorated with elaborate
mosaics, sculptures and roof railing. (Perhaps
an attempt at styling? Looking vintage? Mostly
just looks bad.)
• Setbacks on Berkeley Way side respect
neighborhood. I prever the architecture on the
north section (shingle style). The south section
colors are jarring and the decorative elements
are too repetitive and need more variety in
design. Still this is a fantastic improvement over
the strip mall fronted by parking lot that was
there before.
• The City must show respect for longtime home
owners’ needs for quality of life. I don’t see
plans for infrastructure improvements that will
support greater housing and people density.

Already the city doesn’t keep streets paved
regularly, has inadequate parking, not enough
services for seniors and the mentally ill, too many
clogged traffic corridors, too many burglaries
and safety risks, trash lying everywhere, filthy
sidewalks in shoppi g areas, and rising noise and
pollution levels. These problems need solutions
and fixes BEFORE thousands of dwellings are
built.
• I would love for more buildings of this scale to
be constructed in my neighborhood, near Arch
and Cedar.
168
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• There isn’t anything about the massing or lot
coverage that makes this building particularly
compatible or incompatible. It’s just an ugly
building, but at least it’s housing.
• In and out facade, ground floor stone tiles,
irregular roof line, all add interest. Simple but
attractive architectural style and tan color.
• Parking!
• This building is great! I don’t really have a
preference for the varied roof line, but I am
happy to see buildings of this size and larger in
berkeley.s.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Overall, this is a functional building and
appropriate for University Ave. I like the varying
heights of the “building modules” but would have
liked to see some improvement in the stepbacks.
• Give the building some design variation in color
to make it more interesting. It is just bland.

Variation in the color of the stucco shouldn’t
break the budget.
• The overhangs over the sidewalk aren’t very nice
to be under, but is better than the Jones building
on San Pablo because it gets so much southern
sunlight, and this has a much more reasonable
height than Jones.
• While fine for the spot this is an ugly building.
• This building does not have any tree wells, or
requirements for trees on the sidewalk.
• It would be nice for the residents facing
University Ave to be able to have a balconies or
terrace.
• 1. Massing on University should be taller. 2.

Building seems heavy, creating shadows on the
storefronts through it’s inept massing.
• I don’t mean to be flip, but a better architect
would have helped. Street trees to hide the ugly
thing?
• The architectural style is both undistinguished
and incompatible
• •Zero green, not even a street tree
• Parking
• This is the worst of the lot. The massing/shapes
are very blocky and obtrusive. University is a
tough location. This would be better with more

3. 1805 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• The building is okay it is just boring beige
• Height should be taller in this location,
particularly along University. Taller building
could then step back to the north abutting
adjacent residential properties
• I like that the storefronts have small local
businesses. -Very compatible/human scale size
for neighborhood. -Great step down along Grant.
-I like that driveway cut is not on the main
business street
• Lot coverage is appropriate on University.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 51 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-1 Gen. Commercial
Units 29
Year 1998
Height 4 stories, 50’
FAR 2.16
Density 102 units per acre
Coverage 97%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Core
Units 143 (23 BMR)
Year 2012
Height 10 stories
FAR 7.56
Density 277 units per acre
Coverage 96%
2055 Center St.1805 University Ave. 83 Berkeley CentralApartments 169

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

color/texture on the upper floors, and better
coordination between ground floor and upper
floors. For the University St. location, I think
even more scale might fit better, perhaps with
a courtyard to break up the facade. I support
scale, but I can imagine many people disliking
this implementation.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This corner has a nice wide sidewalk and the
corner Talavera shop has some semi bench like
stones sticking out at an angle, sometimes used
by passengers waiting for their busses at that
corner. Perhaps slight tonal color differences
in the verical modules would have made the
building look softer and more residential.
• While fine for the spot this is an ugly building.
• Trees need to be an essential component of urban
planning. They cool the city, reduce somewhat
greenhouse gas accumulations, visually soften
the hardscape, and provide habitat. Cities should
not be ghettos for humans only and rats
• Close to local public transportation and Trader
Joe’s a block away.
• The building is like an initial massing sketch
that got built, with no thought about materials,
textures, interest, or hierarchy.
• Down town Berkeley is in desperate need of
additional housing, and this stretch of University
would benefit from a 5x1 rather than just this
3x1. Additionally, the City of Berkeley is not
currently hurting for open retail space and this
neighborhood would be bettered by converting
often empty commercial space into residential
units.
• Really ugly
• This building is a blight
• Just having a railing rather than real balcony
seems kind of disappointing though I realize it is
a safety measure the sliding door/windows
• More busses and more parking are needed.

4. 1807 ADDISON STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Even though this building is basically a box it is
very pleasant and the setback from the street is
exceptionally nice.
• -Very discreet from the street. It has a lot of
greenery in front, so it doesn’t feel as much as
an apartment. -I like that it’s parking is hidden
behind plants, unlike the building next door
-Good that it only has one small driveway cut
across the sidewalk.
• The building is perfect for the neighborhood. The
building is a good distance from the sidewalk
leaving open space which is being used as a
parking lot at this moment.
• Front yard.
• There isn’t much to say about this one. It’s a
heavily landscaped one-story building. Does
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 52 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 69 (7 BMR)
Year 2016
Height 6 stories, 60’
FAR 3.46
Density 207 units per acre
Coverage 97%
RESIDENTIAL 2-4
Zoning R-2 Restricted 2-Family
Units 4
Year 1978
Height 2 stories, 19’
FAR 0.56
Density 25 units per acre
Coverage 33%
1807 Addison St.41935 Addison St.7 Addison Arts
170
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

anyone even notice it when walking by? It is
100% benign. Is that good? More housing would
be better, and ‘more compatible’ with the needs
of Berkeley.
• -low second story increases compatibility
with residential neighborhood. -set back from
sidewalk to create a parking area. -small amount
green detail in front of ‘front’ wall, and tree.

Building turned sideways on lot so only see
blank side wall front street (mitigated by tree
and ivy). Attractive facade but not seen from
street.
• Parking
• The greenery is nice

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• There are few apartments in the complex. The
entire front of the property is taken up by an
awkward and unattractive parking lot. The yard
space is divided so that each tenant has only a
tiny outdoor space. Seems better to create a
more pleasant communal sort of area. Building
itself has absolutely no character. It looks like
a shoebox. However, perhaps the tenants have
more privacy being set back from the street.
• For buildings in the future using permeable
paving in the parking lot and native plants as
the greenery would would be beneficial to the
environment and support local ecosystems.
• Lacks fenestration, orientation or entrances
facing the public street. Setback too deep.

Too many curb cuts, poor choice of drive aisle
fronting the structure
• Parking in front has nice screening from the
street. The building is unattractive. There are no
architectural details and no yard space.
• Any attempt whatsoever to fit with the
neighborhood stylistically, and not have parking
exposed in front.
• It would be nice if this building said ‘hello’ to the sidewalk in any way.
• Window placement and over all design could be
more attractive
• Side-facing facade is very close to building next
door.
• Parking area a minus and should have been done
differently
• Parking
• The front setback creates a lot of wasted space
given that we are experiencing a housing crisis.

I would love for sites like this to have less
restrictive rules, so that interested developers
have the opportunity to provide multiple units
on one lot, and use more of the front yard space
for housing (if the property owner is interested
in doing so, of course!)
• This is not great. Berkeley has many of these
long, motel-style apartment buildings, and they
provide much needed affordable housing. They
also provide density with low height (I support
height, but many don’t). But this implementation
is bad - completely cut off from the street, no
engagement with the neighborhood. The same
scale buildings just down the street (1811, 1815,
1819) are all much better. None of them are
exactly beautiful, but they are more visually and
functionally generous to the street and to their
occupants.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Having actually walked by this property, the 2
large trees on the sidewalk median are very
helpful in making this property compatible and
less intrusive.
• I would like to see the building possibly add one
more floor to the top and use more space in front
as a yard.
• Horrid - a building of this size/massing/
placement could work in a lower-density
residential neighborhood if it was detailed,
articulated, and designed well. This survey
should address design issues, not just massing/
placement. This is an eyesore form the street
and from neighboring properties, which is 80-
90% of its problem.
• This close to Berkeley’s urban core, such a
diminutive building sticks out horribly. The
neighborhood character would be improved by
construction of a taller, denser structure without
off street parking.
• The poor building design is compounded by
the building set back behind a parking area,
common in these 1960s-70s designs. Is is not at
all in sympathy with the neighborhood and no
windows facing the street reduce street safety.
• Argh. Where’s the infrastructure to support new
housing?
171

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

5. 2124 MCKINLEY AVE.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This older building is really quite sweet.
• It has fun architectural elements, so even though
it feels pretty close to sidewalk, it is still a decent scale to walk by, and not oppressive.
• Very nice bay windows. The facade has nice
features.
• I appreciate that the parkings is in the back, and
that the trash/recycling cans are not stored right
up front.
• Surface articulation (bays, recesses, and parapet
detail) and surface interest (texture, window
divisions, stucco
• bands, panels). These are what make the three
tall stories more acceptable for a single family
residential neighborhood.
• Bays, arches and cornice bands are classic
Berkeley elements...but should you mandate
them on new buildings? I do think cornice bands
helped the Trader Joe’s building, and yet I would
not mandate them. Perhaps there could be a
list of features, and the requirement could be
to provide at least one element of relief to flat
façades, such as bays, cornice bands, OR visible
roof treatments.
• While the building crowds the neighbors it is a
traditional Berkeley multi unit building that fits
into the overall fabric of the City.
• Attractive, old style design (1929 building). In
and out movement of facade and elaborate entry
adds to interest.
• These represent a good height and look for
residential neighborhoods.
• This building is great. I love that it has 18 units
but has bay windows and other features that
signify classic bay area housing styles.
• Great old Berkeley building. This structure
would be appropriate on ANY street in Berkeley.

I would welcome it next to or across from my
own house. It’s not any taller than many of the
larger peak roofed houses all over Berkeley,
and provides much more housing, with a very
beautiful and diverse facade. This is exactly the
kind of building I have long imagined I might
retire to, provided it has an elevator (I assume
it doesn’t, but a newer building of similar design
might)

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Driveway and parking area pure asphalt with no
softening features. There is a bit of landscaping
in the front which I favor but, like many other
buildings, both single family and multunit, it is
not well kept up.
• The building looks like it could use some love
like new paint otherwise no criticism. It is a good
fit in the neighborhood.
• I can’t tell if it has any yard space for residents?
-Given that it is on a back/side street, not a
business street like
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 53 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning R-2 Restricted 2-Family
Units 18
Year 1929
Height 3 stories
FAR 1.29
Density 84 units per acre
Coverage 51%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 107 (4 BMR)
Year 2020
Height 7 stories, 74’11”
FAR 5.06
Density 227 units per acre
Coverage 97%
2124 McKinley Ave. 1950 Addison St.5 6 The Addison
Apartments
This building earned Gold Certification
from GreenPoint Rated.
172
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• The new standards need to address ALL sides of
new buildings and their impact.
• While the building crowds the neighbors it is a
traditional Berkeley multi unit building that fits
into the overall fabric of the City. Much better
than the new multi-family buildings being built
now
• Restore
• The architecture is not great but much more
pleasant than stops 3 and 4.
• Will the city insure that these multifamily units
willbe be maintained? There are many rundown
multifamily buildings in Berkeley.

6. 1950 ADDISON ST.

Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Because this building is on a narrow street with
other large multi unit apts. and retail at ground
level, I find it’s use of glass and steel appropriate
and adds light and movement.
• I guess its good that they put bare minimum
effort to not have an entirely flat facade, with
the afterthought decorations on the facade, but
it really feels like a half-finished afterthought to
disguise its uncreative blockiness -I guess the
step-down on the west is good.
• Theres’a lot of flat surface, but an overall idea of
articulation makes the building more interesting.

For this street in downtown the density and
height are welcome.
• This fits in on this rather non-descript block of
Addison. It’s too bad the façade elements don’t do
anything. They don’t provide shade. They aren’t
balconies. They provide a little relief, I guess.

This building passes, but doesn’t contribute, in
my opinion.
• Moderne chic glass and silver metal facade is
attractive
• Parking needed.
• Modern design! Very forward-looking which is
great
• I imagine this building is controversial, but I
• Shattuck or University, I think it should have
at least some parts of the street facade set
back from the sidewalk a little bit more. The
residential area should have more green spaces.
• While the tallest building on the block it has some
very nice architectural features. It is massive on
the lot. It is an older building with some charm.
• A little more landscaping in the front
• The blank side facades are the most problematic
aspect, not the actual height. If the building was
set back form the side property lines with a
narrow yard, shadows would be lessened, and
that as well as windows and articulation would
remediate the oppressive side walls.
• Entire lot covered (building is very deep with
parking in rear), leaving almost no space for
plantings. More could be grown in available side
space. -Tall for residential neighborhood. (How
did it get built in an R2 zone?)
• Just a few feet farther back from street would
have been better for neighborhood compatibility.

THe lack of winows on much of the north and
south sides is also a minus.
• Parking is needed

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Since this bldg. was built in 1929 it is very
compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and
has an attractive design and aesthetic (though
it appears to be a bit neglected.) I don’t expect
future construction in the 21st C. to be inspired
by this building but I have noted on other
properties, I like buildings to reflect something
of the old character of Berkeley Having said that,
I love the new parking structure between Center
and Addison. It really makes the streets come
alive and this is the best example of converting
a parking giant to something fun!
• Good example of multifamily that integrates well
with single-family and duplexes on a residential
side street. Need to align incentives for this time
of small infill--I’m not sure it pencils for most
developers.
• The building doesn’t really fit the aesthetic of
the neighborhood and it looks out of place. The
building is surrounded by single family homes
or other apartments with a lot less units.
173

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

support it. It’s the right scale for the location
right downtown, and the facade has the
advantage of being coherent, even if it’s probably
too corporate for most peoples’ taste. I wish the
ground floor engaged with the street more - it
has lots of windows which is good, but no retail
or other public usage.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• The Placement of the building is OK but it would
have worked much better, I think, if the ground
floor (or maybe first two floors could have been
recessed to provide more openess on the ground.
(I don’t know the mechanics of that suggestion
but there cetainly are buildings designed that
way. Yard space isn’t too critical at this address
because the back side of the building faces on
Center St. right across the street from MLK Park.

We noted that there appears to be a large terrace
on the roof which is always a great idea, in my
view.
• One less story would make this more pleasant
on this narrow city street. The horizontal bars/
metal banners don’t add anything to the design
and make it look like an office. The glass is too
reflective and really shouldn’t be used. Bird safe
glass needs to be required.
• Public art/mural on blank ground-floor wall
• Can’t tell if there is any roof deck yard space type
areas. -This type of reflective windows is prone
to bird-strike death. I wish Berkeley would
adopt an objective standard recommended
by Audobon Society to reduce harm to bird
populations by mandating measures to reduce/
prevent bird strikes on windows. -I put it in the
positive features as well, but this building was
obviously designed as a giant block, then had
some superfluous bars hung on the front to give
bare minimum interest to the front. Its better
than nothing, but still really ugly. All I can say
is that it’s super fortunate that this building is
on a smaller back street that gets less traffic and
use because it would be an embarrassment on a
major street like Shattuck or University. I don’t
hate contemporary design when its actually nice
DESIGN, but this just screams low-effort.
• Pretty small sidewalk median strips. Even with
the 4 trees planted, the stingy median strips
means that these trees will be stressed, and have
difficulty becoming health mature trees.
• More balconies would make this look less like
a commercial building ad more like a place that
people who need light and air would live.
• At least there is one bay.
• Just awful
• Wrong style
• Parking and traffic are already a problem in this
area.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• I’ve always enjoyed seeing the huge signs
painted on the back of the building which can
be seen from the park, with positive, upbeat
messages and bright colors. I would love to see
more artwork on the exterior of new buildings.
• It is essential that as we increase density, we
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 53 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning R-2 Restricted 2-Family
Units 18
Year 1929
Height 3 stories
FAR 1.29
Density 84 units per acre
Coverage 51%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 107 (4 BMR)
Year 2020
Height 7 stories, 74’11”
FAR 5.06
Density 227 units per acre
Coverage 97%
2124 McKinley Ave. 1950 Addison St.5 6 The Addison Apartments This building earned Gold Certification
from GreenPoint Rated.
174
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 52 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 69 (7 BMR)
Year 2016
Height 6 stories, 60’
FAR 3.46
Density 207 units per acre
Coverage 97%
RESIDENTIAL 2-4
Zoning R-2 Restricted 2-Family
Units 4
Year 1978
Height 2 stories, 19’
FAR 0.56
Density 25 units per acre
Coverage 33%
1807 Addison St.41935 Addison St.7 Addison Arts

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• The use of color makes this building more
interesting. Six stories is a height that works.
• I like that the full height is not totally visible
on the front facade. -I like that it manages to
not totally overshadow the little restaurant
courtyard behind it. -Broken up facade is good,
though dull. -Bay windows look like they would
give the residents nicer interior light.
• 1. Ground floor articulation and texture make a
difference. 2. Upper floor window detail reduces
the apparent scale of the building, creating a
more human scale that’s easier to mentally
project human life into.
• Bays
• The varied facade is good and makes it appear
also provide for appropriate, commensurate
green space.
• The building is beautiful and a great use of the
building. It includes a gym for tenants and a
parking garage.
• On the commercial streets of downtown, even
another two stories, if set back a bit, would be
welcome. The way the ground floor addresses
people on the street (coldly) is a big missed
opportunity.
• What’s going on with the ground floor? Is that
supposed to be retail? That isn’t likely to work.

The block is very quiet, totally unlikely to be
competitive with other more active blocks or
online shopping. Let’s be realistic so that we
don’t have empty storefronts.
• Really ugly. This is a bad design and not
compostible.
• This is a horrible incomparable design that
makes people feel like widgets
• Apartment should keep with the same style of
area.
• As with all the large, downtown apartment
buildings on this walking tour, it is massive
with no setback from the sidewalk and minimal
plantings. Use this answer for all the following
buildings....
• The balconies are interesting but I wonder how
functional they are. The architecture is tolerable
and I like the window design and the large area
of the windows that bring in light (especially
since they are on the north side)
• How about making this park safe and attractive
for families? It’s a filthy bum zone now.
• Without giving too much leeway to really
dramatic “starkitects,” I would love for zoning
rules to allow for integrating new architecture
and design styles into existing streets. Not
every building has to look the same in order
for a neighborhood to look and feel cohesive.

Progress is good. :)

7. 1935 ADDISON STREET
Comments
175

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

smaller than it really is
• Attractive paint job, interesting in and out facade
and grillwork around roof.
• What I see herearw more housing without
parking or grocery shops.
• Well done. Traditionally-inspired design, decent
coloring (could be a bit more muted, to better
replicate the copper cladding it’s emulating),
good variation in the massing. Masonry/tile on
the ground floor is always an easy and popular
choice, and lots of good retail space too. Would
even say that the various setbacks and forms
do not need to be so extreme, if that would help
with costs.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Just as mentioned previously, we should be
thinking of wide sidewalks for the future.
• Feels tall for the area, looming over media
building. -Overhanging the sidewalk feels way
more intrusive on this little street compared to
the one on University at Grant, which was ok
because its a wide street with lots of sunlight.

This one here is just looming, dark, and
unfriendly.
• Planting, integrated or in large pots, would
soften the streetscape. Even a few would create
a sense of a street that’s occupied, rather than
barren. The 2010 Milvia St. pots are effective
this way.
• Color
• There is not a decent public park in this area.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• I like the way the facade is cut up with the two
color schemes making it look like a series of
smaller buildings.
• Also like that the ground level is distinct from
the upper floors; more wood and recessed
entrances. It seemed appropriate for its location
along with the new Addison Apts. across the
street.
• This street feels really small for such tall
buildings on both sides of the street. The
pedestrian experience feels like a cold dark
tunnel. If it weren’t for the neighboring smaller
buildings, this street would be lousy, especially
with no set-backs from the sidewalk from this
and the one across the street. If there is some
way to regulate that specific combinations of
buildings on a street need to leave some kind
of access to green/sky/sunlight in combination
with each other. I realize it would be nearly
impossible to regulate, but sandwiching these
tall buildings all along both sides of a narrow
street, with protruding facades overhanging
sidewalks both sides of street, will be incredibly
hostile and uninviting to pedestrians. Maybe
have a bit of courtyardlike setback on street
facing facade?
• This is just an ugly building. Not much of an
aesthetic or design. The 2 tone colors are not
attractive. Uglifies our city.
• Although it’s not unusual or terribly creative, the
building creates solid downtown infill.
• The colors are ghastly, but that does not mean
that I would support the regulation of color in
Berkeley. Who is the arbiter of taste?
• Ugly and not compatible.
• This is somewhat better than average
• Apartments are the wrong style. Their too high
• See #6
• There is a nice rhythm on the facade with the
window bays. Too bad that only the top floor has
decks. I guess the lack of windows on the front
part of west and east sides is due to concern
about future buildings being placed there.
• Are you building tomorrow’s Tenderloin/
ghettos? Who’s going to enforce maintenance
and safety?
176
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 51 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-1 Gen. Commercial
Units 29
Year 1998
Height 4 stories, 50’
FAR 2.16
Density 102 units per acre
Coverage 97%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Core
Units 143 (23 BMR)
Year 2012
Height 10 stories
FAR 7.56
Density 277 units per acre
Coverage 96%
2055 Center St.1805 University Ave. 83 Berkeley CentralApartments • Balconies give facade some interest.
• No features make it attractive or complementary.
• I appreciate that parking is somewhat hidden,
but would love to see less space devoted to
off-street parking for such a centrally located
building..

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Why is this building always advertising for
tenants. What is wrong with the units.
• More color. A bit drab given the height and
repetition of stories
• Still concerned with bird strike window design.
-Could still maybe use a bit more step back from
street, to make it feel less dark, and get a bit
more sky access
• Needs more green space out front. The 3 trees
planted - the one in the middle already looks
deformed. Why pretend or just go through the
motions. There needs to be sufficient care and
space for trees really to grow rather than just die
or become stunted half broken things. Awful.
• Articulation of the ground floor surface that
pedestrians experience would help mold the
streetscape more interestingly.
• These balconies fail to contribute to the
aesthetics. They add no life, no welcome, no
warmth because they are dark, flat, and deeply
recessed. And is that more ground floor retail?
Are offices at least allowed? That would be
more promising. Anything is better than chronic
vacancy.
• Massive, fills lot, no set back from sidewalk, 3
skinny street trees, otherwise no green - similar
to other downtown apartment buildings. A
blocky behemoth.
• Essentially you’re making downtown
inaccessible for shoppers and theatre/movie
goers.
• This is mediocre. Size and massing is all good, and
perfectly appropriate for the location. Facade
is poor. The metal facade elements are good
- clean, coherent, a few art deco nods towards
the roof. The tile/masonry on ground floor and
above look cheap - like bargain basement tile
and cinderblock, even though I’m sure it was
much more expensive. The balconies are also

8. 2055 CENTER STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• We thought the parking lot next door was way
more attractive than the building and gave it a B-
• I like that it doesn’t overhang the sidewalk -I like
that the storefronts aren’t empty -It managed
to break up front massing/facade without just
looking cheap like the other one down Addison;
and it managed to do it without looking like faux
1890-1910 architecture.
• 1. Feels like a downtown building. 2. Balconies
(just barely) make it feel residential rather than
like a modern riff on old art deco office buildings.
177

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

terrible - uninhabited, uninhabitable, and ugly
to look at - they give the whole building a cheap,
uncaring feel. Better to not have balconies than
to have these.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This was my least favorite building; cold,
uninteresting design, not distinctive in any
way. Looks more like an office building than a
place where people live. On the other hand, the
parking garage next door is one of my favorite
structures in Berkeley. I never thought you
could make a massive parking lot look beautiful
and fun to look at both day and night
• Please adopt an objective standard recommended
by Audobon Society to reduce harm to bird
populations by mandating measures to reduce/
prevent bird strikes on windows
• Downtown buildings are not just their surfaces,
bulk, and materials. They sculpt the sidewalk
space which has a tremendous effect on
pedestrians’ experiences of the city. Had this
building undulated in and out at the street
level, even slightly, imagine the difference in
the experience of walking down the street, in
comparison with the straight shot of parallel
lines of building, curb, and parked cars. It’s
almost more of a car-speedoriented design vs. a
human-speed one. Even 12” to 18” of undulation
can create a better rhythm for people.
• There is nothing to recommend this building;
the balconies are too dark to be useful and so
look like suicide platforms
• See #6
• Nice that many units have “balconies” but the
inset balconies/terraces are somehow less
attractive than the ones that are not inset. They
give a look look to the building.
• Who’d want to live there? Yuck.

9. 2120 ALLSTON WAY
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• The sculptures on the front of the building
are really attractive, but they get lost in the
background.
• I love the tile at street level: much better
pedestrian experience from sidewalk. Also love
integration of arches. -I like the facade/massing
STEPS BACK from sidewalk slightly; much better
than the buildings which have overhangs over
sidewalk. -looks like nice roof terraces. -I think
I like this building the most out of the ones on
the tour. Even though it is very large, it has lots
of step backs on top. Lots of windows and roof
terraces and looks like a nice place to be inside,
as well as pleasant from the sidewalk.
• I know there was controversy when this building
was approved but of all the buildings seen so far,
this building is the least intrusive, maybe because
of the architecture on the ground floor, that
makes the face of the building more interesting,
and the set-back right above the middle.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 50 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Core
Units 91
Year 2001
Height 10 stories
FAR 5.52
Density 267 units per acre
Coverage 97%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-1 Gen. Commercial
Units 148 (22 BMR)
Year 2010
Height 5 stories, 54’
FAR 3.3
Density 148 units per acre
Coverage 82%
2120 Allston Way 1885 University Ave.9 2Gaia Apartments Trader Joe’s 178
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

roof terrace of this building, where the view
was stunning looking both east and west. I like
the treatment of the ground floor and archways
which separates commercial from living units.
• Arches are nice element. Not everything needs
to be compatibility with whatever happens to be
next door
• See #6.
• The step back helps but I still wonder if the
height isn’t just a bit much for such a narrow
street. I do like the architecture.
• I love the tile and setbacks, but I don’t think
they should necessarily be required for every
building. Straight roof lines and rectangular
buildings are great too.

10. 2119 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• We liked this building, in fact we liked what was
being done with the entire site, but the red tiles
on the corner building don’t work. The variations
in style, structure, color when viewed with the
entirety of the block all worked together. We felt
there was real care in design.
• Looks decently set back on sides, so that even
with new buildings next to it, its residents will
still have a bit of natural light. I like the scale of
this building, and that it manages to have a lot of
architectural mix going on in such a small space
• This is a funny building, right where shattuck
comes into University. For so long it looked
empty and not well used.
• The capped tower element, visible roof
overhangs, arched window recesses and ground
floor are all very Berkeley, and I like them. But
could you mandate these without winding up
with a kitsch town? I don’t think so.
• Attractive style and colors make it look sort of
old tho it’s a new building. Inset balconies add
interest to the facade.
• Not as unattractive as other units shown in this
survey.
• 1. I’m not a big fan of the fake historicism, but
the level of detail at the sidewalk does feel like
Berkeley. 2. Creating two tower elements on the
street facade helps the pedestrian experience
by emphasizing vertical lines rather than
unrelenting horizontal lines - especially on such
a big building.
• Tower element, window divisions, cornice
bands, and arches are all very Berkeley. The
landscaped terraces are wonderful.
• The design is much more compatible with
Berkeley design than the more modern buildings
• Huge, artsy, new building. Attractive ground
floor wrought iron, tile, sculpture. Central facade
setback creates interest.
• Such congested living spaces are not good for
humans.
• Wonderful. A testament to what assertive and
coherent design can do. So much density, and
still so welcoming and humane to passers-by. .

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• I was in this building years ago and if I remember
correctly there is a dreary dark courtyard in the
center which wasn’t inviting.
• I am concerned that the residents might soon
have a view of the side of a building on Shattuck
and Oxford faces of the building. Its a nice number
of windows now, but how much setback would a
new tall building put up on the lots immediately
next door to this? Would those windows get any
natural light anymore?
• More greenery and public space.
• The building could have been conceived as
multiple buildings to break up the overall feeling
of a large mass
• 2 trees in front, otherwise zero green
• This looks like an area to avoid. I guess the
residents will shop nearby, but someone who
doesn’t live there will find it inaccessible and
uninviting.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This is an iconic building; a good melding of old
and new and fits well with the style of Berkeley.

I had the opportunity to attend an event on the
179

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

• Beautiful first floor retail space
• Very nice. New buildings in Berkeley should not
be forced to copy traditional design elements,
but it’s a fine approach and can be done very
well, as here. The tower element is refreshing,
and of course the windows are excellent. It
references its neighbors, and fits in perfectly.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• I was in this building years ago and if I remember
We really liked how the whole block is coming
together.
• What is the purpose of the side yards? Building
should be taller in this location
• Sad empty storefronts!!

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• This building, like 2120 Allston (#9) is distinctive
and has all the elements of good design that
2120 Allston has. Also restful colors, melds the
past and the present and has very nice ground
level elements and arches which distinguish it
from the upper residential levels. Good ratio of
market rate and BMR.
• Affectatious.
• This is one of my favorite new buildings
• Building is too high
• See #6
• I still think this is the most distinctive and
attractive building constructed downtown in the
last 20 years.
• This style is more Berkeley-like and attractive.

11. 2101 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• We liked this whole complex.
• Tower element, visible roof overhangs, cornice
bands, arched elements are all very Berkeley. I
appreciate the preservation of the ground floor
facade. Others may disagree, but that facade has
been a navigational landmark for me since 1984,
a real place-maker.
• This building is stylistically compatible with the
location and adjacent buildings
• Nice styling of new upper building (tho it doesn’t
quite fit with the old ground floor).
• Not walls of glass and more attractive
• The break in the building a la the equitable
building is a nice amenity for residents. I like
that this building preserved the street design of
the previous building, though i don’t necessarily
think developers should be required to do so if
it will significantly slow housing construction or
increase costs..

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• The red on the tile at the bottom does not work,
• Color is very white
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 49 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Buffer
Units 98 (8 BMR)
Year 2017
Height 8 stories, 89’6” max
FAR 6.13
Density 188 units per acre
Coverage 71%
MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Outer
Units 44 (9 BMR)
Year 2004
Height 6 stories
FAR 3.03
Density 145 units per acre
Coverage 97%
2010 Milvia St.1 2119 University Ave.10Stonefire Bachenheimer Apartments No natural gas serves these apartments. Learn
more about all-electric at www.switchison.org.
180
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet
48 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 5+
Zoning C-DMU Downtown Outer
Units 205 (18 BMR)
Year Under Construction
Height 6-stories, up to 75’
FAR 4.0
Density 182 units per acre
Coverage 84%
We would like your feedback!
For more information, visit:
www.cityofberkeley.info/Objective Standards
For questions, contact:

[email protected]
Downtown Berkeley Self-Guided

RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOUR
Addison St
Allston Way
Center St
Grant St
Berkeley Way
University Ave
Milvia St
Kittredge St
Kala Bagai Way
Hearst Ave
McKinley Ave
Bonita Ave Walnut St
Harold Way
Henry St
Shattuck Ave
Martin Luther King Jr Way
Martin Luther King Jr.

Civic Center Park
N
As part of the City’s Housing
Element Update and Residential
Objective Standards projects,
this tour is an opportunity
for you to provide input on
the development of housing
options in Berkeley.

For all new residential construction in Berkeley,
projects must be found to be compatible with
the scale and character of the neighborhood.

With that in mind, please use the walking tour
map below to explore a range of multi-unit
and mixed-use residential development in
the downtown area.

The tour takes approximately one hour.

Please be courteous to residents and stay on the sidewalk. 2101 University Ave. Acheson Commons11
City
Hall
Nov-Dec 2021
11 1
2 10
9 8
3 6
7 5
4 Mixed Use 5+
2010 MilviaMixed Use 5+
1935 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
2101 University
Mixed Use 5+
2120 Allston
Mixed Use 5+
1805 University
5+ Units
2124 McKinley
Mixed Use 5+
1950 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
2055 Center
Mixed Use 5+
2119 University
2-4 Units
1807 Addison
Mixed Use 5+
1885 University

TAKE THE ONLINE SURVEY
Scan this QR code or go to
www.surveymonkey.com/r/GW2L8L3
OR

DROP OFF AT
1947 CENTER STREET, 3RD FLOOR
MON-THUR, 8:30AM-1:00PM
Write down your comments on the
following pages and drop it off at the
City of Berkeley Permit Service Center
during regular business hours.

After the tour, here are TWO ways you can let us know your thoughts:
1 2
• 1. We need to take advantage of parcels that
are not adjacent to single-family residential
structures, and build even higher. 2. This is
another slightly affectatious pseudo-historicist
building that, although some details are
interesting or done well, is revisionist rather
than creative.
• This is my favorite of the new buildings
• Building height too high and too many units.
• All the large, downtown, multistory buildings fill
their lots and leave no space for any plantings.

I suggest you require roof gardens (including
trees and milkweed) on all future buildings like
these. This would fit with our desire and policy
to go green in Berkeley.** -I didn’t answer the
individual questions on these large buildings.

They are all compatible with a ‘large, tall
downtown’ look, all fill their lots, none have
setbacks from the sidewalk or upper story
stepbacks, there are no yard spaces and few
have balconies.
• This new development is helping complete
a more harmonious, taller but still varied
facade for the block on University Avenue. The
architecture above the ground floor however is
rather dull.
• Style-wise these are OK.
• As a central downtown, corner building, if could
have been another one or two stories higher.
• As always with the large, downtown, multistory
buildings, no plantings.
• Scale and massing are fine for this one - very
appropriate for the downtown location. Design
is a bit ramshackle - no coherent vision, sort of
slapdash. Both ugly and anonymous.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• I understand that the developers were trying to
retain the decorative elements of the original
building while creating a modern 5 stories above.

I don’t like their solution. The color scheme
doesn’t work. It kind of looks like a mistake.
• Retention of facade is cool and ground-floor
details are really beautiful
• More trees please!! More sidewalk planting!!
181

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

WEST BERKELEY TOUR
The West Berkeley Tour (map shown on right)
received a total of 26 survey responses with 88% of
respondents completing the entire survey. The West
Berkeley tour included 12 tour stops with a range of
“missing middle” housing types including multiple
detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and
mixed-use projects.

When asked what features made the project
compatible with the surrounding area, the most
common answers across all tour stops were:
• Placement;
• Height;
• Massing;
• Lot coverage; and
• Other features (See Table C)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other”
category included:
• Permeable pavement
• Open space and landscaping
• Shared driveways
• Overall scale of building(s)
• Architectural details
• Light access
• Roof form and facade variation
When asked what other features would create
more compatability, respondents most frequently
answered with:
• Other features;
• Yard space;
• Massing;
• Lot coverage; and
• Height (See Table D)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other”
category included:
• Garage and driveway location and orientation
• Building separation
• Building orientation to street
• Landscaping, trees, and open space
• Privacy concerns
• Architectural style and building materials
• Density (increase)
Other Key Takeaways
Looking at the collective results of both surveys,
common themes in public comments included the
following:

1. Architectural style: Individuals have different
preferences for particular architectural styles
which can affect what features they consider
compatible.

2. Open space: The adequate provision and
maintenance of landscaping, private or public
open space, and other planting/greenery is
integral in creating a compatible project.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet
54 5th St
7th St
8th St
Virginia St4th St
Jones St
10th St
Cedar St
Hearst Ave
Hearst Ave
Delaware St
San Pablo Ave
3rd St
Page St
Kains Ave
Curtis St
Francisco St
Cornell AveStannage Ave
University Ave
Bataan Ave
9th St
6th St
James Kenney
Community Center
As part of the City’s Housing
Element Update and Residential
Objective Standards projects,
this tour is an opportunity
for you to provide input on
the development of housing
options in Berkeley.

For all new residential construction in Berkeley,
projects must be found to be compatible with
the scale and character of the neighborhood.

With that in mind, please use the walking tour
map below to explore a range of multi-unit
and mixed-use residential development in
the West Berkeley area.

We would like your feedback!
For more information, visit:
www.cityofberkeley.info/Objective Standards
For questions, contact:

[email protected]

TAKE THE ONLINE SURVEY
Scan this QR code or go to
www.surveymonkey.com/r/PV9C7PZ
OR

DROP OFF AT
1947 CENTER STREET, 3RD FLOOR
MON-THUR, 8:30AM-1:00PM
Write down your comments on the
following pages and drop it off at the
City of Berkeley Permit Service Center
during regular business hours.

After the tour, here are TWO ways you can let us know your thoughts:
1 2
West Berkeley Self-Guided

RESIDENTIAL WALKING TOUR
Nov-Dec 2021
The tour takes
approximately one hour.

Please be courteous to
residents and
stay on the sidewalk.

Mixed-Use 5+
1080 Jones
Mixed-Use 2-4
802-808, 812 Page
2-4 Units
1461-67 Fifth
2-4 Units
908-914 Cedar
2-4 Units
1444-46 Fifth
5+ Units
1508 10th
Mixed-Use 5+
1080 Delaware
5+ Units
1744-1756 10th
2-4 Units
1810-1816 10th
2-4 Units
1911 Ninth
2-4 Units
1611 & 1613 10th
1626 & 1628 10th
12 11
4 3
2 1
6 10
7 8
9 5
5+ Units
870-880 Jones
1500-1504 Seventh
Additional Notes or Comments
Figure F-24 West Berkeley Walking Tour
Pamphlet Cover & Map
182
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

2 Other Key Takeaways
Looking at the collective results of both surveys, common themes in public comments included the following:

1. Architectural style: Individuals have different preferences for particular architectural styles which can affect what features they consider compatible.

2. Open space: The adequate provision and maintenance of landscaping, private or public open space, and other planting/greenery is integral in creating a compatible project.

3. Ground-floor design: For mixed-use projects, an active, human-scaled ground-floor can help lessen the visual impact and pedestrian experience of a taller and larger building.

4. Amenities: Residential amenities (proximity to transit, walkability, internal community spaces, parks, etc.) are particularly important to provide for projects with more than five units.

5. Storefronts: For mixed-use projects, active storefronts and a lack of vacancies contributes to the overall experience of the site.

In conjunction with being intended as a way for Berkeley residents to understand and experience the range of housing options in the City, all input received will be used by the project team to inform the City’s Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards projects. The responses received will help the project team understand what features affect an individual’s experience of particular housing types and where regulations can improve this experience.

West Berkeley Tour The West Berkeley Tour (map shown on left) received a total of 26 survey responses with 88% of respondents completing the entire survey. The West Berkeley tour included 12
tour stops with a range of “missing middle” housing types including multiple detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and mixed-use projects.

When asked what features made the project compatible
with the surrounding area, the most common answers
across all tour stops were:
• Placement;
• Height;
• Massing;
• Lot coverage; and
• Other features (See Table C)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Permeable pavement
• Open space and landscaping
• Shared driveways
• Overall scale of building(s)
• Architectural details
• Light access
• Roof form and facade variation
23%
34%
43%
45%
58%
64%
65%
72%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Balconies/Terraces
Stepbacks
Yard Space
Other (please specify)
Lot Coverage
Massing
Height
Placement
Percent of Total Responses
20%
22%
22%
33%
35%
36%
40%
71%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Balconies/Terraces
Placement
Stepbacks
Height
Lot Coverage
Massing
Yard Space
Other (please specify)
Percent of Total Responses
When asked what other features would create more
compatability, respondents most frequently answered
with:
• Other features;
• Yard space;
• Massing;
• Lot coverage; and
• Height (See Table D)
Common site features mentioned in the “Other” category
included:
• Garage and driveway location and
orientation
• Building separation
• Building orientation to street
• Landscaping, trees, and open space
• Privacy concerns
• Architectural style and building materials
• Density (increase)
C
D

3. Ground-floor design: For mixed-use projects,
an active, human-scaled ground-floor can
help lessen the visual impact and pedestrian
experience of a taller and larger building.

4. Amenities: Residential amenities (proximity to
transit, walkability, internal community spaces,
parks, etc.) are particularly important to provide
for projects with more than five units.

5. Storefronts: For mixed-use projects, active
storefronts and a lack of vacancies contributes
to the overall experience of the site.

In conjunction with being intended as a way for
Berkeley residents to understand and experience the
range of housing options in the City, all input received will be used by the project team to inform the City’s
Housing Element Update and Residential Objective
Standards projects. The responses received will help
the project team understand what features affect an
individual’s experience of particular housing types
and where regulations can improve this experience.

Figure F-25 Responses to question "What features made the project compatible with the surrounding area?" (A) and "What other features would create more compatibility?" (B). 183

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES - WEST

BERKELEY

1. 1911 NINTH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Stepbacks help, but it depends on the
surroundings, right?
• Permeable paved areas
• I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour.

Didn’t get to this building on the walk. One
thing I need to say: the overall context is of
utmost importance - the whole area needs to
be considered for walkability, crowdedness,
peacefulness, not only one building or another.

Two many massive buildings within a couple of
blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is
needed.
• This is a mixed street without a strong character.

The building is tastefully done and generally
improves the street.
• I’m wondering why you’re asking about
compatibility. Shouldn’t we be talking about the
future pattern of Berkeley, and what constitutes
a beautiful street or neighborhood, rather than
asking if this “matches” buildings of the past?
• Aesthetics fit in nicely with the neighborhood.
• Style of building .
• Successful design: -Although it is three stories,
the entire building is not at maximum height;
average building height is lower than the
maximum of peak -Combining driveway with
setback from fence property line -Permeable
pavement in driveway enhances open space
so driveway feels more garden-ish invites use
for courtyard patio or gathering space -Private
yard/green-space in front along the sidewalk
seems more useable to residents than open to
street -Massing is broken up: Facade of building
is not single expanse. It makes it feel like a
smaller house than it would if the front were
all one single wall. -Use of wood-like siding,
window frames and trim fits architectural styles
of older houses in the neighborhood. -Looks like
they have nice number of windows for residents,
but don’t have giant invasive windows to look
into the close-by neighbors on the north side.

Maintains neighbor privacy without depriving
residents of having good access to natural light
• Very nicely done!
• Architectural style, windows, & finishes.
• it is not a box, the 3rd story is a pitched roof
which decreases the intrusion and is more
visually compatable
• This is good. Not a lot of yard space for the
occupants, but that’s their choice, and will
be reflected in the price. Does not impact the
neighbors at all, and the building overall is of an
appropriate scale (could be bigger, but it’s fine as
is). The two-tone board and batten on the front
house is a bit awkward. Looks better in uniform
blue with white accents on the second house.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 55 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1080 Jones St. - Townhomes Along 10th St.121 1911 Ninth St. (Same development
information as table on pg. 14)
3 DETACHED UNITS ON A LOT
Zoning R-3 Multiple-Family
Units 3
Year 2014
Height 3 stories, 34’11”
FAR 0.95
Density 20 units per acre
Coverage 39%
184
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

create new open space on side. North setback
is too small. Small roof area there now could be
improved to function as balcony.
• Placement of 3 buildings. A “dormitory usage.”
Buildings on steroids, massive and crowded.

There are small courts between buildings which
create relief spaces common in the area. The
“Block” & Hearst + have mix of 1 to 3+ (one being
built) structures, plus a church...
• I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour.

Didn’t get to this building on the walk. One
thing I need to say: the overall context is of
utmost importance - the whole area needs to
be considered for walkability, crowdedness,
peacefulness, not only one building or another.

Two many massive buildings within a couple of
blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is
needed.
• Increase in massing and height compared to
1909 to the north appear to be minimal because
of the building to building separation and 2-story
predominant context in this block.
• Good example of denser infill. So much comes
down to a well-proportioned building with
good materials. This is a simple form, but the
texture makes its scale feel smaller and clearly
residential.
• What do we value besides “compatibility?”
• The building in the rear is out of scale with the
other back yards adjoining it. If this is supposed
to be family housing, I see no outdoor area
available for children. Are driveways counted
as yard space? If so, that misrepresents the
coverage number. Green space is needed for
habitat, climate protection, and human needs.

This level of density is not appropriate to
encroach on so much open land. The fact that is
is not BMR makes it all that much worse.
• way too dense
• Existing area have 1-2 story homes and the style
and height of this building is out place of place.
• Nice design including materials that fits well
into the neighborhood.
• Plantings encroach on sidewalk. This hinders
pedestrian movement.
• This was a well-done project.
• Style is attractive tho building is tall for

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Could be taller in parts, but needs more paving -
from unused Wells Fargo?
• Usable outdoor space, property trees,
accessibility
• I turned in hard-copy for most of the tour.

Didn’t get to this building on the walk. One
thing I need to say: the overall context is of
utmost importance - the whole area needs to
be considered for walkability, crowdedness,
peacefulness, not only one building or another.

Two many massive buildings within a couple of
blocks degrades the area. Ample open space is
needed.
• One could say this is compatible because of the
gabled roof, but what does that mean? There are
plenty of Berkeley buildings that have flat roofs
or parapets that are perfectly compatible. What
are you going to do with these survey results? It
would be a mistake to mandate gabled roofs just
because you showed a gabled roof next to other
gabled roofs and people labeled it “compatible.”
• Upper story set back is on the south side, which
would perhaps allow sunlight to a house on the
north, if one was there. However it completely
block light to an actual house on the north,
reducing the comfort and value of that home.
• Less lot coverage, more yard space. Overall good
use of space - all neighborhood-appropriate
style buildings that are not imposing.
• Vegetation (native plants)
• Its unclear if residents feel the open space meets
their needs/interest. It would not be enough
sunny yard for me, but not everyone cares about
personal gardening space. If Berkeley is going to
substantially infill all of our neighborhoods, we
should have a plan to identify places for more
public community gardens to offset the loss of
private garden spaces.
• More yard space, more open space between
buildings, buildings separated by green space/
trees

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• More height on San Pablo side appropriate if
stepped back to retain open space in back or
185

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

neighborhood. I think no backyard, tiny front
yard, little green. Adequate off-street parking

2. 1810-1816 10TH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• Oniste outdoor space and trees
• Consider whole area, not only house by house.

Did you know a great percentage of new
housing is bought by hedge fund companies, not
individuals? Maybe over 50%. See Aaron Glantz’s
book and Chuck Collins: https:// inequality.org/
great-divide/tax-the-rich-global-wealth-report/
See my comments on the previous page.
• The openness creates a unique opportunity for
landscaping, but this is a unique configuration
that doesn’t fit into the general density of the
neighborhood. It’s nice, but should not be a
standard.
• This is a nondescript building with a lot of
wasted space around it. Compatible? Perhaps.

Good? Definitely not.
• I believe these are legacy one bedroom units.

I have nieces and nephews (immigrants from
Latin America) who grew up in a very similar
complex on San Pablo near Delaware when their
families were very low income. Four families
with a total of eight children. The large space
around the units allowed kids living in contained
space to have play area.
• None it fit in the existing community.
• Great open space, and obviously great access to
sunlight for residents, and for pedestrians on
sidewalk. -While Massing is a dull solid block, it
works because the scale of the building is very
compact (not oversized on the lot) and very far
from neighbors/property line/sidewalk -Shared
driveway: excellent that so many units only
have one driveway cut across the sidewalk out
front, and it leaves most of the lot open, rather
than taken up by paving and parking. -Older
architecture fits neighborhood.
• Exterior stairs up to second floor - attractive and
a nice touch.house.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Orientation to street and other houses.
• Kid-positive
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on
the previous page.
• This block has some large boxes and so this
building fits in, thought stepbacks and balconies
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 56 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1810-1816 10th St.21080 Jones St. - Along San Pablo Ave.12 4 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 4
Year 1943
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.26
Density 19 units per acre
Coverage 19%
MIXED-USE 5+
Zoning C-W W. Berkeley Commercial
Units 170 (16 BMR)
Year 2020
Height 5 stories, 60’6”
FAR 3.55
Density 99 units per acre
Coverage 70%
186
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

• Garden would be good in front as at 1802
• Gathered 4-plexes are my favorite local housing
approach. The buildings may be arranged
variously, as is seen throughout the area. This
particular example shares a sizable lot with its
twin with plenty of open surroundings - great
for kids. However, it seems a bit under-utilized.
• I turned in a hard-copy for this building.
• This is a rare find in the R1A zone - to have 4
units and only .26 FAR - and has to do with the
enormous amount of surrounding yard space.

Also has an “enclosed” feel because of how far
it’s set back from the sidewalk and separated
from neighboring buildings.
• Would fit better if the landscaping matched it’s
companion building next door.
• This is a suburban site development pattern, not
a more urban one. Not a great example to ask
about - I would think people will respond more
about this very different typology rather than
the “compatibility” you’re asking about.
• This space needs some trees and other greenery.

Landlord should be required to add them.
• Overall, thumbs up. Nice setback, off-street
parking, lots of open space. Could probably add
buildings/units (thoughtfully) to create more
housing here.
• It’s the right height and style for existing
community.
• Pretty simple 1943 design but quite pleasant
including the way the two buildings face each
other across the landscaped drive area.
• In reviewing this project I kept in mind the
period in which this was built. But, for today the
property is wasted with yard space no one uses,
the finishes are low quality, the FAR could be
higher.
• Nice big lot with ample parking.
• It is a box devoid of architectural interestStyle is
attractive tho building is tall for

3. 1080 DELAWARE STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
would improve the social aspects and outdoor
opportunities for residents.
• Landscaping would help.
• If these units are BMR, leave them alone. If they
are not, it would be OK to add another story and
allot space to BMR.
• Could use landscaping, the large bark area does
not provide a nice transition between public and
private space.
• None
• Needs vegetation (native plants)
• -While this has a lot of open space, it provides
little or no privacy for the tenants: how can
anyone have patio furniture or a bbq without
it getting stolen here? The size of open space is
great, but it maybe more than the residents need,
and not arranged in a way that is most useful to
residents: I can’t tell from looking if the whole
apartment comes out and plays ball games, or
fetch with dogs in their vast front lot or parking
area or not, so I can’t judge its utility. -Massing
design is just a single block -uninteresting, but
unoffensive because the building size doesn’t
overwhelm the lot. -My preference is for
permeable pavers, but at least the driveway
seems decently maintained. Again, given the
open space on the lot, the driveway material is
less important.
• Landscaping: Small bushed and a few tall trees.
• More density
• Make better use of the lot.
• Ugly from street tho good height (at only 2
stories). Needs more plants, especially in front.
• anything to make it less a box
• This is not great. The lot is huge, but you’re
ultimately not getting very much housing, and
it also completely turns a cold shoulder to the
street/neighbors. This would be much better
with more and smarter lot coverage, like a
generous green courtyard entrance to a single
building, and smarter parking placement. More
height would also be good - an extra story would
go entirely unnoticed given the surrounding
buildings, and assuming some more trees

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
187

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

neighborhood? (Other)
• Best large building in san pablo corridor!
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on
the previous page.
• At four stories, this is a large building for the area but doesn’t loom over the adjacent buildings,
and in fact steps back so as not to infringe on the
house to the west. This is going to be the future
of the San Pablo corridor and that is OK.
• Tower elements. Eaves visible from street level.
• Part of the building has good set back, allowing
tree scape. The portion on Delaware just before
San Pablo should have same setback and trees
for human scale. The step backs for light access
to adjacent buildings looks well done.
• I like the attempt to make it appear to be multiple
buildings so that the massing is in scale with the
neighborhood
• Color
• Overall style is compatible with neighborhood
• Great that there is no driveway cut along San
Pablo sidewalk. -Great step downs to small
neighboring house -Materials of wood, some
decorative choices, arches, peaked roof...etc.
match neighborhood. -The variation in massing
on facade helps offset the overhanging parts over
the sidewalk on San Pablo (small overhanging
bay windows, rather than the entire facade
overhanging the sidewalk).
• Excellent stepbacks from neighboring
properties.
• Architectural style, windows, & finishes.
• Way too tall for Delaware St./neighborhood but
very nice design, especially in and out facade.
• architectural interest, variations in height &
color. 4 stories is ok for san pablo avenue but It
overshadows the homes to its west
• Well done. San Pablo location warrants height
and full lot coverage. The design has the
randomness very typical of this kind of project,
and is already looking dated, but that’s fine -
buildings aren’t timeless until they’re very old.

The step down to neighboring houses is well
done, but not necessary.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Design Review: please no more faux traditional
architecture.
• Open space on the street--include a break in the
facade to provide a green space or a plaza for
residents, neighbors, and people strolling by to
enjoy
• I’m somewhat concerned about those on the 2nd
floor dealing with noise and fumes. I can’t tell
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 57 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1508 10th St.111080 Delaware St.3
6 UNIT COTTAGE COURT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 6
Year 1926
Height 1 story
FAR 0.37
Density 30 units per acre
Coverage 46%
MIXED-USE 5+
Zoning C-W W. Berkeley Commercial
Units 51 (4 live/work)
Year 2012
Height 4 stories, 49’
FAR 2.15
Density 108 units per acre
Coverage 83%
188
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

what the set-backs in the back are. .
• More height is OK for San Pablo
• This building is not “compatible” with the
one story stucco commercial building across
the street nor with the residence behind it on
Delaware Street. Does that matter? Probably
not. I would like to see the zones behind the
major corridors up-zoned to create a transition,
rather than asking buildings on the corridors to
step down to R zone height.
• Most of the units have very little outdoor space
for families.
• No public park/green space
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• UNENGAGING STOREFRONT. Even if retail
spaces are empty, or if they are live-work
spaces, Berkeley needs to work on a way to
match up local artists to fill the empty windows,
or ANYTHING to make it more interesting. -can’t
tell if there is open space provided for residents.
-Substantially larger than neighboring buildings
• No yards, some plantings packed into tiny green
area in front.
• Decreasing height to the west more setbacks

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Except for its height and utter lack of life
presence, this side of this recent “sentinel” is
easier to take than the San Pablo frontage. The
street aspect from the 10th/Delaware + is rather
impressive- at night. No evidence of street-level
life, along a wide inviting sidewalk. Very gloomy.

The facing shingles are a disgrace [“sentinet” = a
prominent neighborhood landmark]
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ See my comments on
the previous page.
• This is an excellent example of stepbacks away
from the commercial area into the R1A zone,
which really reduces the feeling of “mass” from
the west side.
• Good stepbacks/downs to blend with properties
in back.
• It’s more successful as a transitional building
abutting the smaller-scale residences than as a
San Pablo building. Zoning standards that would
force this much fracturing of a facade could lead
to chaotic-looking compositions. This one is
verging on that.
• This survey is asking about architecture, not
streetscape or urban pattern. Just keep that in
mind when you try to make use of the “findings,”
because what you’ve found will be whether
people can match shapes and features. I’m not
sure how this will be helpful.
• We need family friendly BMR units. That is the
“missing middle” we really need, since market
rate is for upper income people.
• Nice transitions between public and private
spaces. Good that highest walls face busiest
street (San Pablo)
• Building’s height is too high. Style is wrong style
for existing community.
• If San Pablo Ave is going to mostly be built to 5+
stories, which currently doesn’t fit the general
neighborhood or street, there needs to be a plan
to make the street levels engaging, support more
retail, or arts, or nonprofits, or community uses...
etc.
• Nice lively design in facade and use of materials
and attractive garage entry (which is unusual).

It steps down to the neighbor homes very well.
• SPA is where housing should be targeted. This
is a great example of what can be done. This
has great sidewalks, commercial space, and the
garage entrance on a side street.
• This is a really well-done project and its size
is appropriate for its location. The way it steps
down toward theneighborhood works well. The
Architectural style and finishes used relate well
to the neighborhood.
189

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

4. 1744-1756 10TH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This apartment building is acceptable in the
neighborhood.
• This building matches the scale of others on the
block. Is that what you mean by “compatible?”
Could taller be “compatible?” Sure it could. Must
the building have the same setback all the way
down the streetscape? I don’t think so. It makes
it flat and boring. It would be better to allow a
50% encroachment for a portion of the property
line, for interest.
• Architectural style
• Nicely very little driveway cut across sidewalk
• OK but 1810-1816 10th from the same year is a
much better design.
• Placement with street feels good for structures
of this era.
• Pitched roof line, square interspersed with
rectangle shapes.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• Site and street trees
• Blocky forms like this connote rental and
multifamily ‘plexes.
• Why would we want to increase the degree to
which this building is ‘compatible’ with a very
boring block that isn’t dense enough to meet the
needs of this community?
• This property could be improved if one units
was removed and a third story added to the
two units fronting 10th St. With a step back the
unit fronting Delaware could also support a 3rd
story. This would. These actions would improved
density and add family friendly open space.
• Fits in nicely with the neighborhood, nicely set
back with attractive plantings in front yards.

Mini front porches facing street a nice touch.

Giant parking lot kind of a bummer, would be
nice if some of it were yard/recreation space for
the dwellings.
• None
• Needs landscaping with native plants
• Looks like yard space lacks privacy: no way to
have patio furniture or bbq without it being
stolen
• Improved landscaping to buffer the building
from the street.
• More density
• Very plain and unattractive shape. No yard,
skinny strip of green around outer perimeter.
• These buildings could be denser, and much more
beautiful and welcoming for their occupants and
the neighborhood. They’re “appropriate” in so
far as they match the scale of some neighboring
structures, but there are taller buildings nearby.

They could definitely use better differentiation
between the units (e.g. better stoops/porches).

It’s nice that the parking is back away from the
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 58 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1744 -1756 10th St .4870-880 Jones St., 1500-1504 Seventh St.10 5 UNITS IN TWO BUILDINGS
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 5
Year 1943
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.67
Density 52 units per acre
Coverage 53%
5 ATTACHED TOWNHOMES
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 5
Year 1989
Height 2 stories
FAR 0.48
Density 18 units per acre
Coverage 28%
190
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

sidewalk, and it could be improved by putting up
a nice portico and gate/door over the driveway
- nicer for residents, and nicer for the neighbors,
as it would disrupt and hide the concrete
expanse.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Superficially good, but really no usable common
open space. Close to street okay now, but if large
buildings/more traffic nearby, seems could be
degraded livability. Stepback ok on north, but
twin buildings in back shade yard next door to
North.
• The “yard” space is the lawned green buffers
between sidewalk and buildings. The interior
spaces are all to the benefit of vehicle parking,
however. There is one shaded passageway with
some planting. This “walker-built” arrangement
of gathered 4-plexes is found throughout West
Berkeley/Oceanview. I love them...
• All over the country, houses sit empty because
they are bought in large part by hedge funds and
the very wealthy while the pretense continues
that this new housing will benefit anyone except
the super wealthy. Also, consider whole area,
not only house by house. Did you know a great
percentage of new housing is bought by hedge
fund companies, not individuals? Maybe over
50%. See Aaron Glantz’s book and Chuck Collins:
https://inequality.org/great-divide/tax-the-
rich-global-wealth-report/ =See my comments
on the first page.
• Though the lot coverage is 8-13% above what’s
permissible in this zone, it seems to not be
noticeable because of the nice job of creating
relative setback from the sidewalk and a front
yard. The predominant context of this part of the
block contains 2-story buildings.
• Like that parking is behind and doors, and small
porch & overhang, open up to sidewalk
• Lack of thoughtful residential design elements
that you’d find on single-family homes. People
like those elements not just because they are
single-family, but because they are more human-
scale and interesting.
• The city should plant, or require landlords to
provide street trees.
• Again, for the time in which this was built, it
makes sense. But today’s standards, it’s a poor
use of land. The FAR is too low. The pitched roof,
windows, and siding are appropriate.
• Nice backdoors/steps decorated by tenants with
flower pots. Altho backyard is a concrete parking
area it has a ‘communal’ feel since all backdoors
open onto this space.

5. 1611 & 1613 10TH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This back building seems to span two properties.

How is that possible? Is it a single parcel despite
appearances otherwise?
• Matched predominant 1 story context of that part
of the block (with second stories occasionally set
back from the sidewalk)
• Taller height in the rear, adjacent to CW zoning,
is great.
• It’s compatible because it’s low density. Is that
kind of compatible “good?”
• Only one driveway cut shared by two units
-Highest part of back building is very tall, but
at least not the entire footprint of building, so it
isn’t looming
• This works. Because of the color, it’s nearly
invisible from the street anyway. the only person
impacted by the density here is the immediate
neighbor in the gray house.

2. What features could be different to improve
compatibility? (Other)
• No vehicle parking on site, high portion backs to
San Pablo commercial, but NOT 2 stories! 3 story
“observation tower” highly intrusive to western
neighbors...
• This building works well in the neighborhood
and doesn’t affect the character at the street.
• Appears congested due to forced rear setback.
• Stylistically incomparable with existing house
on property
• Strange access to back unit
• Driveway is not enough for occupants
191

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Can’t tell if massive windows of back unit
interfere with privacy of either houses on the
street?

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Two small and dreary houses. No frontage
appeal. Hills view to East is blocked by tall recent
addition to a property on next block over. While
in physical concert with the street, they are less-
than-ideal representatives.
• Hard to tell how the rear building looks or is
massed, etc. from these images.
• Nice way to integrate two story building in back
with one-story buildings in the neighborhood.
• Missing Middle housing, and ADUs, need to be
allowed to be AT the property line is situations
like this, where a residential neighbor isn’t
affected. Be aware that people taking the survey
may not go to Google’s aerial view and see that
there’s a big unit in the rear.
• It’s perfectly compatible with old Berkeley. Once
again, is that good?
• The back building is really tall and very close
to the back of the property. In this case it backs
up on a commercial area so it’s fine, but I’d be
very concerned if there were private residences
behind it. Strange lot shape with unclear access
to back unit.
• Need drive for occupancy for street sweeper
service. Also, to cut down parking issues on
street.
• Rear unit does not respect front unit design
and materials seem inferior as 5 years old and
already looking dingy.
• Nicely done!
• Good mix of styles, like the use of porous
materials for the driveway. This is a good
example of adding additional housing without
losing existing housing.
• Altho original house is quite attractive with a
typical (for neighborhood) front yard, the words
that immediately come to mind to describe the
back house are modern monstrosity. I suppose
no backyard due to second house back there.
• its cramped and the 2nd story addition looks
like it was dropped on - out of place.

6. 1626 & 1628 10TH STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• We can’t see the yard, but this building is
respectful of the neighborhood and doesn’t alter
the character at the street.
• Like the previous example, matched
predominant 1-2 story form on this block.
• It’s typical, therefore “compatible”.
• Is that an ADU in the back? (The blue building
with the shed roof.) It’s not particularly
compatible in terms of form, but I don’t think
that matters. It is compatible in scale with old
Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 59 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 802-808, 812 Page St.91611 & 1613 10th St.5
4 DETACHED UNITS, 1 OFFICE
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 4
Year 2017
Height 3 stories, 35’
FAR 1.3
Density 27 units per acre
Coverage 54%
2 UNITS ON ONE LOT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 2
Year 2007
Height 2 stories, 31’
FAR 0.45
Density 13 units per acre
Coverage 32%
192
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031

Berkeley.
• Nicely maintains neighborhood character with
new home WAY back
• Height feels lower because roof line isn’t
uniformly at maximum building height. -Good
shared driveway and semipermeable pavement
-looks like residents have small amount of
private yard in middle
• This works - very typical all over Berkeley
right now. They kept the exact scale of the
street (which is VERY low - too low), and even
ameliorated any noticeable height using that
slanted roof. I think they should be free to build
at least two full stories on any residential street,
but this is fine. There’s no yard, but that’s a
choice for the occupants, and does not impact
anyone else.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Ruinous addition in back
• Trees
• With full driveways separating homes, there’s
plenty of opportunity for a higher building.
• What do you mean by “improve compatibility?”
Make things match? Preserve the scale of a
previous century?
• Make it more stylistically compatible with
existing homes; color is awful
• Back unit VERY close to edge of property.
• Needs landscaping (native plants)

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Can’t see back - appears to be well-planned.
• The structure in back blocks the view of houses
to its West.
• Good way to preserve one-story character of
neighborhood, with stepback.
• Although this is obviously “compatible” with
(the same as) the houses around it, it’s too
suburban for what Berkeley needs to be today
and tomorrow.
• I wonder if the people behind the tall home on
the next street over feel awful about a new, tall
building pressed up against their back fence and
looming over them. Hoping this kind of thing is
accounted for when signing off on new buildings.
• Building is the wrong style for area. It do not fit
in with existing community
• Rear unit a bit incongruous in design. Works
as a way to increase density in single family
neighborhood but not as compatible design. One
doesn’t have to do the same style, just respect
what is there.
• Nicely done!
• Good mix of styles/old & new. I like the porous
materials for the driveway. This is a good
example of adding additional housing without
losing existing housing.
• Original house very nice. Modern back house
wouldn’t fit character of neighborhood if it were
seen. Probably no backyard but small front
yard/plantings typical of neighborhood.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 60 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1626 & 1628 10th St.51444-1446 Fifth St.8
2 UNITS ON ONE LOT
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 2
Year 2021
Height 2 stories, 25’
FAR 0.43
Density 17 units per acre
Coverage 39%
8 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 8 total, 4 per lot
Year 2021
Height 3 stories, 33’
FAR 1.32
Density 30 units per acre
Coverage 42%
193

APPENDIX F OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

7. 908-914 CEDAR STREET
Comments

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features
that make it compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood? (Other)
• This building is fine for the neighborhood. I
don’t like the buildings- they are clearly built by
a developer for a profit, but they are acceptable
from a planning perspective.
• Separation between front of subject building and
adjoining 1 story building to the west (driveway
goes to rear building and serves as separation
barrier).
• Overall scale and residential detailing and
materials.
• I do think these buildings are compatible, even
though they are taller than their neighbors.
• Very attractive, integrates well, really nice
setbacks
• Shared driveways; reduced driveway cuts
across sidewalk -Achitecture styles vary from
classic-isn to modernisn, but all compatible with
neighborhood -Nicely set back from sidewalk
with garden -Looks like residents have private
garden space.
• Yard space front
• This is great. Cedar is a busy street, and has no
business having so many single-story buildings.

This development has nice diversity of textures
and depths across the frontage, good materials
and landscaping. It fits in perfectly with the
neighborhood. They’ve even reduced the impact
of their driveway/parking space by splitting it to
both sides.

2. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• More open space. Why does the City not
have residential open space/storm water
management requirements?
• Landscaping, trees, street trees
• Nothing. They are compatible enough.

Personally, I would like to see a third story and
an extra unit.
• A traditional duplex would be better than
shoving two SFH onto one lot
• More units in a space this size.
• None
• Needs landscaping (native plants)
• Buildings are bigger/bulkier and taller than
other homes on block, don’t fit with character
of neighborhood. 2 more buildings in back,
probably no back yard, small yard in front.

3. Would you like to provide any additional
explanation or feedback?
• Appears to be well-planned. Could be wider
setback on Cedar. Can’t quite see back south set
back. Appears to respect neighborhood.
• A rear (hidden here) building is huge; IT is
the affront here. Although recent and rather
brusque, they are not unsympathetic to that
stretch of a changing Cedar St.

Fold on the dotted line to create a booklet

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________

1. For a building of this scale, what are the features that make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
F Massing. Overall building shape, size, and form
F Lot Coverage. Percentage of the lot that is occupied by building(s) F Placement. Building location on the lot and distance from the sidewalk F Height. Vertical distance from sidewalk to top of roof or parapet F Stepbacks. Upper stories pushed back from the sidewalk or adjacent buildings F Yard Space. Ground area not occupied by building(s), including landscaped areas F Balconies/Terraces. Upper-story open space used by residents F Other. Please Specify _________________________________________________________________ 61 BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area BMR = Below Market Rate, affordable to households that are moderate income or below FAR = Floor Area Ratio, calculated as gross floor area divided by lot area F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Massing
F Lot Coverage
F Placement
F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Other. Please Specify ________________________________________________________________ F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Height
F Stepbacks
F Yard Space
F Balconies/Terraces F Balconies/Terraces

3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback? 3. Would you like to provide any additional explanation or feedback?

2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 2. What features could be different to improve compatibility? 1461-1467 Fifth St.7908-914 Cedar St.6
4 DETACHED UNITS ON 1 LOT
Zoning MUR Mixed-Use Residential
Units 4
Year 2015
Height 3 stories, 33’
FAR 1.29
Density 34 units per acre
Coverage 43%
4 DETACHED UNITS ON 2 LOTS
Zoning R-1A Limited 2-Family
Units 4 total, 2 per lot
Year 2020
Height 2-stories, 25’3”
FAR 0.69
Density 16 units per acre
Coverage 39%
194
City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031