Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

Wednesday, January 18, 2023 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M EE TI NG O F T HE

B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Wednesday, January 18, 2023
4:00 PM

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency, this meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. The COVID -19 state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and presents imminent risks to the health of attendees. Therefore, no physical meeting location will be available.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1619486060. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 948 6060. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record , email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981 -6900. The City C ouncil may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Wednesday, January 18, 2023 AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak use the "raise hand" function to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five-minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak use the "raise hand" function to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker.

The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the su bject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

1. Adoption of 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution to: (A) certify the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2022010331) and adopt related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, a statement of overriding considerations, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and (B) approve and adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the period of 2023-2031.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Adjournment

Wednesday, January 18, 2023 AGENDA Page 3
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 5th day of January, 2023.

Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Date: January 5, 2023
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the N otice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, South Branch – 1901 Russell

Wednesday, January 18, 2023 AGENDA Page 4
COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet.

Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #1: Adoption of 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

1. Sophia DeWitt

2. Tsahai Ungar

3. Joy Chiu

4. Loir Kossowsky

5. Sheila Goldmacher

6. Phil Allen

7. Susan Bassein

8. Alice Armstrong

9. Tuan Ngo

10. Brittney Goodman

11. Tobias Damm-Luhr

12. David Nutt

13. Alice Green

14. Katharine Bierce

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

PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Adoption of 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

RECOMMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution to: (A) certify the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2022010331) and adopt related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, a statement of overriding considerations, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and (B) approve and adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the period of 2023-2031.

SUMMARY
Under state law (Government Code Article 10.6), each local government in California must adopt an update to its General Plan Housing Element every eight years. The City of Berkeley (“City”) has prepared an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan to affirmatively further fair housing and accommodate the City’s 8,934-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element 6th cycle.

The content of the 2023-2031 Housing Element is structured for consistency with State Housing Element Law and prepared in conjunction with significant public participation and review. The Housing Element Update identifies locations for development or redevelopment of housing and also demonstrates the City’s strategy to meet locally determined housing need through policies and housing programs outlined within the Housing Element.

This staff report provides a summary of the Housing Element requirements and how the requirements are addressed, as well as how the City has revised the Housing Element in response to HCD’s review letter. Based on the comments from HCD and the City’s responses to those comments, the 2023-2031 Housing Element would meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law upon local adoption.

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
An HCD-certified Housing Element makes the City eligible for numerous sources of funding, such as Local Housing Allocations, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grants, SB 1 Planning Grants, CalHOME Program Grants, Infill Infrastructure Grants, Pro-Housing Design funding, Local Housing Trust Funds, and Regional Transportation Funds such as OneBayArea Grants.

Conversely, if the City does not adopt a Housing Element in substantial compliance with state law, the City faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court could also limit the applicability of local zoning standards and decision-making authority for projects containing lower or moderate-income units. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources.

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Housing Element Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for its most vulnerable community members. The Housing Element Update will serve as the City of Berkeley’s housing framework for the eight-year period between 2023-2031 (herein referred to as the “6th cycle”).

General Plan Housing Element Amendment
The proposed Resolution would comprehensively update the Housing Element of the General Plan. Staff have prepared an update to the Housing Element (Attachment 1), which includes the following components:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview of the purpose, scope and organization of the Housing Element.
 Chapter 2: Goals and Policies. Outlines the City’s commitments to providing and preserving housing opportunities in the City.
 Chapter 3: Housing Needs. Provides a summary of the City’s community profile, including demographic and housing characteristics, and an assessment of the associated housing needs.
 Chapter 4: Housing Constraints. Provides an assessment of the potential constraints to housing development and preservation, including governmental and non-governmental constraints.
 Chapter 5: Housing Resources. Provides a collection of resources available for meeting the City’s existing and projected housing needs, including a sites inventory and housing implementation programs, as well as assessment of direct or indirect impacts in furthering fair housing choice.

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

 Appendix A. Publicly Assisted Housing. Provides a list of all deed restricted units that receive public funding, including units that are and are not at risk of conversion to market rate.
 Appendix B. Development Standards. Summarizes residential and mixed-use development standards, such as requirements for lot area, height limit, setbacks, coverage, and usable open space, in residential and commercial zoning districts.  Appendix C. Sites Inventory. Provides quantitative and qualitative factors to indicate the potential for redevelopment on each candidate site, by income category.
 Appendix D. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments. Evaluates the housing programs and quantified objectives in the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015- 2023) and the City’s efforts in meeting and achieving the program requirements and objectives.
 Appendix E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Provides a summary of the sites inventory by neighborhood groupings and zoning types to demonstrate how the inventory meets the criteria for AFFH, and identifies fair housing issues, their contributing factors, and prioritized actions to address them with specific goals and actions.
 Appendix F. Outreach and Engagement. Contains a record of the City’s outreach and engagement efforts, including staff reports, presentations, survey results, and photographs of public input events and board meetings.

Sites Inventory
The Housing Element must include a sites inventory to demonstrate that there is sufficient land suitable for residential development or redevelopment to meet the City’s RHNA. The number of units that can be realistically accommodated must be specified for each site, as well as whether the site is adequate to accommodate “lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing” (Gov Code §65583.2(c)). If a site is included in the sites inventory, it is expected to be a location where housing could be developed to help the City meet its RHNA.

The staff reports that accompanied the Planning Commission meetings on February 9, 20221, May 4, 20222, and the City Council Worksession on March 15, 20223 provide a detailed overview of the criteria and steps necessary to identify land suitable for 1 February 9, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element EIR Scoping Session. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022-02-09_PC_Agenda%20Packet.pdf 2 May 4, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element Update: Preliminary Sites, Goals, Policies, and Programs. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022-05- 04%20PC%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf
3 March 15, 2022. City Council Housing Element Worksession #3. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city- council-meetings/2022-03-15%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Council%20WS.pdf

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

residential development that can be feasibly developed during the 2023-2031 period. In summary, the City assessed sites in three categories to meet the RHNA:

1. Likely Sites. Actual residential or mixed-use residential development proposals that have received their land use entitlement since 2018 but did not receive their certificate of occupancy (“building permit finaled”) prior to June 30, 2022. For these projects, the number of units and their affordability reflect actual project plans, including density bonus units. A projection of a number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are also included in the Likely category, based on recent development trends since 2018, using assumed levels of affordability based on the draft Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)4.

2. Pipeline Sites. Residential or mixed-use residential proposals that are currently under review, have submitted pre-applications with the City, or are otherwise actively engaging with the City on development. The number and affordability levels of units in these projects reflect the proposed plans to the extent they are known. Projected development at the North Berkeley BART and Ashby BART stations within the planning period (2023-2031) is also included in the Pipeline category.

3. Opportunity Sites. Properties assessed and considered for re-use that fit certain criteria, such as larger parcel size, older existing structures, lower floor area ratio, lower improvement-to-land ratio, adjacency to new development, and potential for lot consolidation through common ownership. To count towards the RHNA, Opportunity Sites must be in a zoning district that allows for residential use and provides the potential for more units. For Opportunity Sites to count towards the lower income categories in the City of Berkeley, sites must meet a minimum lot size of 0.35 acres and a minimum density trend of 30 units/acre.

Table 1 Summary Sites Inventory Capacity
Units by Income CategoryProject Status
Extremely
/Very Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
RHNA 2,446 1,408 1,416 3,664 8,934
Likely Sites 313 346 189 1,853 2,701
ADU Trend 180 180 180 60 600
Entitled Projects since 2018 133 166 9 1,793 2,101
Pipeline Sites 647 352 41 4,771 5,811
4 September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents- mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

BART Sites 210 210 --- 780 1,200
Applications under Review 84 29 11 1,424 1,548
Anticipated Projects (Pre-application) 353 113 30 2,567 3,063 Opportunity Sites 3,201 1,867 1,421 6,489
High Priority (>0.5 acre) 2,225 338 340 2,903
Medium Priority (0.35-0.5 acre) 976 345 248 1,569
Low Priority (<0.35 acre) 0 1,184 833 2,017
Total Capacity 4,859 2,097 8,045 15,001
Surplus 1,005 681 4,381 6,067
% Buffer 26% 48% 120% 68%
Housing Programs
The Housing Element must include implementation programs that address identified housing needs—including accommodating special needs populations, responding to governmental and non-governmental constraints, and facilitating the development of housing to meet RHNA. 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).
 Identify specific and measurable outcomes.

City staff identify 37 housing programs offered through several City departments and divisions and described in detail in Section 5.4 Housing Programs of the Housing Element. Exclusion from the Housing Element does not preclude a housing program from implementation during the 6th cycle planning period; the housing programs largely reflect current City Council referrals that are funded and/or staffed and are included in the future workplans for departments, thus ensuring the programs can be realistically attained and implemented in the 2023-2031 period.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), passed in 2018, created new requirements for jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing as part of the Housing Element Update process.

These requirements are intended to address racial inequalities, increase housing

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

opportunities in high resource neighborhoods, and bring additional resources to traditionally under-resourced neighborhoods.

The City’s AFFH analysis includes:
 An assessment of the RHNA sites inventory by neighborhood groupings and zoning types to demonstrate how the inventory meets AFFH criteria, described in Section E2 Sites Inventory of Appendix E Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.  An assessment of the City’s fair housing issues, including enforcement and targeted outreach, demographic integration and segregation, and access to opportunities, as described in Section E4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues of Appendix E Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Key findings of the AFFH analysis include:
 Income Level. A larger proportion of moderate and above moderate RHNA units are located in lower and moderate income areas (LMI), indicating that the City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in LMI areas.
 Race/Ethnicity. Approximately 47 percent of Berkeley residents are non-white and the majority of RHNA units are located in Census block groups where between 41 percent and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group, reflecting the overall composition of Berkeley.

Table 5.6 Summary of AFFH Actions provides an overview of the various housing program actions that have direct or indirect beneficial impacts in furthering fair housing choices, such as programs that support fair housing outreach and enforcement, housing mobility, and incentivize increased housing capacity in high resource areas.

HCD Review
On November 8, 2022 the City received HCD’s formal 90-day initial review comments (Attachment 4). HCD identified revisions that they deemed necessary for the agency to certify the City’s Housing Element. The following is a summary of the revisions made to address HCD’s comments:

1. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites. Added references in Appendix C, Table C-10 Opportunity Sites-No Rezone Required, to similar development trend based on experience with Likely, Pipeline, or other recent projects for nonvacant opportunity sites. Supporting factors include land use and/or geographic trends to demonstrate that the existing land use is not an impediment to additional residential development and can be reasonably expected to discontinue within the planning period.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Modified Section 5.1.2 Projected ADUs to reduce the projected number of ADUs from 100 units per year to 75 units per year to conservatively account for the City’s revised February 2022 ADU

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

ordinance that limits the number of units in the Hillside Overlay District to one ADU or one JADU per lot.

3. Environmental Constraints. Clarified in Section 4.2.2 Environmental Constraints that (1) sites with configuration constraints such as irregular shapes or utility easements were only included if there were opportunities for lot consolidation under common ownership to create a developable site; and (2) no major environmental conditions were identified that would preclude redevelopment. Explained that developments must meet stringent seismic building codes, no higher density residential developments are identified within the 100-year flood plain, and demonstrated trend of redevelopment of vehicle service stations.

4. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters). Included additional detail in Section 4.1.4 (Emergency Shelters) on locations (C-DMU and other Commercial districts), acreages of potential capacity, and other existing land uses (e.g. hotel/motel conversions) where emergency shelters are permitted ministerially by-right for projects of a certain bed count (up to 60 beds in the C- DMU and up to 25 beds in other Commercial districts). Added text to Program 31-Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing that, by December 2023, the City will identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size, and apply only objective development standards in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2339.

5. Program 28-Bart Station Area Planning. Added to Program 28-BART Station Area Planning a detailed schedule of City actions and additional milestones proposed throughout the planning period. Included a reference to Program 36- Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring, in which the City will identify alternative opportunity sites in the event that insufficient progress is made within the first three years of the planning period.

6. Land Use Controls. Described in Section 4.1.2 Zoning Ordinance (Developing at Assumed Densities), nine prototype site development projects that demonstrate existing standards do not constrain development at the assumed densities represented in the Sites Inventory. Added a summary of the February 2022 Financial Feasibility Analysis conducted by Street Level Advisors, which demonstrated that the City’s current housing development environment and proposed affordable housing fee structure does not present a barrier to residential development. Highlighted references to Program 3-Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements, which proposes a residential financial feasibility study, and Program 33-Zoning Code Amendment: Residential, which proposes zoning amendments to increase development potential to ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA.

7. Local Processing and Permit Procedures. Added text to Section 4.1.3 Permit Processing Procedures for Use Permits, Administrative Use Permits, and Design Review Committee detailing the timelines and specific procedures and findings for decision-making (staff level, Zoning Officer, and/or Zoning Adjustments

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

Board). Clarified that the City processes all eligible housing applications within the limit of five public hearing and meeting provisions of SB 330, including residential development or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square- footage residential, and transitional or supportive housing. Reiterated references to Program 33-Zoning Code Amendment: Residential for development of objective development standards, Program 34-Permit Processing amendments to reduce permit processing timelines, and Program 29-Middle Housing to provide a streamlined process for “middle housing” projects in lower density districts.

8. Permit Streamlining Act. Clarified in Section 4.1.3 Permit Processing Procedures that all projects—and subsequent resubmittals—are reviewed for completeness at the staff level within 30 days of initial paid invoice, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act.

9. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Clarified in Section

4.1.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Definition of Family) that the City’s definitions of “Family” and “Household” do not require a single lease or rental agreement, nor does the City monitor or enforce shared living expenses among household members. As a result, proposed definition amendment in Program 31- Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing to simplify the definition of “Household” while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements, such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation.

10.Requests for Lesser Densities. Explained in Section 4.2.3 Market Constraints (Density) that actual development trends largely reflect higher densities than those assumed in the 5th cycle Housing Element, with the exception of neighborhood commercial districts, which are typically smaller sites under separate ownership with infill or small addition projects that characteristically yield a lower density. For neighborhood commercial districts, the 6th cycle Housing Element reduces the density assumptions to reflect actual trends and anticipated capacity. In addition, added reference to Program 27-Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors and Program 33- Zoning Code Amendment: Residential. The City is in the process of evaluating zoning and objective development standards, which would accommodate increased housing capacity in higher density districts, along high resource transit and commercial corridors, and include a minimum density standard to ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance.

11.Beneficial Impact. Added near-term actions and deliverables and interim milestones during the first three years of the 6th cycle planning period between 2023-2026 for the following programs to ensure beneficial impact within the eight-year planning period:
a. Program 4 Housing Trust Fund – Added near-term milestones for funding Homekey projects, Housing Trust Fund pipeline projects, Small Sites projects, and BART Station Area Planning development.

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

b. Program 12 Workforce Housing – Accelerated review and entitlement timeline for 110 units of workforce housing for Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) education workers to June 2023. The City received an initial SB 35 application for the 1701 San Pablo site in October 2022. c. Program 17 Accessible Housing – Added near-term action (December 2025) to facilitate first floor residential use that encourages accessible design in transit and service-rich neighborhoods as part of the City’s effort to adopt Objective Design Standards for higher density districts. d. Program 28 BART – Added near-term milestones for establishing agreements with BART, selecting developer teams, funding awards and assisting with project financing, and adopting Objective Design Standards to facilitate the entitlement process.
e. Program 30 ADUs – Added near-term action (December 2023) to amend the City’s local ADU ordinance based on revised statutory requirements, including AB 2221 (detached garages, front setbacks) and SB 897 (maximum height).
f. Program 33 Zoning Code Amendment: Residential– No change, as the program already contained near-term action items.
g. Program 34 Permit Processing—Added near-term action (December 2025) to bring to Council for consideration increased thresholds for discretionary review of residential and mixed-use residential projects.

12.Specific Neighborhoods for AFFH. Added place-based emphasis to Table 5.6 Summary of AFFH Actions for the following programs:
a. Program 6-Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement – Added targeted emphasis in Central and South Berkeley, and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus, where there are higher proportions of lower income households, protected groups at risk of displacement, and cost burdened renters.
b. Program 8-Rental Housing Safety – Added targeted emphasis in Central and South Berkeley where there are higher proportions of renters and aging housing units.
c. Program 11-Rental Assistance – Added targeted emphasis in Central and South Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where there are higher proportions of cost burdened renter populations.

Project Timeline and Public Engagement
AB 215 (2021) effectively shortened the timeline for the preparation of the 6th cycle Housing Element by 74 days. The law requires that cities make the initial draft Housing Element publicly available for a minimum of 30 days, then take a minimum of 10 business days to consider and incorporate public comments, prior to sending a revised draft to HCD for initial review. In addition, any subsequent draft revision must be posted

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

online and noticed at least seven days before resubmitting to HCD. The law also increased HCD’s initial review period from 60 to 90 days. However, the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023 remained unchanged.

Staff prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update in conjunction with input from members of the community through three public workshops and six outreach events, four City Council Worksessions, five Planning Commission meetings, a dozen commission and committee meetings, three online surveys, two walking tours, and approximately 28 stakeholder interviews and meetings over the course of 17 months.

Staff also received guidance from HCD and technical assistance from ABAG throughout the process.
 June 13 – July 14, 2022 (30 days). A public review draft of the Housing Element was made available for comment and the City received 563 comments.  July 15, 2022 – August 10, 2022 (18 business days). Staff incorporated revisions based on public feedback received and submitted its Initial Draft Housing Element to HCD for 90-day review on August 10, 2022.  September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022. The City received preliminary comments from HCD and staff incorporated revisions based on HCD comments.  October 18, 2022 – October 25, 2022 (7 days). The City published a Revised Draft “v2” for public comment and held office hours on October 24, 2022. The City received 11 comments.
 November 1, 2022. Staff incorporated revisions based on public comments and resubmitted Revised Draft “v3” to HCD for follow-up review.  November 8, 2022. The City received HCD’s formal comment letter listing revisions necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. Staff revised the draft Housing Element in response to comments from HCD (detailed in the HCD Review section above).
 November 23, 2022 – November 30, 2022 (7 days). The City published and noticed a Public Draft “v4” for subsequent public comment. The City received five comments.
 December 1, 2022 – January 30, 2023 (60 days). The City submitted Revised Draft “v5” to HCD for subsequent review.

Planning Commission Recommendation
On December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the draft Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 planning cycle and certify the accompanying EIR. The Planning Commission did not recommend changes and voted to attach a cover letter to register three thoughts with the City Council (Attachment 5). A summary of the points is provided below:

1. Prioritize growth along transit and commercial corridors in the highest resource neighborhoods. The Planning Commission recommends that City

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

Council prioritize Program 27-Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors and consider the program as a priority when budgeting and/or advising the City Manager on the appropriate staff resources to do so.

2. Prioritize policies to prevent displacement. The Planning Commission and the community voiced concerns about the risk of displacement and recommends that City Council prioritize policies to prevent it, such as the proposed Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA).

3. Commendation of staff’s work on the Housing Element.

Consequences of a Non-Compliant Housing Element
All jurisdictions within ABAG, including the City of Berkeley, must adopt a substantially compliant 6th cycle Housing Element by January 31, 2023. While HCD approval is not required for a Housing Element to be found substantially compliant with state law, Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD and jurisdictions must carry the burden of proof if challenged under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

Potential consequences for a non-compliant Housing Element, as determined by HCD, include:

1. Loss of Eligibility of State Grants, Loans, and Incentives. The City may lose eligibility or competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources. HCD may instead redirect funding into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund.

2. Enforcement and penalties by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may bring suit to remedy the violations, including significant fines. HCD shall notify the jurisdiction and “may notify the Attorney General” if the agency determines that a housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. (Gov. Code Section 65585(j))

3. HAA “Builder’s Remedy.” A court may limit local zoning standards and decision-making authority for housing projects containing units for lower or moderate-income households. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(1)-(5))

4. Consistency Rezoning Required. A court may require rezoning of sites within one year from the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023) if the jurisdiction does not identify sufficient housing sites “to accommodate the need for all groups of household income levels.” (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1)(A)) The proposed Resolution would authorize the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element to achieve state certification. Non- substantive changes include revisions that do not require amending City policy or additional City legislative action.

Environmental Determination
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Housing Element Update Project (see Attachment 3). The Project does not propose specific development

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

projects, but for the purposes of environmental review, includes a buildout projection which represents a reasonably foreseeable maximum amount of development for the 2023-2031 planning period of the Housing Element update. In total, the proposed project’s buildout projection would include the development of 19,098 units.

The EIR was made available for review through the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan- and-area-plans/housing-element-update, at the Planning and Development Department at 1947 Center Street (2nd Floor), and at the following locations in the city:
 Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch Library, 1901 Russell Street  West Branch Library, 1125 University Avenue
 Central (Downtown) Library, 2090 Kittredge Street.

The environmental review process for the Project has included:
 January 14, 2022: A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties and agencies.
 February 9, 2022: The City held an EIR scoping meeting as part of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
 August 30, 2022: A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was distributed to State and local planning agencies.
 August 30, 2022 – October 17, 2022 (45 days): The Draft EIR was made available for public review on August 30, 2022 and the public comment period closed on October 17, 2022.
 September 7, 2022. A Planning Commission hearing on the Draft EIR was held.  November 30, 2022. The Final EIR document, consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments (RTC), was published.
 December 7, 2022. The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the Final EIR and recommended that the City Council certify and adopt the EIR and adopt the Housing Element update.

City Council certification is required to complete this part of the environmental review of the Project.

Draft EIR

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR. All environmental impacts, relevant City Standard Conditions of Approval, and mitigation measures are summarized in the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Attachment 3, Exhibit B). Other than the impacts discussed below, all of the environmental effects of the Project can be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Standard Condition(s) of Approval and/or recommended mitigation measures.

The Draft EIR (see Attachment 3, Exhibit C) identified one significant and

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

unavoidable environmental impact related to Cultural Resources (impacts to historic-period resources), one significant and unavoidable impact related to Noise (temporary construction noise) and four significant and unavoidable impacts related to Wildfire (emergency evacuation and response, wildfire risk and pollutant exposure, terrain and slope impacts, and infrastructure). The Draft EIR identified cumulative impact related to Cultural Resources, Noise and Wildfire. All other environmental effects of the proposed Project can be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Standard Condition(s) of Approval and/or recommended mitigation measures. The findings include a statement of overriding consideration that provides reasons the Project could be adopted even though those impacts could occur.

2. Alternatives. As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must examine a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would feasibly obtain most of the CEQA Project Objectives, and avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant environmental impacts.  Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the existing 2015-2023 Housing Element as well as the City’s existing plans and policies that would accommodate development in accordance with the existing land use designations. This alternative assumes development of 12,450 units, or approximately 6,648 fewer units than the assumed development under the proposed HEU of 19,098 units.  Alternative 2: No Rezoning in the Hillside Overlay. One of the implementation programs of the proposed HEU is to increase density in the R-1 District. The program would specifically allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, and encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, adjusting the level of discretion to allow approval of such projects with a Zoning Certificate. Under Alternative 2, this program would not apply to portions of the R-1 district within the Hillside Overlay (R-1H district).

Without the rezoning in the R-1H district, approximately 150 units in the hillside area would not be built compared to buildout under the proposed HEU. However, if the R-1H district remains single family residential, SB 9 would apply there. SB 9, signed into law in 2021 and codified as Government Code sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6, requires agencies to ministerially approve up to two residential units on a parcel within a single-family residential zone if the development meets specific objective criteria. SB 9 also allows splitting one lot into two lots within a single-family residential zone and permitting up to two units on each parcel (four total dwelling units on what was formerly a single-unit lot) if the development complies with specific objective criteria. Based on SB 9 trends, it is anticipated that overall this alternative would not decrease development in the hillside overlay zone compared to buildout assumed under the proposed HEU.

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

 Alternative 3: No Middle Housing Rezoning. One of the implementation programs of the proposed HEU is the Middle Housing Rezoning program to increase density in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. The program would include Zoning Ordinance amendments that would allow increases in the total number of units allowed on a lot, increase the total achievable floor area on a lot, encourage a mix of unit sizes and densities, and adjust the level of discretion to approve such projects with a Zoning Certificate. For the purposes of this EIR, the Middle Housing Rezoning program was projected to result in 1,745 units over the Housing Element period. Under Alternative 3, the Middle Housing Rezoning program would not be included in the Housing Element Update.

Without Middle Housing Rezoning as part of the proposed Project, approximately 975 units fewer units would be constructed compared to buildout under the proposed HEU, which constitute the effect of not rezoning the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts. As noted above in Alternative 2, the number of additional units in the R-1 district remains the same (770), whether as a result of rezoning or through utilization of SB 9 in a case where no rezoning would occur.

Accordingly, the 770 units attributed to the R-1 district are not removed in the analysis of this Alternative. This alternative would meet all of the Project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project, as it includes fewer units.

Table 3 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed HEU for each of the issue areas studied.

Table 3. Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project Impact
Classification
Alternative
1:

No Project
Alternative 2:

No Rezone in
Hillside Overlay
Alternative 3
No Middle
Housing Rezone
Aesthetics Less than significant + = +
Air Quality Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ = +
Biological Resources Less than significant + = +
Cultural Resources Significant and unavoidable + = =
Energy Less than significant + = +
Geology/Soils Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ = +
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than significant + = +
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than significant + = +
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Less than significant + = +
Land Use and Planning Less than significant = = =
Noise Significant and unavoidable + = =

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

Population/Housing Less than significant + = +
Public Services and
Recreation
Less than significant + = +
Recreation Less than significant + = +
Transportation Less than significant - = -
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ = +
Utilities/Service Systems Less than significant + = +
Wildfire Significant and unavoidable = = =
+ Superior to the proposed Project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed Project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed Project
Final EIR
The City received written and oral comments about the Draft EIR during the official public comment period (from August 30 through October 17, 2022). All of the written comments are reproduced in their entirety in the Response to Comments document of the Final EIR. Responses to all of the comments that pertain to the EIR are addressed, including specific revisions to text in the Draft EIR that are being made to correct errors or omissions or clarify information presented in the Draft EIR. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR such that recirculation of the Draft EIR would be required.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP)
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the implementation of the Housing Element. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program (see Attachment 3, Exhibit A) for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration For each significant impact identified in the EIR, CEQA requires that a lead agency make one of the three following findings:
1) A change or mitigation has been incorporated in the project to lessen the impact; 2) Changes or mitigations to lessen the impact are the responsibility of another agency; or
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make mitigation of the impact infeasible.

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

There are eight mitigations identified in the MMRP that address impacts identified in the EIR (Finding 1): three pertaining to air quality, two pertaining to cultural resources, one pertaining to geology, one pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources and one pertaining to Wildfire.

There are no changes or mitigations to lessen impacts that are the responsibility of another agency (Finding 2).

After all mitigations are adopted, there remain significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise, cultural resources and wildfire (Finding 3). CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. Therefore in order to certify the EIR and proceed with the project, the City Council will need to make a Statement of Overriding Consideration, a formal statement by the lead agency that, having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the proposed project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes the following:
 The proposed project will ensure that the City of Berkeley meets its State- mandated RHNA requirements, including the required buffer to comply with the State Housing Element Law.
 The proposed project will encourage affordable housing, which is desired by the community and will contribute toward alleviating a shortage of housing in Berkeley and the region.
 The proposed project will encourage development of a variety of types of housing at a range of income levels.
 The proposed project will encourage the development of housing with access to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits in a manner that distributes affordable and special needs housing, including in in high resource neighborhoods, and affirmatively furthers fair housing.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, local governments are required to include the following items as components within their Housing Elements, and subsequent updates thereto:
 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). This Section includes a community’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by a community’s regional planning

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

body in partnership with HCD. The Housing Needs Assessment is covered in Chapter 3 Housing Needs.
 Evaluation of Past Performance. Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs. The Evaluation of Past Performance is covered in Appendix D Evaluation of Past Accomplishments.
 Housing Sites Inventory. Identify locations of available sites for housing development or redevelopment to demonstrate there is enough land zoned for housing to meet future need at all income levels. The Sites Inventory is summarized in Chapter 5 Housing Resources (Summary of Land Available for Housing) and further detailed in Appendix C Sites Inventory.  Community Engagement. Implement a robust community engagement program that includes reaching out to individuals and families at all economic levels of the community plus historically underrepresented groups. A summary of community engagement efforts can be found in Chapter 1 Introduction and a full record is available in Appendix F Outreach and Engagement.
 Constraints Analysis. Analyze and recommend remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development.

An analysis of existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints is detailed in Chapter 4 Housing Constraints.  Policies and Programs. Establish policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023-2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing needs.

Policies and Programs are detailed, with specific actions and timelines, in Chapter 2 Goals and Policies and Chapter 5 Housing Resources (Housing Programs).
 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). Analyze and address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity by proposing housing goals, objectives, and policies that aid in replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. AFFH analysis and actions are summarized in Chapter 5 Housing Resources (AFFH Actions Summary) and further detailed in Appendix E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Housing Sites Inventory
Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units5 (Table 2). The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is 5 December 16, 2021. Final RHNA Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/tools- resources/digital-library/proposed-finalrhnaallocationreport2023-2031pdf

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

less than the RHNA, eligible housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process.

Table 2 Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th and 6th Cycles
Income Level 5th Cycle
RHNA Units
6th Cycle
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
“No net loss” provisions of SB 166 (2017) require the City to ensure an adequate supply of land resources to be made available for housing development throughout the duration of the 2023-2031 planning period. This means if housing sites identified within the 6th cycle Housing Element are developed with non-residential uses, lower residential densities, or fewer affordable units than anticipated by the Housing Element, the Housing Element could be determined to be out of compliance. Accordingly, the City’s RHNA requirement is further buffered with 6,067 units (68 percent), including a 1,005 unit (26 percent) buffer in the lower income categories, to ensure compliance with SB 166.

Project Team
The Project involved a highly iterative and collaborative effort led by Land Use Planning staff, with consultant support on necessary technical expertise and facilitation on wide- reaching public outreach efforts. The Housing Element draft was reviewed by City staff from multiple departments and other City agencies over several revisions.  Consultant Team. The consultant team was led by Raimi and Associates, with technical guidance from Veronica Tam and Associates, environmental review by Rincon Consultants, and public engagement facilitation from Envirocom Communications.
 Land Use Planning. Jordan Klein (Planning Director), Grace Wu (Principal Planner), Zoe Covello (Assistant Planner), Justin Horner (Associate Planner), Alene Pearson (Deputy Planning Director), Steven Buckley (Planning Manager).  Heath, Housing, & Community Services. Mike Uberti (Senior Community Development Project Coordinator), Margot Ernst (Housing & Community Services Manager), Jenny Wyant (Senior Community Development Project Coordinator).

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

 Other City Divisions/Departments. Sara Stephens (City Attorney Office), Sarah Moore (Office of Energy & Sustainable Development), Jenny McNulty (Building & Safety Division), Peter Radu (Neighbor Services Division), Kieron Slaughter (Office of Economic Development), Sarah Lana (Office of Emergency Services).  Other City Agencies. Be Tran (Rent Board), Lief Bursell (Rent Board), Rachel Gonzalez-Levine (Berkeley Housing Authority).

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Housing Element of the General Plan is mandated by State law to be updated every eight years. The 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update must be adopted by the City Council by the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. A substantially compliant Housing Element will allow the City to continue to be eligible for numerous state and regional housing and infrastructure funding sources.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City may opt to make further substantive amendments, such as changes to City policies, and not adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element by the January 31, 2023 deadline, although that would put the City at risk of the penalties associated with AB 1398 and housing statute, as mentioned earlier in this report (Consequences of a Non- Compliant Housing Element). As mentioned previously, any subsequent draft revision must be posted online and noticed at least seven days before resubmitting to HCD for review and certification.

CONTACT PERSON
Grace Wu, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, [email protected] Justin Horner, Associate Planner, Planning and Development, [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element and Appendices

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

2. Draft Resolution (See page 678 of the agenda item)

3. Final EIR and Response to Comments
Exhibit A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit B. CEQA Findings: Certifications of EIR, Rejection of Alternatives and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C. Draft EIR and Appendices

4. HCD 90-Day Housing Element Comment Letter, dated November 8, 2022

5. Planning Commission Cover Letter to City Council, dated December 15, 2022

6. Public Hearing Notice
Links to Referenced or Related Documents:

1. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-03- 25%20Special%20Item%2001%20Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20- %20Rev%20Mayor.pdf

2. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-03- 25%20Special%20Item%2002%20Initiation%20of%20Participatory%20Planning %20-%20Supp%20Hahn.pdf

3. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off- Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021-04- 28%20Housing%20Element%20Update%20and%20Annual%20Progress%20Re port.pdf

4. September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022- 2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file

5. September 21, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 1 . Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-09- 21%20WS%20Item%2001%20Housing%20Element%20Update.pdf

6. December 9, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 2 . Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-12-

Adoption of Housing Element Update PUBLIC HEARING
January 18, 2023

09%20Item%2001%20Housing%20Element%20Update%20Work%20Session.p df

7. February 8, 2022. February 9, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element EIR Scoping Session. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body- meeting-agendas/2022-02-09_PC_Agenda%20Packet.pdf

8. March 15, 2022. City Council Housing Element Worksession #3. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2022-03- 15%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Council%20WS.pdf

9. May 4, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element Update: Preliminary Sites, Goals, Policies, and Programs.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022- 05-04%20PC%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf

10.December 7, 2022. Planning Commission: Housing Element Update and Environmental Impact Report.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022- 12-07%20PC%20Agenda%20Packet_0.pdf

Housing
Element
Update
REVISED DRAFT v5
DECEMBER 1, 2022

CITY OF BERKELEY
2023-2031

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1

1 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
This is a draft document
that has not been adopted by the City of Berkeley.

The purpose of this draft is to submit to the City Council for consideration for adoption.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element.................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 8

1.3 Housing Element Requirements .................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.5 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Goals and Policies .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 3 Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................................. 20

3.3 Income and Employment Characteristics ................................................................................................ 27

3.4 Special Needs Populations .............................................................................................................................. 34

3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 44

3.6 Housing Challenges ........................................................................................................................................... 58 4 Housing Constraints ..................................................................................................................................................... 62

4.1 Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................................. 62

4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................................... 97 5 Housing Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 104

5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing ............................................................................................... 104

5.2 Resources for Housing Protection, Preservation, and Production ............................................. 113

5.3 Public/Private Partnerships ....................................................................................................................... 116

5.4 Housing Programs .......................................................................................................................................... 117

5.5 AFFH Actions Summary ................................................................................................................................ 152

5.6 Quantified Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 158

3 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events .......................................................................... 12 Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890-2020) ................................................................................... 21 Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring Cities (2000-2020) ............................. 21 Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040 ................................................................................ 22 Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019) ........................................................................................ 22 Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000-2019) ....................................... 23 Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County ............................................. 24 Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019) ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019) .............................................................. 25 Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000-2019) ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) ................................................................................................ 26 Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County ...................................................... 27 Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) ............................. 28 Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories ................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017) .................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) .................................................................................... 30 Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) ....................................................................................................... 31 Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010-2021) .... 34 Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and Households .................................................................... 34 Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015-2022) .................................... 35 Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019) ........ 36 Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) ..................................................... 36 Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019) ................................................................................ 37 Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019) .......................................................................................................................... 37

4 Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020) ...................................... 38 Table 3.17: Senior Households1 by Tenure and Income Group ......................................................................... 39 Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019) .......................................................... 41 Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019) ..................................................................................... 42 Figure 3.14: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2017) .............................................................. 43 Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2020) .............................................. 44 Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020) ............................................................................ 45 Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010-2020) ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019) ................................ 46 Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019) ............................................................................. 47 Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019) .............................................................. 47 Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019) ............................................................................................................................. 48 Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019) ............................................................................... 49 Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019) ................................................................................. 49 Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre- and Post-Costa-Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021) ................................ 51 Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000-2020) ............................... 51 Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021) ............................................................................. 51 Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001-2020) ...................................................................................................... 52 Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010-2021) ................................................................................... 52 Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021) ................................................................. 53 Table 3.28: Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate ....................................................................................... 56 Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units .............................................. 56 Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ..................................... 59 Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017) ................................................................................................ 60 Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ................................. 61 Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017) ................................................................................... 61 Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................................................ 63 Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 .............................. 64 Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 ................................... 64 Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses.......................................................................................... 66 Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times .............................................................................................................. 76

5 Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone ............................................................ 81 Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone .......................... 82 Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone ............................................................................ 86 Table 4.9: Comparison of Planning Fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond ........................................ 92 Table 4.10: Fee Comparison for Sample Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Development 93 Table 4.11: Development Information Provided on Berkeley's Website ....................................................... 96 Table 4.12: Home Mortgage Application Data for the Oakland -Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD (2020) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 103 Table 5.1: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031 ................................................................................................. 104 Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021) ................ 106 Table 5.2: BART Station Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 107 Table 5.3: Remaining RHNA ........................................................................................................................................... 107 Table 5.4: Summary of 6th Cycle Opportunity Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA .................... 109 Table 5.5: Summary of RHNA Strategies .................................................................................................................. 110 Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 112 Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions ......................................................................................................................... 152 Table 5.7: Summary of Quantified Objectives (2023-2031) ............................................................................. 158

6 1 INTRODUCTION
City of Berkeley’s Mission: Provide excellent service to the Berkeley community; promote a diverse, accessible, affordable, safe, healthy, environmentally sound and culturally rich city; innovate; embrace respectful, democratic participation in local decision-making; respond efficiently and effectively to neighborhood and commercial concerns; and do so in a fiscally sound manner.

Incorporated in 1909, Berkeley is centrally located within the Bay Area in Alameda County. While much more than just a university town, Berkeley benefits from the University of California’s cultural and educational facilities and its positive impact on the local economy. Along with the University, other top employers include the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, and the City of Berkeley. As one of the older cities in the East Bay, Berkeley has a number of lively pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that developed along former streetcar routes and near the University. It has many pleasant, livable residential neighborhoods with many attractive older homes. It has largely avoided the newer car -oriented suburban sprawl and strip mall style of commercial development found in other parts of the Bay Area.

Berkeley last updated its 5th cycle Housing Element in 2015. In the time since, Berkeley’s policies and actions have been shaped by worldwide, national, and local events including federal anti - immigration practices, the murder of George Floyd and resulting protests focused on racism and policing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased impacts due to climate change including severe local air quality impacts due to wildfire smoke in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Berkeley has taken local action to address these pressures and affirm its values of equity, inclusiveness, and innovative action.

Berkeley became the first sanctuary city in the U.S. in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 2016 to support its residents, regardless of documentation. In 2018, Berkeley City Council declared a Climate Emergency and a goal of becoming a Fossil Fuel Free City as soon as possible; in 2019, Berkeley adopted the nation’s first prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. Berkeley has acknowledged and is working to address racially discriminatory practices that impact housing, displacement, and policing; in 2021, Berkeley City Council approved a Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley, declared Racism as a Public Health Crisis, and developed a Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce that began work to create a model of equitable and community- centered safety for Berkeley.

Plans adopted by Berkeley since 2015 that reflect Berkeley’s values and actions, and shape the patterns, amenities, and quality of development in Berkeley include:
• Berkeley Resilience Strategy (2016). Advances community connections, preparedness, and equity in Berkeley.
• Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan (2016). Prepares for and prioritizes the physical enhancements of Berkeley’s transportation network to improve access, safety, and mobility for all users.

7 • Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017). Aims to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, attractive, easy, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and bicycling abilities.
• Berkeley Strategic Plan (2018). Identifies the long-term goals and short-term priorities that the City government will focus on the benefit the Berkeley community. Its goals include creating affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members; being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment; and championing and demonstrating social and racial equity. • Age-Friendly Berkeley Plan (2018). Works on improving the experience of older adults in Berkeley with a focus on housing and economic security, transportation and mobility, health and wellness, and social participation and civic engagement. • Green Infrastructure Plan (2019). To guide the identification, implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects within the City of Berkeley. • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019). To prepare for and mitigate the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters.
• Vision Zero Action Plan (2019). An equity-focused, data-driven effort to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our city streets by 2028. • Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap (2020). Identifies goals, strategies, and actions to create a fossil fuel-free transportation system that integrates with and supports the City’s ongoing efforts to increase walking, biking, and public transportation, and ensures equitable access to the benefits of clean transportation.
• Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (2020). Articulates a community vision and planning framework for an important Priority Development Area that will serve as a guide for the City and other public agency decision-makers, community members, and other stakeholders over the next 20 years.
• Vision 2050 Framework (2020). A long-term plan to build, upgrade, and repair Berkeley’s aging infrastructure to be more sustainable and resilient in order to meet the serious challenges of the future, including climate change and is driven by a set of core values: equity, public health and safety, a strong local economy, resiliency, and sustainability. • Pedestrian Plan (2021). Establishes a clear path forward for pedestrian infrastructure improvements by focusing its recommendations and goals squarely on equity and safety. • Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy (2021). A ground-breaking plan to transition existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives in a way that benefits all residents, especially members of historically marginalized communities.

This Housing Element Update must meet state law, as detailed in Section 1.2 Overview and 1.3 Housing Element Requirements, and define the specific goals, polices, and programs that will support Berkeley’s portion of the regional population growth. It must also do so in a manner that reflects Berkeley’s mission, values, and is consistent with its plans and work towards sustainability, safety, and equity.

8 As Berkeley continues to grow and develop, housing density will increase. This increased density can have many benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved health, and more access to affordable housing.

Berkeley’s Housing Element Update identifies policies and programs to provide and preserve healthy, resilient housing at a range of prices, with special attention given to special needs housing, homelessness prevention, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). In doing so, it helps to realize Berkeley’s sustainable future as a Fossil Fuel Free City, powered by 100 percent renewable electricity, with safe transportation options to vibrant commercial areas and institutions, providing social and community connections for all residents.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE HOUSI NG ELEMENT
The Housing Element’s purpose is to identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. The Housing Element is an eight -year plan, extending from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element will primarily address these issues:
• Preserving and improving the existing housing stock;
• Providing housing for special needs populations;
• Supplying enough new housing to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s need; and • Affirmatively furthering fair housing.

1.2 OVERVIEW
State law requires that jurisdictions prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan (Government Code §65302(c)). S ince a General Plan serves as a jurisdiction’s blueprint for future development and growth, the Housing Element plays a critical role in the overall Plan. A Housing Element is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize the housing needs of the City and determine ways to best meet these needs while balancing community objectives and resources.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element has five chapters:

1. Introduction. Provides an overview of the purpose, scope, and organization of the Housing Element.

2. Goals and Policies. Outlines the City’s commitments to providing and preserving housing opportunities in the City.

3. Housing Needs. Provides a summary of the City’s community profile, including demographic and housing characteristics, and an assessment of the associated housing needs.

4. Housing Constraints. Provides an assessment of the potential constraints to housing development and preservation, including governmental and non-governmental constraints.

5. Housing Resources. Provides a collection of resources available for meeting the City’s existing and projected housing needs, including a sites inventory and housing implementation programs, as well as assessment of direct or indirect impacts in furthering fair housing choice.

9 In addition, this Element includes several Appendices:
• Appendix A. Publicly Assisted Housing
• Appendix B. Development Standards
• Appendix C. Sites Inventory
• Appendix D. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments
• Appendix E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) • Appendix F. Outreach and Engagement
Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the City needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The State and our metropolitan planning organization, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), carry out this process and allocate to each jurisdiction a share of California’s new housing need based on the community’s demographic trends, proximity to transit and employment, and other characteristics. As part of the Housing Element, the City must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.

When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must consider California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Guidelines (Government Code §65585). Jurisdictions must periodically review the Housing Element to evaluate (1) the appropriateness of its goals and policies in meeting the state’s housing goals, (2) its effectiveness in attaining the City's housing goals and (3) the progress of its implementation (Government Code §65588).

1.3 HOUSING ELEMENT REQU IREMENTS
All Housing Elements must comply with several State laws. The preparation of the Housing Element is guided by California Government Code, Article 10.6. The law governing the contents of Housing Elements is among the most detailed of all elements of the General Plan. According to Section 65583 of the Government Code:

The Housing Element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

Housing Element Law requires “An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.” The law requires:
• An analysis of population and employment trends, including the UC Berkeley student population;
• An analysis of household characteristics;
• An inventory of suitable land for residential development;

10 • An identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right; • An analysis of the governmental and non-governmental constraints on the improvement, maintenance, and development of housing;
• An analysis of special housing needs;
• An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation; and • An analysis of publicly assisted housing developments that may convert to non-assisted housing developments.

The purpose of these requirements i s to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community and to set forth policies and schedules, which promote preservation, improvement, and production of diverse housing types for all income levels throughout Berkeley.

Senate Bill (SB) 1087 (2005 ) (Government Code §65589.7) requires cities to provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower -income housing. The Housing Element will be provided to these agencies immediately upon adoption.

1.4 GENERAL PLAN CONSIST ENCY
State law requires every California city to adopt a general plan that contains seven mandatory topics called "elements," but cities are given flexibility in how elements are named and organized. The Berkeley General Plan Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Management (which addresses noise and conservation), Housing, Open Space & Recreation, and Disaster Preparedness & Safety elements are mandatory elements. Cities may also adopt other optional elements. Berkeley has added Economic Development & Employment, Urban Design & Preservation, and Citizen Participation as optional elements.

All elements carry equal weight and are designed to be consistent with each other. State law (Government Code § 65300.5 ) requires that “...the General Plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies...” . The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within the City.

The Housing Element is being updated at this time in conformance with the 2023-2031 update cycle for jurisdictions in the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) region. The City has reviewed the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan Elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element reflect the intent and policy direction contained in other General Plan Elements. As amendments are made to the General Plan, the City will also review and revise the Housing Element for ongoing consistency.

11 1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The 2023-2031 6th cycle Housing Element Update includes input from a variety of public outreach efforts. A dedicated webpage is available on the City’s website:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-deve lopment/land-use-development/general-plan- and-area-plans/housing-element-update.

The webpage includes a list of upcoming events, overview of the Housing Element update proc ess, a timeline of key benchmarks, project documents, resources , and a summary of past events. The webpage also has the option to subscribe to a mailing list and an email address ([email protected]) to contact with questions or concerns.

In a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the Berkeley community, the Housing Element team reached out to City boards and commissions that advise on housing-related issues, such as the Homeless Panel of Experts, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Commission on Disability, Commission on Aging, and the Children, Youth and Recreation Commission. In addition, the outreach team conducted small group interviews with homele ss interest groups, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, UC Berkeley’s student housing commission, and representatives from local faith-based institutions. Renters were engaged through pop -up events at grocery stores, a renter -specific online survey, and a stakeholder meeting that brought together renters from various different income levels.

Public Input and the Housing Element Update
Input from the City’s outreach events and meetings helped define the Housing Element Update priorities and goals, and provide direction on the sites inventory, housing policies and programs, and zoning efforts. The most common theme of comments received relate to housing affordability and housing supply. In response, nearly half of the 35 policies identified in the Housing Element are in support of housing affordability and production goals.

Public input also provided direction in how the community would like to see these broader goals achieved. For example, in response to Council referrals and a sizeable volume of feedback indicating interest in upzoning and increasing density in low-density neighborhoods, the City is prioritizing the timeline for Program 29 -Middle Housing, which would amend the zoning code to allow multi -unit development on one lot.

Staff also relied upon feedback gathered from stakeholder meetings to improve draft policies and programs. For example , Program 12 -Workforce Housing aims to p rovide low to moderate -income housing to middle-income households with the goal of attracting and supporting professionals who work in the City of Berkeley, such as teachers, healthcare workers, retail clerks, artists, and more. It was created with continued assistance from numerous community stakeholder groups that passionately advocated for the inclusion of such a program in the Housing Element.

All public comments provided to the City during the public comment period were reviewed by the Housing Element team and made available publicly on the Housing Element website. As mentioned above, the feedback received resulted in direct edits to the Housing Element Update.

12 Summary of City Meetings and Community Engagement Events The following is a summary of workshops, meetings, surveys , and other outreach methods used during the update process. Key information from the public participation events and surveys are included in Appendix F Outreach and Engagement.

Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events Meeting Date(s) Description
Public Workshop 10/27/2021
1/27/2022
6/29/2022
Online presentations and interactive breakout groups to provide an update on the planning process and gather input at key stages of the Housing Element project: Overview, Sites Inventory, and Public Draft document.

City Council 9/21/2021
12/9/2021
3/15/2022
8/26/2022
9/20/2022
Reports, presentations, public comment, and decision-maker feedback at four worksessions, which yielded policy direction for identifying suitable sites, housing programs, and zoning efforts.

Planning Commission 9/1/2021
2/9/2022
5/4/2022
6/1/2022
9/7/2022
12/7/2022
Presentation and accompanying memorandum to City boards and commissions took place throughout the Fall and Winter of 2021-2022 to introduce the Housing Element, seek input on key stakeholders for outreach, and identify a liaison to participate in ongoing Housing Element outreach efforts.

Reports and presentations were given to the Planning
Commission pertaining to the CEQA EIR Scoping Session and public comment on the Housing Element Draft EIR.

Homeless Services Panel of Experts 9/1/2021
Commission on Disability 9/1/2021
Landmarks Preservation Commission 9/2/2021
Zoning Adjustments Board 9/9/2021
Commission on Aging 9/15/2021
Energy Commission 9/22/2021
Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission 9/27/2021
Housing Advisory Commission 9/30/2021
Rent Stabilization Board 11/18/2021
Civic Arts Commission 1/19/2022
City/UC/Student Relations Committee 1/28/2022
10/14/2022
Residential Walking Tours and Online Survey 11/23/2021- 1/31/2022
Two walking tours, one for Downtown Berkeley and another for West Berkeley, were created as an opportunity for community members to provide input on the development of housing
options in Berkeley.

Citywide Housing Element Online Survey 10/28/2021-
11/14/2021
A total of 747 individuals submitted survey responses.

13 Renter Survey 4/21/2022-
5/8/2022
Online survey requesting input on tenant programs and
strategies that will help protect tenants, prevent displacement, and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The first 100 respondents received a $10 gift card to Berkeley Bowl, a local grocer.

Southside Area UC Student Housing Survey 11/23/2022-
12/18/2022
Online survey seeking input from UC Berkeley students
(undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral) on their housing preferences to inform Southside zoning efforts (Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors). The first 100 respondents received a $20 gift card to the Cal Student Store.

Black/African-American Interest Group 10/12/2021 Stakeholder Interviews and Small-Format Meetings with key business and advocacy organizations, business and property owners, housing developers, community leaders, UC Berkeley student housing commission and campus planning, and racial and ethnic interest groups.

Market-Rate Developers 10/12/2021
11/23/2021
Senior Center 10/12/2021
Associated Students of the University of
California (ASUC) – Housing Commission
10/19/2021
10/4/2022
Real Estate Professionals 10/19/2021
Property Management and Business Owners 10/25/2021
Homeless Interest Group 10/25/2021
Housing Advocates 11/5/2021
People with Disabilities Interest Group 12/3/2021
Hispanic/Latinx Interest Group 12/17/2021
Berkeley Unified School District 12/22/2021
1/24/2022
UC Berkeley Campus Planning 12/20/2021
9/26/2022
West Berkeley Community/Business
Stakeholders
2/4/2022
2/11/2022
Arts and Cultural Centers 3/8/2022
4/22/2022
Building Trades Representatives 3/17/2022
Community-Based Organizations 4/25/2022
Black Ecumenical Ministerial Alliance 5/9/2022
All-Income Renter Stakeholder Meeting 5/25/2022
East Bay For Everyone 9/14/2022 Presentations and receive feedback on proposed Residential Objective Standards zoning amendments for the Southside Plan Area,( Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors)
Berkeley Design Advocates 10/5/2022
Southside Neighborhood Consortium 10/5/2022
Downtown Berkeley Farmers’ Market 2/26/2022

14 Berkeley Bowl Renter Outreach 4/25/2022 Tabling outreach at community gathering locations, including local businesses, farmer’s market, and recreation events.

Roses in Bloom Youth Outreach 5/14/2022
Poppin’ Thursday All Ages Skate Party 5/19/2022
Harvest Festival 10/15/2022
Sproul Plaza Southside Outreach 10/18/2022
Public Drop-In Office Hours 10/24/2022 City staff and consultant held an 2-hour lunchtime drop-in office hours to answer questions and receive public input during the 7-day public review period of the revised Draft Housing Element.

Public Draft Housing Element Update
Pursuant to AB 215, the initial draft 2023- 2031 Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from Monday, June 13, 2022 through Thursday, July 14, 2022. Two subsequent revised public drafts were made available for seven days each prior to submitting to HCD for subsequent review.
• June 13 – July 14, 2022 (30 days): A public review draft of the Housing Element was made available for comment on the City’s website, including an accessible large print version that was shared with the Commission on Disability. Over the course of the public review period, three emails including links to the draft documents were sent to members of the public who indicated interest in the Housing Element Update. The City received a total of 563 comments. • July 15, 2022 – August 10, 2022 (18 business days): Staff incorporated revisions based on public feedback received and submitted its Initial Draft Housing Element to HCD for 90-day review on August 10, 2022.
• September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022: The City received preliminary comments from HCD and Staff incorporated revisions based on HCD comments. • October 18, 2022 – October 25, 2022 (7 days): The City published a Revised Draft “v2” for public comment and held office hours on October 24, 2022. The City received 11 comments. • November 1, 2022: Staff incorporated revisions based on public comments and resubmitted Revised Draft “v3” to HCD for follow-up review.
• November 8, 2022: The City received HCD’s formal comment letter listing revisions necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.
• November 23—November 30, 2022 (7 days): The City published and noticed a revised Public Draft “v4” for subsequent public comment.

15 2 GOALS AND POLICIES
Through extensive outreach and engagement – at public workshops, board and commission meetings, City Council worksessions, stakeholder interviews and sma ll-format meetings, tabling events, and surveys – the Housing Element team has compiled a comprehensive set of goals and policies that reflect feedback received. The goals and policies guide decision -making to address the housing needs and constraints identified in Chapters 3 and 4. The set includes six goals, as well as 35 policies to enact those goals.

Goal A Housing Affordability
Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices.

Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need.

Policies
H-1 Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate-Income Housing Increase the number of housing units affordable to current and future Berkeley residents, especially those with lower income levels.

H-2 Funding Sources
Seek, advocate for, and develop additional sources of funds for permanently affordable housing, including housing for people with extremely low incomes and special needs.

H-3 Permanent Affordability
Ensure that below market rate rental housing remains affordable for the longest period that is economically and legally feasible.

H-4 Economic Diversity
Encourage mixed income housing developments through both regulatory requirements and incentives.

H-5 Rent Stabilization
Protect tenants from large rent increases, arbitrary evictions, hardship from relocation, and the loss of their homes.

H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers
Support efforts that provide opportunities for successful home ownership.

H-7 Berkeley Housing Authority
Continue working with the Housing Authority to make quality affordable housing opportunities available to Berkeley residents.

H-8 Workforce Housing
Develop Workforce Housing for low- and moderate-income households, including te achers, artists, and other residents who work in the City of Berkeley.

16 Goal B Housing Preservation & Improvement
Existing housing should be maintained and improved. The City should promote efficiency in new and existing housing to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged.

Policies
H-9 Housing Preservation
Maintain and preserve the existing supply of housing in the City.

H-10 Naturally Affordable Housing
Encourage strategies to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate properties that provide rental units that are unsubsidized but affordable to low- and moderate-income households, including rent- stabilized units.

H-11 Code Requirements
Enforce code requirements, and provide education, funding and incentives to property owners, to ensure that existing housing meets health and safety standards.

H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance
Prevent blight and the deterioration of housing units resulting from deferred maintenance.

H-13 Seismic Reinforcement
Maintain housing supply and reduce the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes by incentivizing structural strengthening and hazard mitigation in Berkeley housing.

H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience
Implement Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Policies
H-15 Publicly-Owned Sites
Encourage use of publicly-owned or controlled sites for affordable housing and/or mixed-use residential projects with a substantial portion of affordable units.

H-16 Medium and High-Density Zoning
Maintain sufficient land zoned for medium- and high - density residential development to allow sufficient new construction to meet Berkeley’s fair share of regional housing needs.

H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction

17 Encourage construction of new high -density housing on major transit corridors and in proximity to transit stations consistent with zoning, applicable area plans, design review guidelines, and the Climate Action Plan.

H-18 Accessory Dwelling Units
Encourage and facilitate addition of accessory dwelling units on properties with single-family and multi-unit homes.

H-19 Regional Housing Needs
Encourage adequate housing production to meet City needs and the City’s share of regional housing needs.

H-20 Monitoring Housing Element Progress
The City will continue to prepare annual Housing Element progress reports and present results of the review before the City Council, and make necessary and appropriate adjustments to programs and actions to achieve established objectives.

H-21 University of California
Urge the University of California to maximize the supply of appropriately located, affordable housing for its students and also to expand housing opportunities for faculty and staff.

H-22 Inter-Jurisdictional and Regional Coordination
Pursue opportunities to work with other jurisdictions and with ABAG to address issues of mutual interest and priority.

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

Policies
H-23 Homelessness and Crisis Prevention
Support programs and actions that prevent homelessness and other housing crises by making appropriate services available.

H-24 Homeless Housing
Seek solutions to the problems of individuals and families who are homeless, with the goal of first providing them with permanently affordable housing.

H-25 Family Housing
Support and encourage housing projects that include units affordable and suitable for households with children and large families.

H-26 Senior Housing
Support housing programs that increase the ability of senior households to remain in their homes or neighborhoods, and to offer other suitable affordable housing options.

H-27 Persons with Disabilities
Encourage provision of an adequate supply of suitable housing to meet the needs of people with disabilities, including developmental, behavioral health (mental health as well as alcohol and other drug dependence), and physical disabilities, as well as other medical conditions (such as HIV/AIDS).

H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing

18 Provide emergency shelter and transitional and supportive housing to homeless individuals and families, including people with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities, victims of domestic violence, youth, and seniors, as needed. The City’s ultimate priority for new homeless housing opportunities is permanent housing.

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

Policies
H-29 Fair Housing
Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local Fair Housing and anti-discrimination laws and ordinances and to affirmatively further fair housing for all, e nsuring equal access to housing regardless of their special circumstances as protected by fair housing laws.

H-30 Accessible Housing
Promote housing mobility by exceeding the accessibility requirements of the ADA and California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulati ons, and by encouraging incorporation into new construction and rehabilitation the use of technologies and design features that create universal accessibility.

H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing
Encourage new construction and rehabilitation of accessible housin g units that are permanently affordable, in particular to extremely low-income households.

H-32 Middle Housing
Promote and facilitate a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill middle housing in high resource neighborhoods.

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

Policies
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
Periodically review City fees and regulations to ensure that they do not unduly constrain housing development.

H-34 Streamlined Review Process
Provide for timely and coordinated processing of residential and mixed use development projects in order to minimize project holding costs and increase housing supply.

H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing
Provide incentives where feasible to offset or reduce the costs of affordable housing development, including density bonuses and flexibility in site development standards.

19 3 HOUSING NEEDS
The purpose of this chapter is to identify characteristics of Berkeley’s population and housing stock in order to understand the City’s housing needs. These include the unmet needs of existing residents and future needs resulting from anticipated demographic changes.

This chapter is organized as follows:

1. Summary of Key Findings

2. Population and Household Characteristics

3. Income and Employment

4. Special Needs Populations

5. Housing Stock Characteristics

6. Housing Challenges, including cost burden and overcrowding The City used a variety of sources to collect the information that follows, including:
• Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); • U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”); • U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS); • California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates; • Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (which are based on the ACS); and
• Data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD).

As of the writing of this report, the 2020 Census results have not yet been released with the exception of the preliminary population estimates for redistricting purposes. It is also important to note that some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data may differ.

3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDI NGS
• Population. Berkeley’s population grew by 9 percent from 2010 to 2020, to 122,580 people.

ABAG projects that the City will grow 15 percent by 2040, to 140,935, which is an additional 18,355 people. (Goal C Housing Production)
• Demographics. Seniors ages 65 to 74 are the fastest growing age group in the City, and now comprise 9.2 percent of the population (compared to 6.5 percent in 2010). While young adults ages 15 to 24 remain the largest age group in the City (27 percent), the proportion of adults ages 25-34 grew by 25 percent since 2010 and now make up 18 percent of the population. (Policies H-25 Family Housing and H-26 Senior Housing)
• Race and Ethnicity. The Asian and Hispanic/Latinx populations continue to grow, with Asians comprising 21 percent (19 percent increase since 2010) and Hispanic/Latinx residents comprising 11 percent (13 percent increase since 2010) of the population, respectively. The

20 Black/African American population in Berkeley continues to decline and currently makes up 7.7 percent of the total population. (Policy H-29 Fair Housing) • Household Income. The median household income in Berkeley was $95,360 in 2019, according to the American Community Survey. Based on HUD’s income definitions, about 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income. (Goal A Housing Affordability) • Ownership Cost. Housing costs have been rising since 2011 and the average Berkeley home value was over $1.5 million in September 2021, according to the Zillow Home Value Index. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability for an explanation of the Zillow Home Value Index. (Policy H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers)
• Rental Cost. Median rents ranged from $2,950 for a studio to $5,648 for 4-bedroom units, according to a survey of available units conducted in November 2021. Median rents for rent stabilized units were about $1,000 per month less for units with two or fewer bedrooms. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability. (Policy H-5 Rent Stabilization)

3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSE HOLD CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 POPULATION GROWTH AN D PROJECTIONS
The City of Berkeley experienced rapid population growth from its founding in the late 19th century through the 1940s ( Figure 3.1). Growth within the City leveled off between 1950 and 1970, and experienced decline through the 1970s at a rate of just over one percent per year. From 1980 -2000 the population was fairly steady at just over 100,000 people. Since 2000, the City’s population has grown steadily, increasing approximately nine percent each decade. The Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population was 122,580 in 2020.

Table 3.1 provides a comparison of population growth in Berkeley, the State, Alameda County and surrounding communities. Between 2000 and 2010, Berkeley grew at a faster rate than the County and its neighboring cities; however, growth in the City was comparable to the State overall. Between 2010 and 2020, Berkeley’s growth rate was slightly lower than the County, but higher than that of the State. The majority of neighboring communities saw similar growth rates (approximately 7 to 11 percent), with the exception of San Leandro (3.5 percent).

Berkeley’s population is anticipated to continue to grow steadily between 2020 and 2040 according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 projections (Table 3.1). The City’s population is anticipated to reach about 136,000 by 2030 and 141,000 by 2040.

21 Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890 -2020)

Sources: Decennial Census, 1890-2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.

Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring C ities (2000 -2020) Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 % Change
2000-2010
% Change
2010-2020
California 33,871,648 37,253,956 39,782,870 10.0% 6.8%
Alameda County 1,443,741 1,510,271 1,670,834 4.6% 10.6% Berkeley 102,743 112,580 122,580 9.6% 8.9%
Oakland 399,484 390,724 433,697 -2.2% 11.0%
Fremont 203,413 214,089 234,220 5.2% 9.4%
San Francisco 776,733 805,235 897,806 3.7% 11.5%
San Leandro 79,452 84,950 87,930 6.9% 3.5%
Hayward 140,030 144,186 160,311 3.0% 11.2%
Richmond 99,216 103,701 111,217 4.5% 7.2%
Sources: Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020. 122,580
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population

22 Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040

Sources: US Decennial Census, 2010; ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections, 2018.

Note: Population for 2020 differs between the ABAG projections and CA DOF due to differences in methodology.

3.2.2 AGE DISTRIBUTION
Residents ages 15 to 24 comprised the largest age group in both 2010 and 2019, followed by people ages 25 to 34 ( Table 3.2). Berkeley’s high proportion of young adults is due to the presence of UC Berkeley within the City. While the population ages 15 to 24 stayed relatively flat between 2010 and 2019, the population ages 25 to 34 increased by 25 percent, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete. Berkeley also experienced a significant increase in population ages 65 to 84, which may indicate an increasing need for housing appropriate for seniors in the community.

Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019)
Age Group
2010 2019 Percent Change
2010-2019 Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 4,136 3.7% 4,323 3.6% 4.5%
Age 5-14 7,403 6.6% 7,991 6.6% 7.9%
Age 15-24 32,628 29.0% 33,051 27.2% 1.3%
Age 25-34 17,697 15.7% 22,124 18.2% 25.0%
Age 35-44 12,534 11.1% 13,204 10.9% 5.3%
Age 45-54 12,253 10.9% 11,179 9.2% -8.8%
Age 55-64 12,753 11.3% 12,184 10.0% -4.5%
Age 65-74 7,477 6.6% 11,174 9.2% 49.4%
Age 75-84 3,727 3.3% 4,547 3.7% 22.0%
112,580
127,520
135,680
140,935
100,000
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

23 Age 85+ 1,972 1.8% 1,708 1.4% -13.4%
Total 112,580 100.0% 121,485 100.0% 7.9%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.2.3 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSIT ION
Table 3.3 illustrates the changes in racial a nd ethnic composition of Berkeley’s population between 2000 and 2019. Over this time period, the proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander residents increased steadily, comprising 16 percent of the population in 2000 and 21 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of Latinx residents also increased to about 11 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of the Black population has declined by approximately 5.6 percent since 2000 and Black residents comprised just under 8 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of White residents has remained relatively constant over the last two decades at approximately 54 to 55 percent of the overall population.

When compared to Alameda County as a whole, the City of Berkeley is somewhat less diverse (see Figure 3.3). Alameda County has greater proportions of Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latinx populations than Berkeley. Conversely, the proportion of White residents is greater in Berkeley (53 percent, compared to 31 percent in the County).

Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000 -2019) Race/Ethnicity
2000 2010 2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
293 0.3% 228 0.2% 282 0.2%
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic 16,861 16.4% 21,669 19.2% 25,845 21.3% Black or African American, Non-
Hispanic
13,707 13.3% 10,896 9.7% 9,324 7.7%
White, Non-Hispanic 56,691 55.2% 61,539 54.7% 64,781 53.3% Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-
Hispanic
5,190 5.1% 6,039 5.4% 7,400 6.1%
Hispanic or Latinx 10,001 9.7% 12,209 10.8% 13,853 11.4% Total 102,743 112,580 121,485
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

24 Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.2.4 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERI STICS
According to the Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit.

Households may contain related or unrelated individuals; however, the definition of household excludes group quarters, including student dormitories. Household growth is a good indicator of housing unit production. Other metrics, such as household size, co mposition, and tenure can be related to factors such as age, cultural background, income level, and housing availability and cost.

According to the American Community Survey, there were an estimated 45,352 households residing in Berkeley in 2019, an increase of approximately 2,163 households since 2010.

Household Size and Type
According to the 2015 -2019 American Community Survey, the average household size was 2.44 persons and the average family size was 2.90 persons. Average household size and average fami ly size have both increased slightly since 2010 (see Table 3.4). The City’s average household and family size remain below the averages for Alameda County as a whole, which had an average household size of 2.82 and average family size of 3.37 in 2019.

Although the distribution of household types in Berkeley has remained relatively steady between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of nonfamily households has decreased slightly. However, the 16% 19% 21%
31 %
13% 10% 8%
10%
55% 55% 53% 31%
5% 5% 6%
5%
10% 11% 11%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019 Alameda County
(2019)
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
Berkeley

25 majority of Berkeley households were still nonfamily households in 2019 (54 percent). The proportion of seniors living alone has increased slightly since 2019.

In Berkeley, there are nearly as many single -person households as there are married couple households (34 percent and 35 percent, respectively). This is in contrast to Alameda County, where the majority of households are family households (67 percent), and single- person households comprise just 24 percent of all households (see Figure 3.4).

Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019)
Household Type 2010 2019
(#) (%)
Total Households 43,189 45,352 100%
Family Households 44% 20,698 46%
Married Couple 32% 16,092 35%
Male Householder, No Spouse Present 3% 1,390 3%
Female Householder, No Spouse Present 8% 3,216 7%
Nonfamily Households 56% 24,654 54%
Single-person Households 37% 15,609 34%
Senior Living Alone 9% 5,449 12%
Average Household Size 2.25 2.44
Average Family Size 2.89 2.90
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2006-2010, 2015-2019) Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

46%
67%
34%
24%
20% 9%
Berkeley Alameda County
Other Non-family
Households
Single-person
Households
Family Households

26 Household Tenure
Housing tenure refers to whether housing units are owner occupied or renter occupied. In Berkeley, the majority of households are renters and the proportion of renter occupied and owner occupied units has remained relatively constant since 2000 (see Table 3.5). By contrast, the majority of Alameda County housing units are owner occupied.

Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) shows significant differences in tenure based on the race of the householder. The rate of owner occupancy is significantly lower than the overall rate of 43 percent for all minority racial groups and Hispanic/Latinx households. In contrast, the owner occupancy rate for White householders is higher than the overall rate at 51 percent.

Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000- 2019)
Tenure
Berkeley Alameda County
2000 2010 2019 2019
# % # % # % %
Owner Occupied 19,214 43% 18,846 41% 19,478 43% 54%
Renter Occupied 25,741 57% 27,183 59% 25,874 57% 46%
Totals 44,955 100% 46,029 100% 45,352 100% 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))
Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note: For this data, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Therefore, the groups included in this table are not all mutually exclusive. 9%
27% 29% 28 % 29%
51% 52%
91%
73% 71% 72% 71%
49% 48%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Black or African
American
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
White, Non-
Hispanic
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

27 Group Quarters
Group quarters are a distinct housing type that includes emergency and transitional housing, nursing homes, juvenile homes, residential treatment centers, and student dormitories. Unsurprisingly, Berkeley has a sizeable proportion of the population residing in group quarters due to dormitories and other student housing associated with the University. According to the 2015 -2019 American Community Survey, just under 11 percent of Berkeley’s population resides in group quarters. This is an increase of less than one percent from 2014. The proportion of County residents living in group quarters is much lower at about two percent.

While group quarters are a critical housing type for certain segments of the population, group quarters are not counted as units when meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). In order to receive RHNA credits, the units must be recorded by the State Department of Finance (DOF) as a housing unit. However, discuss ions with the State indicated that housing units owned by the University are treated by DOF as group quarters, not as housing units, regardless of the physical structural characteristics. Therefore, university -owned housing does not receive RHNA credits.

Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County

2014 2019
Number Percent Number Percent
Berkeley 11,459 9.9% 12,945 10.7%
Alameda County 32,814 2.1% 31,635 1.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2010-2014, 2015-2019)

3.3 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS

3.3.1 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INC OME
Household income is a dominant factor impacting housing needs in a community. With the exception of a minority of households that own a home with little or no mortgage, a household’s ability to afford housing is directly related to household income.

Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000 -2019) illustrates the change in median household income from 2000 to 2019 for Berkeley and Alameda County. Berkeley’s median household income increased by 114 percent between 2000 and 2019, including a 27 percent increase between 2000 and 2010 and a 68 percent increase between 2010 and 2019.

While Berkeley and the County’s median household income has increased similarly over the last two decades, Berkeley’s median has remained below that of the County. This is likely due to Berkeley’s large student population, of which over 90 percent live off campus. Students tend to have ve ry low incomes which would skew the City’s median household income downward. However, students are generally not considered “lower income” for the purposes of public housing programs because they often rely on support from families or public loans.

28 Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000 -2019)

Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates (2010, 2019)

3.3.2 HOUSEHOLD INCOME CAT EGORIES
State and federal housing assistance programs utilize income categories established by state and federal law. For the Housing Element and other state programs, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established the five categories listed in Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories. Together, the extremely low, very low, and low income categories are referred to as lower income. Although they differ slightly in their definitions, both state and federal income categories are based on the area median income or AMI. The AMI refers to the median income for a metropolitan statistical area. For 2021, HCD determined the AMI for a four -person household in Alameda County was $125,600.

For federal housing programs, eligibility is established for households with incomes up to only 80% of the AMI. Under the federal definition, these households are considered moderate income. These federal definitions are used for plans required by federal regulations (i.e., Consolidated Plans). The HCD definitions (shown in Table 27) are used in the Housing Element whenever possible; however, some datasets, such as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) utilized in this section, do not provide breakdowns by the HCD income categories.

Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure provides information on household income by tenure for Berkeley households. Overall, 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income, earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. However, renter households are much more likely to be lower income than owner households (60 percent of renter households compared to 19 percent of owner households). Similarly, over 75 percent of owner households earn over 100 percent of the AMI, compared to just 32 percent of renter households.

Berkeley’s breakdown of households in various income categories is similar when compared to Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole, see Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017). $56,623
$95,360
$55,946
$67,169
$108,322
$-
$20,000
$40,00
0 $60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
2000 2010 2019
Berkeley Alameda County

29 However, Berkeley has a higher proportion of households earning less than 30 percent of the AMI when compared to the region.

Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) shows stark differences in household income levels when broken down by race. American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/API, and Black/African American households are all more likely to fall within one of the lower income categories, when compared to Berkeley households as a whole.

Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories
Income Category Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) For a four-person household Extremely Low Up to 30% of AMI $41,100 or less
Very Low 31-50% of AMI $41,101 to $68,500
Low 51-80% of AMI $68,501 to $109,600
Moderate 81-120% of AMI $109,601 to $150,700
Above Moderate Greater than 120% of AMI $150,701 or more Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure
Income Level1 Owner Occupied Households Renter Occupied Households
Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0%-30% of AMI 1,140 5.8% 8,510 32.7% 9,650 21.2%
31%-50% of AMI 1,035 5.3% 3,880 14.9% 4,915 10.8%
51%-80% of AMI 1,449 7.4% 3,104 11.9% 4,553 10.0%
81%-100% of AMI 1,204 6.2% 2,259 8.7% 3,463 7.6%
Greater than 100% of AMI 14,699 75.3% 8,245 31.7% 22,944 50.4% Totals 19,527 100.0% 25,998 100.0% 45,525 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release).

Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County).

30 Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release).

Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release).

Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County).
21% 16% 15%
11%
11% 11%
10%
12% 13%
8% 9% 9%
50% 53% 52%
Berkeley Alameda County Bay Area
Greater than 100% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
0%-30% of AMI
81%
37% 37%
14%
25% 21% 21%
11%
21%
9%
10% 14% 11%
3%
9%
13%
9%
16% 13%
10%
3%
8%
5%
7%
11% 13%
8%
12%
35%
24%
60%
39% 40%
50%
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-
Hispanic
Black or African
American, Non-
Hispanic
White, Non-
Hispanic
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
All Groups
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI

31 3.3.3 EMPLOYMENT
The employment characteristics of residents can significantly influence their housing needs and choices. Factors such as the earning potential for various types of employment and the location of employment influence an employee’s ability to find affordable housing within a reasonable distance of their workplace.

Employment within the City of Berkeley is dominated by educational and health services. Table 3.9:

Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) shows the top employers within the City of Berkeley. The University of California, Berkeley is the City’s largest employer, comprising 20.3 percent of the City’s total employment and employing more workers than all of the other top ten employers combined.

While Table 3.9 illustrates the top employers located within the City of Berkeley, Table 3.10 and Figure 3.9 summarize the types of occupations held by Berkeley residents and the industries in which they work, whether or not their place of employment is located within Berkeley. However, there are notable similarities between Berkeley’s top employers and the dominant industries and occupations held by Berkeley residents. The health and educational services industry employs the greatest proportion of Berkeley residents (43 percent). To a lesser extent, the health and educational services industry is also the top employer in Alameda and the Bay area, employing about 30 percent of workers. About 27 percent of Berkeley employees work in the financial and professional services industry, similar to Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. The agriculture and natural resources, construction, information, manufacturing and wholesale, and retail industries each make up less than 10 percent of resident employment.

The majority (67 percent) of Berkeley residents are employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations ( Figure 3.9). Once again, this is consistent with Berkeley’s top employers, particularly the University and National Laboratory. The proportion of Berkeley residents employed in these types of occupations is significantly higher than in the County and the Bay area as a whole, where about 50 percent of workers are employed in management, business, science and arts occupations. About 15 percent of Berkeley residents have sales and office occupations, followed by service occupations (12 percent).

Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020)
Employer Rank
Number of
Employees
Percentage of Total
City Employment
University of California Berkeley 1 13,750 20.3%
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2 3,773 5.6%
Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation/Hospitals 3 2,117 3.1% City of Berkeley 4 1,579 2.3%
Berkeley Unified School District 5 1,302 1.9%
Bayer Corporation 6 1,033 1.5%
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group 7 742 1.1%

32 Siemens Corporation/Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. 8 736 1.1% Berkeley Bowl Produce 9 636 0.9%
Lifelong Medical Care 10 426 0.6%
Total 26,094 38.6%
Source: City of Berkeley, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020.

Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) Industry Berkeley Alameda
County (%)
Bay Area (%)
(#) (%)
Agriculture & Natural Resources 143 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%
Construction 1,458 2.3% 5.3% 5.6%
Financial and Professional Services 17,281 27.3% 26.0% 25.8% Health & Educational Services 27,369 43.2% 30.1% 29.7%
Information 3,177 5.0% 3.5% 4.0%
Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation 4,678 7.4% 17.4% 16.7% Retail 4,055 6.4% 8.9% 9.3%
Other 5,161 8.2% 8.4% 8.2%
Total 63,322 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019)

67%
2%
4%
15%
12%
Berkeley
Management, Business, Science, And
Arts Occupations
Natural Resources, Construction, And
Maintenance Occupations
Production, Transportation, And Material
Moving Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Service Occupations

33 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.3.4 UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rate within a community is an indicator of the health of the economy as well as an indicator of the number of households with limited income and therefore, limited housing choices.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the unemployment rates for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area from 2010 to 2021. Unemployment rates were high in the early 2010s as the economy recovered from the Great Recession. Unemployment levels reached a ten-year low in 2019, below three percent; however, unemployment rates skyrocketed in the second quarter of 2020 due to the economic impact of the Covid -19 pandemic. Since then, unemployment has dropped steadily; however, rates continue to be higher than pre-pandemic levels.
50%
6%
10%
18%
16 %
Alameda County
50%
6%
9%
19%
16%
Bay Area

34 Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010 -2021)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021).

Note: Unemployment rates for Berkeley are derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. Since this assumption is untested, these data should be examined in broad terms, rather than focusing on exact percentage rates.

3.4 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
Certain groups may face additional challenges in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. As defined by State Housing Element Law, the “special needs” groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, female -headed households with children, persons experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, and extremely- low income households. These groups are at a greater risk of experiencing housing-related issues, such as overcrowding or cost burden (expending greater than 30 percent of household income on housing expenses). Additionally, these special needs groups are not mutually exclusive and some households or individuals may fall into more than one special needs group. Table 3.11 summarizes Berkeley’s special needs populations and households and each group is discussed in further detail in the following sections.

Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and H ouseholds Special Needs Group
1 Number of
Persons/Households
Percent of Total
Population/Households
Senior-Headed Households 12,495 27.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2010 2011 2012 20
13 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
Berkeley Alameda County Bay Area

35 Seniors Living Alone 5,449 12.0%
Persons with a Disability 10,529 8.7%
Single-Parent Households 2,089 4.6%
Single Female-Headed Households with Children 1,555 3.4% Large Family Households (5+ persons) 1,827 4.0%
Farmworkers2 132 0.1%
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 1,108 0.9%
Extremely Low-Income Households3 9,650 21.3%
Sources: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019); U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on 2013-2017 ACS; EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey.

Notes:

1. All
data is from the 2015-2019 ACS, except the following: Persons experiencing homelessness is from the EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count; Extremely Low-Income Households is from the CHAS dataset.

2. Farmworkers includes all persons employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries.

3. Extremely Low-Income Household data is based on the 2013-2017 ACS (most recent CHAS data available).

3.4.1 PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
The most recent point-in-time homeless count for the City of Berkeley occurred in February 2022. In the initial data available for 2022, there were a total of 1,057 individuals experiencing homelessness residing within Berkeley, which is about 14 percent o f Alameda County’s total homeless population.

The number of persons experiencing homelessness in Berkeley and Alameda County has increased steadily since 2015, though went down by 51 individuals in Berkeley in 2022 (see Table 3.12).

The characteristics of the homeless population, such as gender and household type, provide important insights into the needs of this group which can guide decisions related to the provision of services. In February 2022, about 24 percent of persons experiencing homelessness were sleeping in a shelter (emergency shelter, transitional housing, or safe haven) and about 76 percent were unsheltered (Table 3.13). The majority of unsheltered persons were sleeping either in a tent or on the street (67 percent) or in a vehicle (33 percent). In 2019, only five percent of the homeless population were persons in families, while the remaining 95 percent were single individuals.

Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) provides information about the gender and race of Berkeley’s homeless population in 2019. About two- thirds of Berkeley’s homeless population is male. Notably, 57 percent of the homeless population is Black, although just eight percent of Berkeley’s total population is Black (see Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County).

Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015- 2022) 2015 2017 2019 2022
Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 Homeless Count and Survey Berkeley 834 972 1,108 1,057

36 Alameda County 4,040 5,629 8,022 9,747
Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019) Number Percent
Location (2022)
Sheltered 254 24%
Unsheltered 803 76%
Tent/Street 535 67%
RV/Car/Van 267 33%
Abandoned Building 1 <1%
Household Type (2019)
Persons in Families 51 5%
Single Individuals 1,057 95%
Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 and 2019 Homeless Count and Survey Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019)

Source: EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Berkeley is part of Alameda County’s Continuum of Care (CoC) and has adopted the EveryOne Home Plan (the Strategic Plan for the CoC). The goals of the Plan are:
• Prevent homelessness and other housing crises;
• Increase permanent housing opportunities for homeless and high-risk households; • Provide wrap-around services to ensure housing stability and quality of life; • Measure success and report outcomes.

Male
66%
Female
33%
Transgender
or Gender
Non-conformi
ng
1%
Black or
African
America
n, 57%
White,
29%
Other/Multi-race,
13%
Asian,
1%

37 To that end, the North County Coordinated Entry System Housing Resource Center is located in Berkeley and conducts assessments to match homeless individuals to available services including shelters, transitional housing, and other services such as mental and physical health services and addiction counseling. As of 2020, the City provided 226 year-round shelter beds, 28 seasonal shelter beds, 20 transitional housing beds, and over 500 supportive housing units.

3.4.2 PERSONS WITH DISABIL ITIES
Individuals with disabilities often have special housing needs due to factors such as the need for accessibility, fixed low incomes or limited employment opportunities, and higher health care costs.

According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, approximately nine percent of Berkeley’s population has one or more disabilities. This is consistent with Alameda County as a whole, where approximately ten percent of the population has a disability.

Disabilities are most common among seniors and about 25 percent of the senior population has one or more disabilities (see Table 3.14). Table 3.15 provides information on the prevalence of various types of disabilities for the adult population as a whole and for the senior population. Cognitive difficulties are the most common disability type for both population groups, followed by ambulatory difficulties, and independent living difficulties. Individuals with ambulatory difficulties and/or self - care difficulties may require accessibility features in their home. Due to the age of Berkeley’s housing stock, assistance with adaptation of older units is o ften needed. Cognitive difficulties are defined by the Census Bureau as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem. Although a cognitive disability alone may not necessitate specific physical adaptations to the home, individuals with a cognitive disability may need access to additional mental health and social services.

Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019) Age Range
Population with a
disability
Total Population % of Total
Population
%of Population with
a Disability
Under 18 384 15,157 2.5% 3.6%
18-64 5,855 88,740 6.6% 55.6%
65 or older 4,290 17,229 24.9% 40.7%
Total 10,529 121,126 8.7% 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019)
Disability Type % of Adult Population
(age 18+)
% of Senior Population
(age 65+)
With a cognitive difficulty 4.0% 13.8%
With an ambulatory difficulty 3.7% 10.7%
With an independent living difficulty 3.2% 9.7%

38 With a hearing difficulty 2.2% 7.0%
With a self-care difficulty 1.9% 5.9%
With a vision difficulty 1.5% 4.3%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) Developmental Disabilities
Developmental disability is defined by State law as “a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual…this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.”
Based on zip code -level data from the Department of Developmental Services, ABAG estimates that there are 440 individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Berkeley. About 63 percent of these individuals are adults and 37 percent are under age 18. The majority of persons with a developmental disability reside in their family home (68 percent) (see Table 3.16).

Independent/supported living facilities are the second most common place of residence for persons with developmental disabilities at 22 percent.

Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020) Residence Type % of Individuals with a Developmental Disability Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 68%
Independent /Supported Living 22%
Community Care Facility 4%
Other 3%
Intermediate Care Facility 2%
Foster /Family Home 1%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020))
Resource for Persons with Disabilities
Although many adults with developmental disabilities can live and work independently, group living environments can also provide an appropriate and supportive setting, particularly when an individual ages out of living in their family home. According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are three re sidential facilities for adults ages 18 to 59 within Berkeley with a combined capacity of 56 individuals. Additionally, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals. The Berkeley Municipal Code requires approval of a use permit for residential care facilities, the same process is required for other dwelling units in the residential zones. These requirements are discussed in further detail in the Constraints section of this Housing Element.

39 Several City programs assist homeowners with disabilities. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by nonprofit providers completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income households with a disabled member may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program. Additionally, homeowners may apply for a reasonable accommodation to get relief from zoning and building code requirements that hinder accessibility related improvements.

3.4.3 SENIORS
As Americans’ life expectancy increases, seniors make up an increasing segment of the population.

Berkeley’s population ages 65 to 74 was the fastest growing age group between 2010 and 2019 and seniors ages 65 and over made up over 14 percent of the total population (see Table 3.2).

Additionally, senior-headed households comprise nearly 28 percent of all Berkeley households. Table

3.17 summarizes the tenure and income level of senior households in Berkeley. There are significantly more owner households than renter households; however, renting senior households are much more likely to fall within the extremely low or ver y low income groups. Additional affordable, appropriately sized rental units are likely necessary to meet the housing needs of this group. Additionally, as previously noted, about one quarter of Berkeley seniors have one or more disabilities. Therefore, accessibility is another important factor in the provision of housing for Berkeley’s seniors.

Table 3.17: Senior Households
1 by Tenure and Income Group
Income Group2 Owner occupied Renter occupied
Number Percent Number Percent
0%-30% of AMI 590 6.8% 1,945 50.6%
31%-50% of AMI 640 7.4% 540 14.0%
51%-80% of AMI 895 10.3% 330 8.6%
81%-100% of AMI 580 6.7% 240 6.2%
Greater than 100% of AMI 5,945 68.7% 790 20.5%
Totals 8,650 100.0% 3,845 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Notes:

1. For the
purposes of this table, senior households are those with a hous eholder who is aged 62 or older.

2. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI) the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties).

Resources for Seniors
According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals.

40 In 2016, the City began the Age-Friendly Berkeley initiative (https://www.agefriendlyberkeley.org), which identified affordable housing and home modifications are priority issues. Currently, several City programs assist senior homeowners. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by Rebuilding Together and the Center for Independent Living completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income senior households may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program.

The City operates two senior centers, the North Berkeley Senior Center and the Henry Ramsey Jr.

South Berkeley Senior Center to connect seniors to local resources and provide individualized assistance. The senior centers also operate a grab and go meal program available to all Berkeley residents over 60 that provides five frozen nutritious meals per week for a suggested donation of $15.

3.4.4 SINGLE - PARENT FAMILI ES WITH CHILDREN
Single-parent households, in particular single female-headed households, tend to have a greater need for affordable housing, childcare facilities, and other supportive services due to lower per capita income and higher living expenses. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there are 2,089 single- parent households with children residing in Berkeley. The majority of these households (74 percent) are headed by single females. When compared to Alameda County as a whole, Berkeley has a lower proportion of single parent households . In Alameda County, single- parent households made up 6.8 percent of all households, compared to 4.6 percent in Berkeley.

The Census Bureau utilizes a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country. In 2021, the poverty level for a four-person household was $26,500 and about 14 percent of female-headed households with children were living below that threshold. However, it should be noted that the proportion of this household type needing additional assistance is probably much greater due to the high cost of living in the area. To that end, HCD’s defined income limit for an extremely low-income four-person household in Alameda County was significantly higher than the federal poverty level at $41,100.

Resources for Single-Parent Families with Children
Single parent families with children can benefit from all programs that are intended to assist lower income households in Berkeley. One such program is the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority. However, this special needs group may benefit from the City’s youth programs in particular. The City offers an affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Center.

Scholarship opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education.

3.4.5 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households are defined as households with at lea st five members. Large family households often include multiple children and/or extended family members, such as grandparents. Since

41 adequately sized housing units to serve the needs of large households are often limited, large households are considered a special needs group. Additionally, a lack of appropriately sized and affordable units can lead to large households living in overcrowded conditions.

Figure 3.12 illustrates households by size for Berkeley and Alameda County. Approximately four percent of Berkeley’s households have five or more members (1,827 households). This is notably lower than the County, where 11 percent of households are large households. Berkele y has significantly more one-person households compared to the County, likely due to the presence of the University. According to the U.S. Census bureau, students living in on or off campus student housing facilities are counted “by the bed”; students in p rivate off-campus residences that are not limited to students are counted by their occupancy as a separate living quarter.

As shown in Figure 3.13, household tenure varies by household size. The number of large households that rent their home is similar to the number of large households that own their home, while owner occupancy is more prevalent among four -person households. For households consisting of three or fewer individuals, renting was more common than owner occupancy.

Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) 24%
31%
34%
11%
Alameda County
35%
34%
27%
4% Berkeley
1-Person
Household
2-Person
Household
3-4-Person
Household
5-Person or More
Household

42 Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Resources for Large Households
Lower income large family households are eligible to participate in the City’s affordable housing programs available to all lower income households. This includes the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority.

Although affordable units with three or more bedrooms are less common than smaller units, there are several housing projects within Berkeley that feature larger units. For example, the Savo Island Cooperative Homes project contains 22 three-bedroom units and 27 four-bedroom units which could accommodate larger families.

3.4.6 FARMWORKERS
Farmworkers are considered a special needs group because they tend to have lower incomes, disproportionately live in housing that is in poor condition and/or overcrowded, and ar e predominantly persons of color. There is no agricultural land in Berkeley; therefore, the farmworker population is low. According to the 2015 -2019 American Community Survey, there were 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries in Berkeley, comprising about 0.1 percent of the City’s population. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers.

Resources for Farmworkers
Since farmworkers make up such a small percentage of Berkeley’s population, specific programs for this special needs group are not necessary. Farmworkers residing in Berkeley can access general housing programs and services available to all lower income households in the City. 4,916
7,333
3,001
3,298
930
10,693
8,174
3,356
2,754
897
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

43 3.4.7 EXTREMELY LOW - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Extremely low-income households are those making 30 percent or less of the area median income.

For Alameda County, the HCD defined income limit for extremely low -income households ranged from $28,800 for a one-person household to $54,300 for an eight-person household in 2021. A total of 9,650 Berkeley households fall into this category, comprising 21 percent of all households residing in the City. As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the proportion of extremely low-income households is higher in Berkeley than in Alameda County, where 16 percent of households are extremely low-income.

The large majority (88 percent) of extremely low -income households rent their home (Figure 3.14).

Therefore, high rents in the City are particularly burdensome to this special needs g roup. As discussed in greater detail in the Housing Problems section of this chapter, approximately 88 percent of extremely low -income households have a housing cost burden, meaning that over 30 percent of household income is spent on housing-related expenses (refer to Figure 3.20).

Figure 3.14: Extremely Low -Income Households by Tenure (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households
The City has focused funding to address the needs extremely low -income households on programs that enable households and individuals living in poverty to attain self -sufficiency, support at -risk youth to succeed in school and graduate, and protect the health and safety of low income households.

Training and job placement programs for low income, under -employed or unemployed residents include Inter -City Services employment training, Biotech Academy, the Bread Project, Rising Sun Center for Opportunity Green Energy Training Services, Berkeley Youth Alternatives, UC Theater Concert Careers Pathways, and YouthWorks.

Extremely low-income households with children can also benefit from youth and childcare programs offered by the City. The City offers an affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Cente r. 1,140 , 12%
8,510 , 88%
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied

44 Scholarship opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education.

3.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Berkeley’s urban landscape reveals a great deal about how the City was developed. Building styles, which are typically associated with a particular time period, vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even from street to street. In some places, different stages of development are revealed by an occasional remnant Victorian, or by the area’s general mixture of later styles. The early transportation hubs can still be detected by the evidence of commercial centers and building clusters from different decades.

Broadly speaking, the areas close to the University and Downtown had their initial construction in the 19th Century, though many of them were later substantially rebuilt. West Berkeley, and the village of Lorin in South Berkeley, also had their start in the 19th Century. The initial patter n was a response to the original transportation system of boats, streetcars, and trains. The areas in between remained largely open for some time and then filled in, especially in the first three decades of the 1900s. The expanded suburban development in the hills followed the opening of new streetcar lines, the 1906 earthquake, and ultimately the common use of the automobile.

Densities are greatest in the areas close to the University and Downtown, where there are multi-unit apartment buildings and large s ingle-family homes converted to rooming houses or apartments.

Density can also be found along the main arterials of the city in both older and new apartment buildings. The majority of the city is characterized by small lots with one to four units.

3.5.1 HOUSING GROWTH
According to the Department of Finance, there were 51,523 housing units in Berkeley in 2020. This represents a four percent increase from 2010 and a 10 percent increase since 2000 (see Table 3.18).

Berkeley’s housing growth rate is lower than that of Alameda County. In the past twenty years, there has been a 13 percent increase in housing units in the County.

Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000 -2020) 2000 2010 2020 % Change
2010-2020
% Change
2000-2020
Berkeley 46,875 49,454 51,523 4.2% 9.9%
Alameda County 540,183 581,372 611,752 5.2% 13.2%
Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.

3.5.2 UNIT TYPE AND SIZE
As illustrated in Figure 3.15, detached single -family houses remain the most common housing type in Berkeley, comprising 41 percent of all units. However, when both small (2-4 units) and large (five

45 or more units) multifamily complexes are taken into account, multifamily units comprise 55 percent of the City’s housing stock. There are 218 mobile home units in the City.

Table 3.19 summarizes the number of housing units by type in 2010 and 2020. The majority of new units constructed in the last ten years are part of large multi-family buildings containing five or more units. Overall, the number of multi- family units in the City increased by seven percent while the number of single family units increased by less than one percent.

Figure 3.16 provides information on the size of Berkeley’s housing units. Two-bedroom units are the most common in the City, followed by three- to four-bedroom units. The majority of smaller units (studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units) are occupied by renters. Conversely, the majority of larger units are owner occupied.

Figure 3.17 provides a comparison of housing units by number of bedrooms for Berkeley, Alameda County, and California as a whole. Berkeley has a larger proportion of smaller units with two or fewer bedrooms when compared to the County and the State. Units of two or fewer bedrooms comprise 65 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, while smaller units make up 49 percent and 45 percent of the County and State’s housing stock, respectively. Similarly, larger uni ts containing four or more bedrooms make up just 14 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, compared to 20 percent of Alameda County units and 21 percent of California units. Berkeley’s unit sizes are generally consistent with the prevalence of smaller households, particularly single person households within the City.

Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.) Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010 -2020)
Building Type 2010 2020 Percent Change
All Single Family 22,984 23,202 0.9%
Single-Family (Attached) 2,060 2,096 1.7%
Single-Family (Attached)
4%
Single-Family
(Detached)
41%
Multifamily (2-4 units)
20%
Multifamily (5+
units)
35%
Mobile Homes

0.4%

46 Single-Family (Detached) 20,924 21,106 0.9%
All Multifamily 26,252 28,103 7.1%
Multifamily (2-4 units) 9,980 10,075 1.0%
Multifamily (5+ units) 16,272 18,028 10.8%
Mobile Homes 218 218 0.0%
Totals 49,454 51,523 4.2%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.) Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) 177
1,080
5,52
5 11,171
1,525
3,744
9,263
9,303
3,164
400
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Renter
Occupied
Owner
Occupied

47 Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019)

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

3.5.3 VACANCY RATES
A certain number of vacancies in a community is necessary to moderate housing costs, provide some level of choice for households seeking housing, and provide incentive to keep units in decent condition. Vacancy rates for rental properties are typically higher than owner occupied properties because rental units tend to turnover more frequently. A vacancy rate is considered to be healthy if it permits adequate choices and mobility among a variety of housing units. A healthy rate is considered to be 5-6 percent for rental units and 2-3 percent for owner occupied units.

According to the American Community Survey, vacancy rates have decreased over the last several years (see Table 3.20) and are well below optimal levels. The 2015 -2019 American Community Survey estimates a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent for owner occupied units and 2.4 percent for rental units. Vacancy rates in Alameda County are higher than in Berkeley; however, they are also below healthy levels.

Table 3.21 provides insight into the types of vacancies that exist within the City. The largest vacancy type in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area is “other vacant” (55%, 44%, and 36%, respectively). The Census Bureau defines “other vacant” as units that do not fit into any other year - round vacant category. It is possible that short-term vacation rentals account for a significant subset of this category. The proportion of units for sale and units for rent are lower in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area.

Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019) Vacancy Rates Berkeley Alameda County
9% 5% 4%
23%
16% 13%
32%
28% 27%
21%
30% 33%
10% 16% 17%
4% 4% 4%
Berkeley Alameda County California
5 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
2 Bedrooms
1 Bedrooms
0 Bedrooms

48 2010-2014 2015-2019 2010-2014 2015-2019
Vacant Housing Units (% of Total) 7.6% 6.8% 6.0% 5.1%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 0.9% 0.3% 1.3% 0.6%
Rental Vacancy Rate 3.8% 2.4% 3.9% 2.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) Note: Overall vacancy includes units that are seasonally occupied units.

Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019)
Vacancy Type Berkeley Alameda County
(Percent)
Bay Area
(Percent) Number Percent
For Rent 635 19% 26% 24%
For Sale 52 2% 6% 6%
For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 397 12% 13% 22% Other Vacant 1,827 55% 44% 36%
Rented, Not Occupied 299 9% 5% 6%
Sold, Not Occupied 112 3% 6% 7%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note:
“Other Vacant” as defined by the Census Bureau is a housing unit that does not fit into any other year-round vacant category.

3.5.4 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK AND HOUSING CONDITI ON
The age of a community’s housing stock can provide insight into the level of mai ntenance and rehabilitation needs. Generally, structures over 30 years old are likely to have significant rehabilitation needs which may include a new roof, foundation repairs, and new plumbing. Berkeley has a significant proportion of older units, with ne arly half of all units constructed before 1939 (see Figure 3.18). Overall, 95 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock will be over 30 years old by the end of this housing element planning cycle and 86 percent will be over 50 years old.

According to the 2014- 2019 American Community Survey, the median year structure built for the City’s housing stock is 1942. However, the City’s owner occupied housing stock is significantly older with a median age older than 1939, compared to a median age of 1958 for renter occup ied units.

Regardless of tenure, rehabilitation and maintenance is an ongoing need to preserve the quality of the City’s housing stock.

Lack of sufficient plumbing and kitchen facilities is another indicator of substandard housing condition. Although units without sufficient plumbing or kitchens are rare in Berkeley, renter households are more likely to reside in a unit with one of these issues. The 2015 -2019 American Community Survey estimates that about 0.6 percent of owner occupied units and about 2.1 p ercent of renter occupied units lack sufficient kitchen facilities. Lack of sufficient plumbing is rarer, with 0.3 percent of owner occupied units and 1.2 percent of rental units lacking sufficient plumbing (Table

3.22).

49 Local building and code enforcement divisions can also provide insight into the condition of housing units in the community, based on complaints filed, inspections, code violations, and other observations. Based on 2021 activity, there were a total of 303 code enforcement cases reported, of which 238 were resolved. The average number of days to resolve a case was 53 days. Approximately 15 to 18 percent of complaint -based code enforcement cases are identified as blight cases (approximately 35 cases in 2022) , which suggests that there are potentially more units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. A more accurate number of housing units in need of rehabilitation is approximately between 1,000 to 2,500 units, or less than five percent of the City’s total housing stock.

Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019) Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units
Lack of Sufficient Kitchen Facilities 117 0.6% 606 2.1% Lack of Sufficient Plumbing 58 0.3% 310 1.2%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019)

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

3.5.5 HOUSING COSTS AND AF FORDABILITY
Housing costs have a significant impact on the prevalence of housing issues within a community. High housing costs in comparison to household income have a direct impact on the types of units a household can afford, whether they incur a housing cost burden, or whether they live in overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the cost of renting and homeownership in Berkeley. An affordability analysis is also included in this section. Additional information on housing problems such as cost burden and overcrowding, is included in the Housing Problems section later in this chapter.
23,861
4,088 4,815 5,143 3,992 2,
573 1,595 1,722 885

50 Rent Stabilized Units
The City of Berkeley adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance in 1980, which limits annual rental increases for units built prior to 1980. According to the Rent Stabilization Board, there are approximately 19,414 rent stabilized units within the City of Berkeley as of March 2021. Since 2005, the annual adjustment for rents has been 65 percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the metropolitan area.

However, in compliance with the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, landlords are allowed to establish market rate rents when a unit is vacated and leased to a new tenant in units constructed before enactment of the law (known as “vacancy decontrol”). Once reoccupied, the annual rent increases are limited by the local jurisdiction’s rent stabilization provisions. As shown in Table 3.23, vacancy decontrol has had a significant impact on the affordability of rent controlled units. The average rent ceiling for tenancies starting after 1999, when full implementation of the Costa -Hawkins Act began, is nearly two and a half times higher than units with tenancies starting before 1999.

Table 3.24 provides the median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Median rents increased at a much greater rate between 2010 and 2020, when compared to the previous decade, with the cost of two -bedroom and smaller units outpacing increases in median income over the same time period. Median rents for new tenants in 2020 ranged from $1,750 for a studio apartment to $3,850 for a three-bedroom apartment.

The Ellis Act, first effective in 1986, gives property owners the right to remove apartment buildings from the rental market for development or repurposing. The term “Ellised” has been utilized to refer to a property owner’s removal of a multifamily property from the rental market. The State does not require the owner to report on the reason a property has been Ellised. However, the Ellis Act does authorize local governments to place restrictions on properties that have been Ellised to ensure that this process is not abu sed. Berkeley has adopted these various restrictions in the Ellis Implementation Ordinance and has monitored compliance with the Ellis Act and Ellis Implementation Ordinance since their induction.

As of June 2020, 154 properties have been Ellised, totaling 457 units, since 1986. 1 According to the
Rent Stabilization Board’s data on Ellised properties, the majority of properties removed from the rental market contain just one or two units. Only three properties containing ten or more units have been removed from the rental market.

In September 2017, then Governor Brown signed into law AB 1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix”, which restored the authority of local jurisdictions to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new rental housing projects. BMC 23.328 Inclusionary Housing currently requires that all residential housing projects, including rental, that result in a total of five or more dwelling units must include at least 20 percent of the total number of units as inclusionary. The units must be sold or rented to very low and/or low income households.

1 City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Summary of Ellis Act Evictions (1986 – 6/1/2020)”, October 2020.

51 Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre - and Post -Costa- Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021) Rent Stabilized Units Number of Units Percent of Units Average Rent Ceiling (all units)
Average Rent
Ceiling (1-BR
units)
Tenancies Starting Before 1999 1,858 9.6% $909 $829
Tenancies Starting 1999-2021 17,556 90.4% $2,247 $1,948 Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”.

Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000 -2020) Number of Bedrooms 2000 2010 2020 % Change
2000-2010
% Change
2010-2020
Studio $800 $950 $1,750 18.8% 84.2%
One-Bedroom $1,100 $1,225 $2,085 11.4% 70.2%
Two-Bedroom $1,500 $1,660 $2,895 10.7% 74.4%
Three-Bedroom $1,980 $2,395 $3,850 21.0% 60.8%
Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”.

Market Rate Rental Units
Table 3.25 summarizes a survey of units listed for rent on Zillow in November 2021; therefore, it contains information for both market rate units and units that are subject to rent stabilization. As shown, median rents from the Zillow survey are significantly higher than the median rents for rent stabilized units listed in Table 3.24. Due to the limitations of the Ordinance, rent stabilized units are all within older buildings. The survey showed a signif icant proportion of units available for rent, particularly studios and one-bedrooms, were part of new large multifamily complexes. High rents in these new complexes drive up the median rent for smaller units. Larger units with three or more bedrooms are less common within the City, which may create difficulties for larger households to find affordable, appropriately sized units.

Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021) Number of Bedrooms Number of Units
Range Median
Low High
Studio 74 $959 $3,525 $2,950
One-Bedroom 179 $1,500 $4,145 $3,125
Two-Bedroom 129 $2,040 $6,193 $3,555
Three-Bedroom 29 $2,700 $11,900 $3,950
Four or More Bedrooms 11 $4,705 $16,850 $5,648
Source: Zillow.com listings of units for rent in Berkeley, accessed November 11, 2021.

Homeownership Market

52 Home values in this section are based on the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). The ZHVI is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Figure 3.19 illustrates home values in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area for 2001 through 202 0. Although values dropped slightly during the Great Recession, home values have increased steadily in all three geographies since 2011. Home values in Berkeley continue to be significantly higher than regional home values.

Between December 2010 and September 2021, there was a 129 percent increase in Berkeley home values. As shown in Table 3.26, the sharpest increase in home values occurred between 2010 and 2015. However, it should be noted that home values increased over 15 percent during the nine - month period between December 2020 and September 2021. In September 2021, the typical value for a single family home in Berkeley was over $1.6 million. The typical value for a condominium was $915,000.

Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001- 2020)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index).

Note: This data includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series
Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010 -2021)
Home Value1 Percent Change
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
Bay Area Alameda County Berkeley

53 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2015 Dec. 2020 Sept. 20212 2010-
2015
2015-
2020
2020-
2021
All Homes $691,769 $1,057,613 $1,373,932 $1,586,269 52.9% 29.9% 15.5% Single Family $719,997 $1,102,257 $1,422,265 $1,642,326 53.1% 29.0% 15.5% Condominium $435,601 $647,001 $834,586 $914,967 48.5% 29.0% 9.6% Source: Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index.

Notes:

1. Zillow
Home Value Index

2. Most recent data available
Housing Affordability
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines housing affordability as paying no more than 30 to 35 percent of the household’s gross income (depending on income and tenure) on housing expenses. In addition to rent or mortgage payments, housing expenses include utilities, taxes, and insurance. Table 3.27 provides an estimate of affordable rents and home prices by income level, based on HCD’s 2021 household income limits for Alameda County. These figures are general estimates only and based on conservative assumptions such as low down -payment and does not take into account the tax benefits of homeownership. These estimates can be compared to the typical rents and home values in Berkeley as discussed in the previous sections to provide a general picture of affordability.

Based on the home values presented in Table 3.26 and the affordable home prices presented in Table

3.27, lower income and moderate income households cannot afford to purchase a single family home or condominium in Berkeley.

As indicated in Table 3.24 median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units range from $1,750 for a studio to $3,850 for a three- bedroom rental unit. Based on Table 3.27, extremely low and very low income households cannot afford this level of ren t without incurring a significant cost burden.

Low, median, and moderate income households may be able to afford a rent stabilized unit with two or fewer bedrooms. Larger units with three bedrooms remain unaffordable, posing an issue for large households.

When the entire rental market is considered rather than rent stabilized units only (see Table 3.25), the median rents are unaffordable for all lower income and median income households. Moderate income households may be able to afford some units without incurring a cost burden; however, they may be smaller and result in overcrowded conditions.

Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021)

Annual
Income
Limits

Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Rental
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Ownership
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes,
Insurance,
HOA

Affordable
Rent

Affordable
Home Price

Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)

54 1-Person
(studio)
$28,800 $720 $186 $203 $252 $535 $69,971
2-Person (1 BR) $32,900 $823 $222 $243 $288 $601 $76,988 3-Person (2 BR) $37,000 $925 $274 $306 $324 $652 $77,811 4-Person (3 BR) $41,100 $1,028 $349 $392 $360 $679 $72,705 5-Person (4 BR) $44,400 $1,110 $392 $463 $389 $719 $68,126 Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person $47,950 $1,199 $186 $203 $420 $1,013 $151,982 2-Person $54,800 $1,370 $222 $243 $480 $1,148 $170,776 3-Person $61,650 $1,541 $274 $306 $539 $1,268 $183,377 4-Person $68,500 $1,713 $349 $392 $599 $1,364 $190,048 5-Person $74,000 $1,850 $392 $463 $648 $1,459 $194,891 Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person $76,750 $1,919 $186 $203 $672 $1,733 $275,321 2-Person $87,700 $2,193 $222 $243 $767 $1,971 $311,673 3-Person $98,650 $2,466 $274 $306 $863 $2,193 $341,833 4-Person $109,600 $2,740 $349 $392 $959 $2,392 $366,062 5-Person $118,400 $2,960 $392 $463 $1,036 $2,569 $385,037 Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person $87,900 $2,198 $186 $203 $769 $2,012 $323,072 2-Person $100,500 $2,513 $222 $243 $879 $2,291 $366,491 3-Person $113,050 $2,826 $274 $306 $989 $2,553 $403,502 4-Person $125,600 $3,140 $349 $392 $1,099 $2,792 $434,584 5-Person $135,650 $3,391 $392 $463 $1,187 $3,000 $458,912 Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person $105,500 $2,638 $186 $203 $923 $2,452 $398,445 2-Person $120,550 $3,014 $222 $243 $1,055 $2,792 $452,356 3-Person $135,650 $3,391 $274 $306 $1,187 $3,118 $500,288 4-Person $150,700 $3,768 $349 $392 $1,319 $3,419 $542,077 5-Person $162,750 $4,069 $392 $463 $1,424 $3,677 $574,970 Sources: 2021 HCD Income Limits; Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Veronica Tam & Associates, 2021.

Assumptions:

1. Income
limits are t
he 2021 HCD limits for Alameda County.

55 2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.

3. Utility costs are based on Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2021.

4. Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.

5. Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.

6. Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.

3.5.6 UN ITS AT- RISK OF CONVE RSION TO MARKET RATE HOUSING State Housing Element law requires the Housing Element to include an evaluation of the potential for currently deed-restricted affordable rental units to convert to market -rate housing within the next ten ye ars, or from 2023 to 2033. This section includes an inventory of all deed -restricted rental housing in Berkeley, evaluates their potential for market -rate conversion, and presents potential options for preserving at-risk units.

Assisted Housing Inventory
There are over 2,300 deed restricted affordable rental units within the City of Berkeley. A complete listing of properties containing affordable rental units is contained in Appendix A. In compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, all units constructed to fulfill inclusionary requirements are deed restricted to remain affordable in perpetuity and are at no risk of being converted to market- rate housing. Density bonus units are restricted for a term of 55 years. Therefore, projects that have both inclusionary units and density bonus units may have multiple affordability terms. Table 3.28 provides a listing of the publicly assisted rental units at risk of conversion to market rate housing over the next ten years (through 2033). A total of 3 pr ojects (92 units) are at -risk for potential conversion to market rate units between 2023 and 2033. See also Appendix A Inventory of Publicly- Assisted Housing.

All three of the at -risk projects are reliant on project -based subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that are currently renewable on an annual basis and do not have other known restrictions recorded on the property which would prevent conversion to market rate. These vouchers allow the project owner to collect HUD’ s Fair Market Rent, restrict occupancy to lower income residents, and assure that the resident will only be responsible for that portion of rent equal to 30 percent of their income. Because these vouchers are contingent on annual appropriations from the federal government, the vouchers must be renewed annually; therefore, the units are constantly “at risk” due to the possibility of federal policy changes. Additionally, all three properties are beyond their original affordability expiration date and the owners could decide not to renew their subsidy on any given year. However, over time, data and experience have shown that many owners continue to renew their contracts beyond the original expiration date, providing evidence that the link between affordability expiration date and conversion is not inevitable. This is particularly true for projects owned by mission -based housing nonprofit organizations. All three of these properties are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations and the City has no indication that the owners intend to convert the units to market rate; therefore, the risk of conversion to market-rate units is low.

56 Table 3.28: Units At -Risk of Converting to Market Rate Name
Address
#
Affordable
Units
Owner Program Affordability
Expiration
Bonita House
1910-1912 Hearst St.
2 Bonita House Inc. 202 Annual Renewal
Lawrence Moore Manor
1909 Cedar St.
46 Satellite Affordable
Housing Assoc.
236(J)(1) / 202 Annual Renewal
Stuart Pratt Manor
2020 Durant Ave.
44 Satellite Affordable
Housing Assoc.
202 Annual Renewal
Total Units 92
Preservation Options
There are a total of 92 units at -risk of converting to market rate within the next ten years.

Preservation of at-risk units can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including provision of rental subsidies to tenants, facilitation of the transfer of units to nonprofit organizations or purchase of similar replacement units by nonprofit organizations, purchase of the affordability covenant, and new construction of replacement units.

Rent Subsidy. One potential option for preservation of at -risk units is to provide rent subsidies to tenants to cover the gap between the affordable rent and market rent. Assuming availability of funding, the City could provide a voucher to very low income households, similar to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The level of subsidy required is estimated to equal the market rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low income household. Table 3.29 estimates the subsidies required to preserve housing a ffordability for the units within the three at -risk projects. Based on the assumptions utilized, over $2.1 million in rent subsidies would be needed annually, resulting in a need of $43 million in subsidies over a 20-year period.

Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At -Risk Units Affordable Units Bonita House
L. Moore
Manor
S. Pratt Manor Total All
Projects
Studio - 37 28 65
1-Bedroom - 9 16 25
2-Bedroom - - - -
3-Bedroom 2 - - 2
4-Bedroom - - - -
Total 2 46 44 92
Total Monthly Rent Income based on Affordable
Housing Cost of Very Low Income Households
$2,728 $47,813 $46,732 $97,273

57 Total Monthly Market Rent $7,900 $137,275 $132,600 $277,775 Total Monthly Subsidies Required $5,172 $89,462 $85,868 $180,502 Total Annual Subsidies Required $62,064 $1,073,544 $1,030,416 $2,166,024 Average Annual Subsidies per Unit $31,032 $23,338 $23,419 $23,544 Average Monthly Subsidies per Unit $2,586 $1,945 $1,952 $1,962 Sources: See Table 3.25 and Table 3.27.

Note: The following assumptions were used to estimate subsidies:

1. Studio units were assumed to be occupied by a 1-person household; 1-bedroom units by a 2-person household; 2- bedroom units by a 3-person household; 3-bedroom units by a 4-person household; 4-bedroom units by a 5-person household

2. Affordable monthly rent for a very low income household is based on the 2021 AMI for Alameda County (found in Table 3.27).

3. Market Rent is based on median market rent as present in Table 3.25).

Transfer of Ownership. Transfer of ownership from a private owner to a nonprofit housing organization is another potential way to preserve at-risk units. However, since all of the at-risk units within Berkeley identified in this analysis are already nonprofit owned, this is an unlikely option.

Extension of Affordability Covenant. In some cases, affordability can be preserved by providing financial incentives to the project owner to maintain the affordability of the project. For example, the City of Berkeley has historically utilized Housing Trust Fund loans to complete rehabilitat ion work on affordable units. As part of the loan, the City requires the owner to extend the affordability covenant for an additional 55 years, thereby preserving affordability of the units. This mechanism has been utilized to extend affordability in projects such as Lorin Station and Rosewood Manor.

Replacement Costs. Many factors contribute to the cost of developing new housing, including project location, density, size and number of units, and type of construction. Based on a report completed by Street Level Advisors
2, the total construction cost for a new affordable housing unit in Berkeley is approximately $700,000. Utilizing this estimate, approximately $64.4 million would be needed to construct new units to replace all the units at-risk during the planning period.

Preservation Cost Comparison and Resources. Based on past City practice, utilizing Housing Trust Funds for rehabilitation of older affordable housing developments in exchange to an extension of the affordability term is perhaps the most viable preservation option. This approach was utilized to successfully preserve units in Rosewood Manor, a property that was identified as at -risk of conversion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

Approximately $43 million would be required to provide rent subsidies for all at-risk units over a 20- year period. However, these buildings would likely need rehabilitation during that time period due to age and operating a rent subsidy program would require significant administrative resources, adding to the total co st. Based on an estimated cost of $700,000 per unit, it would cost over $64

2 City of Berkeley, City Council Report (April 27, 2021 – Item 31), Attachment 1: Street Level Advisors, “Estimating the Need for Housing Subsidy for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations”.

58 million to construct 92 replacement units. However, factors such as labor and materials costs and land costs can fluctuate significantly.

There are several nonprofit organizations operating in Berkeley which own and/or manage affordable housing developments. The organizations include: Resources for Community Development, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, BRIDGE Housing, Northern California Land Trust, and the John Stewart Company. The John Stewart Company and BRIDGE Housing are based in San Francisco while the other two organizations are based in Berkeley. In the event that the City was contacted by a property owner or received a Notice of Intent for the conversion of affordable units, the City would make contact with these organizations and others that have expressed interest in acquiring affordable rental housing.

Potential funding sources that may be used to acquire and/or rehabilitate at-risk housing include:

Federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Project Based Section 8
Sections 202 and 811
State Mental Health Services Act Housing Program
Multifamily Housing Program
Local General Funds
Housing Trust Funds

3.6 HOUSING CHALLENGES
Factors including household income, market rents and home prices, available unit sizes, and household size can all contribute to cost burden and/or overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the prevalence of overcrowding and cost burden within the City of Berkeley.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is utilized in this section. The CHAS utilizes data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to provide information on housing problems, including cost burden and overcrowding. The most recent data available is derived from the 2013-2017 ACS.

3.6.1 HOUSING COST BURDEN
A household is considered to have a housing cost burden if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing expenses. Housing expenses include rent or mortgage payments and utilities. For owner households, housing expenses also include taxes and i nsurance. Households with a cost burden may have trouble making rent, mortgage or utility payments, keeping up with home maintenance, or may have to forego other non- housing related necessities in order to keep up with

59 housing expenses. A household is considered as having a severe cost burden if housing expenses make up over 50 percent of the household’s gross income.

As summarized in Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017), 42 percent of all Berkeley households are cost burdened with 23 percent experiencing a severe cost burden. Cost burden is notably more prevalent among renter households, with over half of renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing expenses.

When compared to the region, cost burden is more widespread in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. A total of 37 percent of Alameda County households and 36 percent of Bay area households are cost burdened.

As expected, cost burden occurs most frequently for households in lower income categories (see Figure 3.20). Approximately 76.2 percent of lower income households (13,485 out of 17,705) pay over 30 percent of their income towards housing, including 78.5 percent of renter-occupied households (11,345 out of 14,455) and 65.5 percent of owner -occupied households (2,130 out of 3,250). A total of 87 percent of extremely low income households pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 77 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.

The proportion of households with a cost burden lessens as incomes increase. However, it is a prevalent issue impacting over half of lower income households, and one third of moderate income households.

Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) Cost Burden
(>30% of Income Used for Housing)
Severe Cost Burden
(>50% of Income Used for Housing)
# of Households % of Households # of Households % of Households Berkeley
Owner Occupied 5,298 27% 2,398 12%
Renter Occupied 13,794 53% 8,182 32%
All Households 19,092 42% 10,580 23%
Region
Alameda County 214,197 37% 96,579 17%
Bay Area 986,937 36% 447,802 16%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

60 Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Overcrowding
As defined by HCD, overcrowding occurs when there is more than one person per room in a housing unit (including the living and dining rooms, but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding occurs when there is more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding typically occurs when households cannot afford a housing unit that is the appropriate size or when larger units are not available in the market. Households then either rent a unit that too small or double up with another family in order to afford housing costs, resulting in overcrowding. Families that choose to live with extended family or in multi-generational living arrangements may also struggle to find units that are large enough at an affordable cost, particular ly in a City like Berkeley where housing costs are high and there are fewer large units.

Overcrowding in less common in Berkeley than in the region. Just four percent of Berkeley households are overcrowded, which includes the UC student population, compared to almost eight percent in Alameda County and seven percent in the Bay area (Table 3.31).

As shown in Table 3.32, the proportion of lower income households living in overcrowded conditions is slightly higher than moderate and above moderate income households. Overcrowding impacts six percent of renter households, but just over one percent of owner households. 13% 19%
41%
67%
86%
11 %
32%
35%
26%
12%
77%
49%
24%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households
50%+ of
Income Used
for Housing
30%-50% of
Income Used
for Housing
0%-30% of
Income Used
for Housing

61 Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) Berkeley Alameda County Bay Area
Number of Households Percent of Households
Total Overcrowded 1,813 4.0% 7.9% 6.9%

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants/Room 929 2.0% 5.0% 4.2%
>1.5 Occupants/Room 884 1.9% 2.8% 2.7%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017)

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants/Room
More than 1.5
Occupants/Room
Total Overcrowded
By Income Group
0%-30% of AMI 3.3% 3.6% 6.9%
31%-50% of AMI 4.5% 1.4% 5.9%
51%-80% of AMI 1.6% 1.5% 3.2%
81%-100% of AMI 0.5% 1.6% 2.1%
Greater than 100% of AMI 0.8% 1.2% 2.0%
By Tenure
Owner Occupied 0.9% 0.4% 1.3%
Renter Occupied 2.9% 3.1% 6.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

62 4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
This section of the Housing Element analyzes potential constraints to housing production in the City of Berkeley. State H ousing Element Law requires the Housing Element to analyze two categories of potential constraints: governmental and non-governmental. • Governmental constraints. May include factors such as local land use policies and zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and development and impact fees. • Non-governmental constraints. May include construction and land costs, financing availability, physical constraints, and availability of infrastructure.

If constraints are identified, the City must take action or implement programs to remove or address them. As discussed in further detail below, the City strives to minimize constraints to development and implements numerous programs, policies, and procedures to address identified constraints.

4.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRA INTS
Planning policies and zoning regulations establish rules for how land may be developed, including the uses allowed and the intensity of development. Although local ordinances and policies are typically adopted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community’s residents, they may also result in constraints to the development of housing. Permit requirements, fees, and review procedures can also impact the cost, timeline, and approval certainty for residential development.

This section discusses potential governmental constraints to housing development that may result from Berkeley’s policies, procedures, and regulations.

4.1.1 GENERAL PLAN
The City of Berkeley last completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2001. The Land Use Element of the General Plan guides the physical development of the City in conjunction with other Elements, including the Transportation Element, Urban Design and Preservation Element, and the Housing Element. A number of the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element support the production and ongoing maintenance of housing within the City. Specifically, the Land Use Element aims to increase the supply of affordable housing, encourage mixed-use development downtown and along commercial corridors, and increase resiliency to natural disasters.

The Land Use Element assigns land use classifications to areas throughout the City. Classifications describe the range of land uses and intensities allowed within an area. It is important to note that these intensity guidelines are not used as standards to determine intensity on a specific parcel, providing more flexibility in analysis of individual projects. In the commercial and mixed -use designations, intensity is expressed in terms of floor area ratio (FAR) rather than dwelling units per acre, providing additional flexibility. Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations lists the general plan land use designations which allow for residential development, along with the range of building intensity. Berkeley has four residential land use designations in which residential development is the primary intended use. Residential development is also allowed within three of Berkeley’s commercial

63 designations (Neighborhood Commercial, Avenue Commercial, and Downtown). The Mixed Use – Residential designation is intended to preserve areas of the City for light industrial uses while also allowing for residential development where appropriate.

Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Designation Density (units/acre) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Low Density Residential 1-10 du/ac
Low Medium Density Residential 10-20 du/ac
Medium Density Residential 20 -40 du/ac
High Density Residential 40-100 du/ac
Neighborhood Commercial FAR: <1 – 3
Avenue Commercial FAR: <1 – 4
Downtown FAR: <1 – 6
Mixed Use – Residential FAR: 1 – 1.5
Note: These density and FAR guidelines are not used as standards to determine development intensity on a specific parcel.

Source: City of Berkeley, General Plan Land Use Element, 2001.

Berkeley’s General Plan is not a governmental constraint to the development of housing. Residential development is encouraged through both the stated policies and objectives of the Land Use Element as well as the City’s land use designations and associated development intensities. The City has approved several projects with a density of over 200 dwelling units per acre in recent years, which is further evidence that the policies of the General Plan do not constrain development.

4.1.2 ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool by which the City implements the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City is currently in the process of completing a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision Project. Phase 1 of the Project included amendments to improve the overall organization, formatting, and style of the Zoning Ordinance to make it more user friendly, clarify existing requirements, and lay the foundation for future substantive revisions. The changes included in Phase 1 became effective on December 1, 2021. Phase 2 of the Project is in progress and includes incremental updates to the City’s processes and procedures. The City is also in the process of developing objective standards for multi -unit development (see next subsection for additional details). Unless otherwise noted, this section discusses the Zoning Ordinance as currently adopted without the planned amendments.

Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance provides for a diverse array of housing types, from single -family dwellings that are regulated by typical zoning standards to multiple -family buildings constructed at high densities along the City’s commercial corridors.

Density and Development Standards

64 Nearly all of Berkeley’s zoning districts allow residential development. The only districts that do not allow residential-only or mixed -use are the MU -LI, M, and MM zones located in West Berkeley that are developed with and planned for manufacturing uses. The majority of opportunities for residential development are within areas zoned for multi-family and mixed-use, and development of new single- family residences is not common, though it is allowed in most districts.

A summary of the City’s development standards for residential and mixed-use projects are included in Appendix B of the Housing Element. For most zoning districts, residential development standards, such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. are similar to standards in other nearby cities.

Density is a key factor in identifying potential constraints to development. In addition to development being limited by maximum density requirements, other development standards can have the effect of preventing projects from being built at the maximum allowable density. However, in Berkeley, the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance have not had this effect. The Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit -per-acre de nsity standards. Other development standards related to setbacks, lot coverage, and open space have not limited high density development within the City.

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 include a sampling of the densities for multi -family and mixed-use projects with ten or more units which have been entitled since 2015. As shown, the average density for multi- family projects is over 160 units per acre and over 200 units per acre for mixed -use projects, and density bonuses are common. A more detailed density analysis by zone is also included in Appendix C: Sites Inventory.

Table 4.2: Density of Multi -Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015 -2021 Address Zone Number of Units Density (DU/A) Density Bonus 3031 Telegraph C-1 110 152 35%
1950 Addison C-DMU 107 228 20%
2012 Berkeley C-DMU 142 175 35%
2028 Bancroft C-DMU 37 223 23%
2711 Shattuck C-SA 22 169 -
2542 Durant C-T 32 150 -
2597 Telegraph C-T/R-2 14 53 35%
2000 Dwight R-4 113 173 20%
Average Density 165
Source: City of Berkeley, Planning Division, 2022
Table 4.3: Density of Mixed -Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015 -2021 Address Zone # Units Density (DU/A) Density Bonus
1717 University C-1/R-2A 28 144 35%
2124-2126 Bancroft/2121-2123 Durant C-DMU 50 212 25%
2072 Addison C-DMU 66 281 -

65 2009 Addison St C-DMU 45 188 -
1951 Shattuck C-DMU 156 390 -
2352 Shattuck C-DMU 204 189 25/35%
2176 Kittredge C-DMU 165 165 -
2210 Harold C-DMU 38 279 -
2000 University C-DMU 82 571 35%
2099 M L K Jr. C-DMU Buffer 72 257 35%
2023 Shattuck C-DMU Core 48 600 35%
2001 Ashby C-SA 87 144 35%
3000 Shattuck C-SA 23 74 -
2628 Shattuck C-SA 78 208 -
2701 Shattuck C-SA 57 210 35%
2510 Channing C-T 40 179 -
2556 Telegraph C-T 24 98 -
2501 Haste C-T 55 128 -
2580 Bancroft C-T 122 183 35%
2590 Bancroft C-T 87 289 35%
1740 San Pablo C-W 51 163 35%
2100 San Pablo C-W 96 157 -
2198 San Pablo C-W 60 289 35%
3000 San Pablo C-W 78 243 35%
2720 San Pablo C-W 25 114 35%
1200 San Pablo C-W 104 182 35%
739 Channing MU-LI/M-UR 14 37 -
1601 Oxford R-3 37 114 35%
2539 Telegraph R-3/C-T 70 183 35%
Average Density 216
Source: City of Berkeley, Planning Division, 2022
Parking
The City has taken significant steps to reduce constraints to development related to parking requirements in recent years. As of 2021, i n the majority of the City, no parking is required for new residential development of any number of units. In addition, new residential projects with two or more dwelling units on a parcel have an off-street parking maximum if located within 0.25 miles of a

66 major transit stop, or along a transit corridor with service at 15 -minute headways during peak periods. Developments on roadways narrower than 26 feet within the Hillside Overlay have minimal requirements due to the physical constraints of this area.

Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
Land Use Required Off-Street Parking
Residential Districts
Dwellings, including Group Living
Accommodations
None required.

Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26’ wide in the Hillside Overlay:
-R-3, R-4, and R-5 (1-9 units): 1 space/unit
-R-3, R-4, and R-5 (10+ units): 1 space/1,000 SF of gross floor area -All other Districts: 1 space/unit
Dormitories, Fraternity/Sorority Housing,
Rooming & Boarding Houses, Senior
Congregate Housing
None required.

Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26’ wide in the Hillside Overlay: 1 space/5 residents plus 1 space for manager
Commercial Districts
Dwellings, including Group Living
Accommodations
None required. Exception: If located on a roadway less than 26’ wide in the Hillside Overlay: 1 space/unit
Hotel, Residential None required
Mixed-Use (residential use only) None required
Senior Congregate Housing None required
Live/Work If workers/clients are permitted in work area, 1 per first 1,000 sq. ft. of work area and 1 per each additional 750 sq. ft. of work area Manufacturing Districts
Dwellings/Group Living Accommodations None required
Live/Work MU-LI: 1 space/1,000 SF of work area where clients are permitted MU-R: 1 space/first 1,000 SF of work area where clients are permitted plus 1 space/each additional 750 SF of work area
Source: BMC Section 23.322.030
In order to encourage the most efficient use of space and promote transit use, the City has implemented maximum parking requirements for projects located within one quarter mile of a major transit stop or along a transit corridor with 15 -minute headways during peak periods may not develop off-street parking at a rate higher than 0.5 spaces per unit.

Demolition Controls
Chapter 23.326 of the Zoning Ordinance codifies the city’s Demolition Ordinance, which regulates the demolition of dwelling units in Berkeley. Demolition of dwelling units is subject to the use permit process and reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Single dwelling units may be demolished so long as they were not removed from the renta l market under the Ellis Act during the

67 preceding five years and there was no illegal tenant eviction. To demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 with two or more dwelling units (i.e. subject to local rent control), one of the following findings is required:
• The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair. • The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units. • The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community.
• The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units.

Multi-unit buildings are also restricted where a building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years or “there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.” Applicants for multi-unit buildings are also required to provide relocation benefits, including moving expenses and differential rent payments. In addition, displaced tenants are provided a right of first refusal to rent new units.

To mitigate the impact of the loss of housing caused by the demolition, the applicant is required to either provide permanent below market rent replacement units or pay an in- lieu fee. The City is reviewing the demolition ordinance to ensure compliance with State density bonus, SB 330, and other laws, and will amend the fee and replacement requirements accordingly. While the in lieu fee and unit requirements may add to the cost of development for projects which include demolition of existing units, they play an important role in preserving existing housing in the City, which tends to be more affordable than new.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Inclusionary housing was originally adopted as City policy as part of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in 1973. The inclusionary housing requirements (“Inclusionary Ordinance”) originally took effect in February 1987 and have been revised in response to market conditions and various court decisions since that time. The current Inclusionary Ordinance is codified in Chapter 23.328 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The City’s inclusionary requirements apply to rental and ownership projects that have a total of five or more units, though the requirements apply differently for each type. Applicants may choose to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing units on-site. The in-lieu fee amount for rental projects is set by Council resolution and in 2021 was $39,746 per unit if paid at issuance of certificate of occupancy or $36,746 if paid at building permit issuance (fees are also subject to an annual adjustment based on the California Construction Code Index). For rental projects, an affordable housing mitigation fee is applied; however, projects can incorporate affordable units as an alternative to paying the mitigation fee. Fees collected through the inclusionary program are deposited in the Housing Trust Fund to be

68 utilized for affordable housing development. New commercial developments are also required to pay an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, which is deposited into the Housing Trust Fund.

Although inclusionary requirements do increase the cost of market rate development, they are a key component in the City’s efforts to increase the affordable housing supply in Berkeley. As of December 2021, there are a total of 530 affordable units within market rate developments as a result of this program. Additionally, a total of 1,376 affordable units have been develope d with the assistance of Housing Trust Fund monies. Further, the continued level of residential development activity in the City, as evidenced by the projects listed in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, indicates that the inclusionary program does not unduly constrain market rate development.

However, the City’s various affordable housing requirements are complex and codified in multiple sections of the Municipal Code and numerous resolutions implement fee amounts and other aspects of the programs. In addition, in 2 018, the California legislature passed AB 1505, effectively overturning the Palmer decision (2009) and allows for cities to combine rental and ownership requirements under a single inclusionary housing ordinance.

In an effort to update and consolidate the requirements, as well as ensure that they align with State law and City priorities, the City is in the process of considering potential amendments. The City’s overarching goals for updating affordable housing requirements are:

1. Center racial and economic equity by reversing exclusionary zoning

2. Encourage a mix of units and fees

3. Continue Berkeley’s legacy of value capture

4. Continue progress on housing goals

5. Work within the City’s existing administrative capacity Proposed amendments include: consolidating all affordable housing requirements into one Chapter, including inclusionary requirements for ownership, rental, live/work, and group living accommodations; establishing a per square foot in-lieu fee rather than the existing per unit basis and standardizing own er and rental fees; requirements to incentivize units for very low -income households; adding land dedication as a potential alternative to providing on-site units; providing an option to provide family-sized units; removing the exemption for most group living accommodations; reducing fees for small projects; and, other administrative changes to facilitate program implementation. Residential units that are constructed to qualify for a density bonus under Government Code §65915 that otherwise meets the City’s proposed requirements for an “Affordable Unit” may also be counted towards the City’s inclusionary requirement . These zoning amendments are anticipated to be completed in June 2023 (see Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements).

Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
The City first adopted a Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) in 1974. The LPO establishes the duties of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPO gives the LPC authority to make landmark, structure of merit, and historic district designations, subject to appeal to the City Council.

69 The LPC also reviews permit applications for alteration, construction, or demolition of landmarks, structures or merit, and structures in historic districts, also subject to Council appeal.

Proposals for designation can be initiated by petition application or motion of the LPC itself, or by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Civic Arts Commission. Petition applications must be accompanied by the signatures of at least 50 Berkeley residents. From the time a site is initiated, the LPC has 70 days to open the public hearing and 180 days to act after the public hearing is closed. BMC Section 3.24.110 contains the criteria for site designation, which is briefly summarized below.

Landmarks and Historic Districts Architectural merit
Cultural value
Educational value
Historic value
Structures of Merit (SOM) Contemporary of, or compatible with, related City Landmark Exemplar of design
Historical Significance
Once a site is designated as a landmark or structure of merit, or as part of historic district, alterations to the exterior of the building are subject to design review by the LPC. The provisions of the designation, such as the character-defining features of the structure, are specified in the designation action by the LPC.

In cases where the site subject to initiation is also a site with a pending application for a development proje
ct, the landmark review may stay consideration of the development project revi ew process.

This could prevent the City from reviewing a project within an expedited timeframe. However, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental review for cultural resources occurs whether a site is locally designated or not. In order to mitigate the uncertainty and delay that may result from the initiation of a site for local designation, the Berkeley Planning Department uses the following procedures to identify potential historic resources early in the project review process:
• Requires applicants for development to provide a cultural resources analysis for proposals that include substantial changes to structures that are more than 40 years old, consistent with the standard practices of the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office. • All applications to demolish a structure located in a non-residential district that is more than 40 years old are referred to the LPC for comment prior to consideration of the permit to demolish, in accordance with the Berkeley Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance. • For sites subject to initiation, staff make every effort to facilitate the designation review process as efficiently as possible.
• Starting in 2007, the City staffed the LPC with a professional historic preservation planner. The planner provides the Commission with detailed recommendations on historic resource initiations and review of structural alteration permits.

70 For SB 330 preliminary applications, the City receives the project application and confirms the current local register status of the project site. If the proposal requires an LPC demolition referral per BMC 23.326.070, then the referral occurs and any local designation that may result cannot also result in conditions of approval that require preservation of the resource (notwithstanding the designation).

Density Bonus
State density bonus provisions have changed both frequently and significantly in recent years in order to further incentivize the use of this affordable housing tool. AB 1763 (2019) expanded the maximum density bonus and other provisions for projects with 100 percent affordable units, including the following:
• Up to 20 percent of the total units in an affordable project can be for moderate income households
• Density bonus of up to 80 percent required; however, no limitations on density are permitted for projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop
• Height increase of up to three additional stories or 35 feet Additionally, AB 2345 (effective 2021) increased the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent for projects that are not composed exclusively of affordable units.

Berkeley’s density bonus provisions are contained in Chapter 23.330 of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance was last updated in 2019 and consistently references S tate law for specifics related to density bonus, incentives and concessions, and processes and procedures. In this way, the ordinance has remained compliant with changes to State law without necessitating repeated amendments. As evidenced by Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015 -2021and Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015- 2021, density bonus is a commonly used tool in Berkeley residential development with over half of larger projects receiving a density bonus.

Developing at Assumed Densities
In summary, the City of Berkeley’s land use controls do not present a barrier to residential development. As mentioned previously, the Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit -per-acre density standards and use permits are commonly granted to exceed development standard limits.

As illustrated by Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 and by the Likely and Pipeline sites listed in Appendix C, Tables C -3 and C -6, Berkeley’s development standards do not appear to constrain residential development. It is also important to note that the City has a 20 percent inclusionary requirement, and correspondingly, over 55 percent of applications under review and over 85 percent of anticipated pipeline (pre-application) projects currently utilize State Density Bonus and are afforded waivers and concessions to development standards.

While the City demonstrates a successful, and increasing, trend of residential projects constructed at or above maximum permitted development envelopes, Appendix C Sites Inventory conservatively assumes that opportunity sites will develop at the average baseline density (subtracting density

71 bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, and completed mixed -use and residential projects.

In order to demonstrate that the existing zoning standards do not constrain development at the assumed average baseline density for zones where lower and moderate income sites are represented, nine prototype projects are described below. The calculated densities for each of the nine prototype projects meet or exceed the assumed densities in the sites inventory. The calculated densities are derived from unit capacity assumptions based on minimum lot size (0.35 acres), average 900 gross square foot unit size, net lot coverage, and either number of stories or floor area ratio, whichever is more constraining. Averages are used where there is a range within the districts.

Prototype Site Development Projects

1. Mid-Density Residential (R-2, R-2A, R-3)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Lowest Maximum Coverage (%) 30%
Maximum Height (ft) 35
Maximum Stories 3
Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 13,725 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 15
Calculated Density (units/acre) 44
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 40

2. Mid-High Density Residential (R-4)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Lowest Maximum Coverage (%) 35%
Maximum Height (ft) 65
Maximum Stories 6
Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 32,025 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 36
Calculated Density (units/acre) 102

72 Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 75

3. High Density Residential (R-S, R-SMU)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) 0 to 10
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 4 to 19
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 60%
Maximum Height (ft) 45
Maximum Stories 4
Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 36,600 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 41
Calculated Density (units/acre) 116
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 75

4. Neighborhood Commercial (C-NS)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) 0 to 10
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 0 to 16
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 50%
Maximum Height (ft) 35
Maximum Stories 3
Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 22,875 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 25
Calculated Density (units/acre) 73
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 50

5. Corridor Commercial (C-C, C-DMU Corridor/Buffer, C-T, C-U, C-W)

73 Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) 0 to 10
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 0 to 15
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 80%
Maximum Height range (ft) 35 to 75
Average Maximum Height (ft) 55
Average Maximum Stories 5
Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 61,000 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 68
Calculated Density (units/acre) 194
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 160

6. South Area Commercial (C-SA)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) 4 to 15
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 6 to 15
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 75%
Maximum Height range (ft) 36 to 60
Average Maximum Height (ft) 48
Average Maximum Stories 4.5
Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 51,469 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 57
Calculated Density (units/acre) 163
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 160

7. Adeline Corridor (C-AC)

74 Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) No min
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) No min
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 100%
Maximum Height range (ft) 35 to 90
Average Maximum Height (ft) 63
Average Maximum Stories 6
Maximum Floor Area Ratio range 2.0 to 5.5
Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio 4.0
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * FAR * stories) 61,000
Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 68
Calculated Density (units/acre) 194
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 160

8. Downtown Outer Core (C-DMU Outer Core)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) No min
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 5 to 15
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 75%
Maximum Height range (ft) 75 to 120
Average Maximum Height (ft) 98
Average Maximum Stories 9
Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 102,938 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 114
Calculated Density (units/acre) 327
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 160

75 9. Downtown Core (C-DMU Core)
Lot Size (sf) 15,250
Lot Size (ac) 0.35
Min Ground Floor Setbacks (ft) No min
Min Upper Floor Setbacks (ft) 5 to 15
Net Coverage (%), with required setbacks 75%
Maximum Height range (ft) 75 to 180
Average Maximum Height (ft) 128
Average Maximum Stories 10
Average Maximum Floor Area Ratio No max
Total Floor Area (sf) - (lot * coverage * stories) 114,375 Average Unit Size (sf) 900
Total Units 127
Calculated Density (units/acre) 363
Sites Inventory Maximum Assumed Density (units/acre) 160 To further demonstrate that the City’s current land controls do not constraint development, the City retained Street Level Advisors to perform a static pro forma analysis of the current housing development environment
3 as part of the effort to update the affordable housing requirements (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements ). The analysis included existing and proposed inclusionary fees, paired with existing development controls, to estimate the return on investment generated by prototypical rental and for -sale housing development in Berkeley. The February 2022 study found both base and density bonus projects to be feasible, particularly given no maximum density standard, no minimum parking requirement, the ability to pay partial in- lieu fees, and—for density bonus projects —waivers to the height standard. This allows developers to respond to rising construction costs with smaller units (higher density), no or minimal parking spaces, and additional heights on smaller lots.

The City is committed to ensuring a realistic development environment by conducting a follow -up development feasibility study by December 2025 ( Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) and anticipates making several zoning amendments to facilitate additional residential development in Berkeley, even though the existing zoning standards can accommodate the City’s sixth cycle RHNA. Commonly requested waivers and/or concessions include height and setbacks. As a result, the City is in the process of creating multi-unit objective development standards,

3 The February 2022 Financial Feasibility Analysis performed by Street Level Advisors used revenue and cost assumptions based on prior studies of prototypical residential development in Berkeley, comparable projects, and other market research.

76 which would include standards to increase development potential, including but not limited to, increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the calculation and configuration of open space, particularly along transit corridors and in the highest resource neighborhoods (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment:

Residential and Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors).

The City is working with BART to comply with AB 2923 and has adopted new zoning standards for a mixed-use district to facilitate residential development at North Berkeley and Ashby BART. The new zoning will primarily permit housing and includes new standards for height, floor area ratio, and minimum density (Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning).

Development of objective standards for “missing middle” housing in the lower density residential zones is also in progress and anticipated to be completed by in 2023 (Program 29 -Middle Housing).

As part of these amendments, the City is also considering allowing this type of development by-right.

4.1.3 PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES
Local permit processing procedures have the potential to constrain development by lengthening the time it takes to gain project approval as well as impacting project approval certainty. Currently, the majority of new residential development in the City requires discretionary review through the use permit process. Multiple required use permits for a single project are processed concurrently. The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) was adopted in 1973. The NPO established the requirement for most new residential construction to obtain a use permit, as well as required the “non-detriment” finding for approval (see use permit discussion below). That said, the NPO has been superseded in part by subsequent adoption of the master plan and zoning updates mandated by the initiative, both of which can now be amended by ordinance.

Table 4.5 provides the processing times for the permit types required for various residential developments. All projects are reviewed for compl eteness at the staff level within 30 days of initial paid invoice, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Any subsequent r esubmittals are also reviewed for completeness within 30 days. Processing times may vary based on the size and complexity of a project, the required CEQA pathway, the extent of required revisions and the applicant’s responsiveness, and the length of time for an applicant to resubmit.

Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times
Permit Type Processing Time Reviewing Body
Zoning Certificate Over the Counter Zoning Officer
Administrative Use Permit 2 to 8 months Zoning Officer
Use Permit 6 to 24 months Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Variance Rarely approved Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Design Review – Staff Level 2 months Zoning Officer
Design Review – Design Review Committee 6 months Design Review Committee (DRC)

77 Zoning Ordinance / General Plan Amendments 12 to 24 months City Council Tentative Parcel/Tract Map 3 to 6 months City Manager/Planning Commission Source: City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department, 2022 As shown in Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone and Table 4.7:

Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone, both single- family and multi-family developments generally require use permit approval in Berkeley. However, due to the greater level of complexity, multifamily projects usually require a lengthier processing time (9 to 24 months) when compared to a single-family residence (6 to 12 months).

Consistent with SB 330, eligible housing development projects that require discretionary review and comply with applicable general plan and zoning standards are subject only to the development standards and fees that are in effect when the SB 330 Preliminary Application is submitted. Housi ng development projects include the following uses: residential -only, mixed -use where at least two - thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing.

The City is in the process of creating objective development standards for multifamily developments (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential ). These amendments are anticipated to be adopted in within the first three years of the 6
th Housing Element cycle (2023- 2025) and will
streamline project review by providing clear, predictable expectations for buildable envelope and floor area. A by -right approval process is also being considered for smaller “middle housing” residential projects in single - and lower-density residential districts, which would further shorten permit processing times (Program 29 -Middle Housing).

Zoning Certificate
Zoning certificates are reviewed and approved ministerially by staff and the purpose is to confirm that a use or structure complies with the Zoning Ordinance objective standards and establishes a record of the initial establishment of a use or structure; therefore, the processing time for zoning certificate approval is minimal. The zoning certificate process is utilized for ADU applications, as well as community care facilities, emergency shelters, and live/work units under certain circumstances.

For ADUs, a zoning certificate is approved as part of the building permit review workflow.

Use Permit / Administrative Use Permit
Use permits and administrative use permits (AUP) are discretionary permits intended to ensure that proposed developments do not adversely impact neighboring properties or the general public.

Administrative use permits are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Officer and do not require a public hearing. Use permits require a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Board.

The required findings for approval are the same for use permits and administrative use permits , which are that the proposed project or use:
• Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or visiting in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use; and

78 • Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City.

Due to the public hearing requirement, the discretionary process creates the potential for projects to be scrutinized for their impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The process also increases the overall project review time, particularly if multiple public hearings are necessary. That said, since the passage of SB 330 (2019), the City has processed all eligible housing development projects (e.g. residential or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square-footage residential; or transitional or supportive housing) under the five public hearing and meeting limits of Gov. Code §65905.5(a) , regardless of whether an SB 330 pre-application has been filed for the eligible project.

Additionally, in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), all proposed applications are reviewed for compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoni ng standards (Gov. Code §65589.5(j)). T he City does not deny permits, nor reduce project density, based on subjective findings. The City may only deny the project or approve it with a reduced density if the decision is based on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:

1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.

To date, the City has not denied a project or reduced its density under HAA. In addition, the City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards ( Program 33 - Zoning Code Amendment: Residential) as well as amending permit processes ( Program 34 -Permit Processing) which will reduce entitlement and permit processing timelines and increase certainty for applicants.

CEQA Determinations
For CEQA determinations, the City reviews all applications according to the procedures in the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.030.E, which is consistent with Public Resource Code sections 21080.1 and 21080.2. Once an application is deemed complete, staff recommends the appropriate level of environmental review within 30 days . For complete projects that are categorically exempt from CEQ A, staff indicate the exemption recommendation in the 30 -day completeness letter. For projects that are not categorically exempt from CEQA or if the impacts of the project are not known, or if any anticipated significant impacts of the project can be mitig ated to “less-than significant,” an initial study will be prepared. The Zoning Officer (for AUP’s) or the Zoning Adjustments Board (for UP’s) make the final determination of whether a project has a significant effect on the environment . When a project is e xempt from CEQA, the review authority makes the required findings for CEQA exemptions which results in the determination, and approves or disapproves the project at the same meeting, complying with the Permit Streamlining Act’s timeline in Gov. Code Section 65950(a)(5).

Information about the status of project applications, particularly once an application has be en deemed complete, has often not been readily available to the public including the determination that a CEQA exemption is recommended to the decision- making body. Therefore, changes in the City’s

79 permit processing with regard to the availability of information about pending project applications have been added to Program 34 - Permit Processing.

In response to concerns that the permit process was a constraint, the Planning Department hired Zucker Systems in order to improve customer service to the Berkeley community. The final report was issued i n May 2017. As described below, the City has taken many steps to improve the development review process with the specific intent to provide more direction and certainty to applicants.

To provide greater responsiveness to customers and applicants, the City implemented the following changes:
• Timely Communication. Return all phone calls and emails within 24/48 hours. • Plan Check Backlog. Work to reduce plan check backlog, then set reliable baselines. • Minor Plans Reviews. Assign to Permit Service Center (PSC) Plans Examiner to provide faster review for clients with simple projects.
• AUP Timelines. Using Accela permit software, reduce AUP process timelines and allows for ongoing monitoring and reporting of performance.
• Customer Handouts. Update all handouts to be more clear and germane, and make them easily available. Provide customers with clear and accessible resources to learn about specific building permit application requirements for themselves.
• Minimum Application Checklists. Provide customers with clear understanding of what applications must include, so they can submit without undue time spent or unnecessary visits to the PSC.

An applicant can request and pay for expedited processing of a Use Permit. By outsourcing some of the project review work, this allows staff resources to be re-allocated fairly among all projects, meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, and also provide an opportunity for faster review.

Design Review
Design review ensures that exterior changes to mixed -use and non- residential buildings largely comply with the City of Berkeley Design Guidelines, which are intentionally generalized and projects are not expected to respond to every guideline. Design reviews are limited in scope to issues of building and site design only (e.g. placement on lot and landscaping, not developable building envelope) and conducted concurrently with land use review processes.

Design review is required for:
• Projects in all non-residential zones;
• Mixed use and community and institutional projects in the R-3 district within the Southside Plan area; and
• Commercial, mixed-use, and community and institutional projects in the R-4, R-SMU, and R-S districts (BMC Section 23.406.070).

80 Redesign of the interface between a new building and the adjacent neighbors can mitigate land use conflicts inherent in the transition between medium- density residential neighborhoods and high - density mixed -use buildings. For this reason, design review is important in a n urban city that encourages citizen participation, as well as excellence in building and site design.

Staff level review. For projects requiring a Zoning Certificate or an AUP, the Zoning Officer may add conditions of approval related to project design, and projects are reviewed for conformance with the conditions during issuance of the building permit. Staff level review must be completed within 60 days of the date the application is deemed complete (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)).

Design Review Committee. For projects requiring ZAB approval, design review is conducted by the Design Review Committee (DRC), which is an advisory subcommittee of the ZAB and not an approval body. In this case, a preliminary design review is held prior to the ZAB making a decision on the Use Permit and is typically completed within the time frame of Use Permit preparation and review processes. Design review must be completed within 60 days of submittal of compl ete final Design Review plans or within the time limit required by the Permit Streamlining Act, whichever is less (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)).

Under recent legislation, the City limits the total number of public hearings and meetings to five , which include DRC meetings, so the City has further streamlined the project review process and closely coordinates the various review bodies, making sure that there is one hearing reserved for possible appeal to the City Council. As mentioned in previous sections, t he City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards ( Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment:

Residential) as well as amending permit processes (Program 34 -Permit Processing).

State Streamlining
Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015 -2023), the City of Berkeley has made insufficient progress toward its very low and low income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings. Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days. Since 2018, 4 projects have been approved through SB 35 ministerial approval.

In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re- used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very L ow-Income and Low -Income) be subject to by- right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower income households on- site. As shown in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, AB 1397 streamlined review will be applied to 13 opportunity sites with an estimated capacity of 1,215 lower income units, primarily located along Berkeley’s commercial corridors adjacent in transit-rich locations.

81 4.1.4 PROVISION FOR A VARI ETY OF HOUSING TYPES
State Housing Element Law requires local jurisdictions to identify adequ ate available sites through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the population as well as housing types that serve special needs groups such as persons with disabilities, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness. The City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide variety of residential uses in its residential zones as well as its commercial zones. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 summarize the permit requi rements for various residential uses in each zone. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a discretionary use permit for the majority of residential development in Berkeley. The use permit process is discussed in further detail in the Permit Processing section of this Chapter. The remainder of this section includes further discussion on various housing types, their permit requirements, and any other specific standards that apply to them.

Table 4.6: Permits Re quired, By Housing Type and Residential Zone Housing Type R-1 R-1A ES-R R-2 R-2A R-3 R-4 R-5/R-
S/
R-SMU
Single-family Detached UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
Duplex NP UP NP UP UP UP UP UP
Multi-family NP NP NP UP UP UP UP UP
Accessory Dwelling Units1 ZC ZC NP ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Community Care Facilities6 ZC/UP
3 ZC/UP3 ZC/UP4 ZC/UP3 ZC/UP3 ZC/UP3 ZC/UP3 ZC/UP3
Emergency Shelters NP NP NP NP NP NP ZC/UP5 ZC/UP5
Senior Congregate Housing NP NP NP NP ZC/AUP/
UP2

ZC/AUP/
UP
2 ZC/AUP/
UP
2 ZC/AUP/
UP
2 Mixed-Use Projects NP NP NP UP UP UP UP UP
Group Living
Accommodations

NP NP NP NP NP UP UP UP
ZC=Zoning Certificate, AUP=Admin. Use Permit, UP=Use Permit, NP=Not Permitted Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022.

Notes:

1. Prov
ided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306.

2. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H).

3. ZC required for change of use; UP required for new constr uction.

4. ZC required for change of use from a legally established single family dwelling; maximum of 6 residents. All others prohibited.

5. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020.

6. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing.

82 Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone Housing Type C-C/C-N/

C-E/C-NS/

C-T/C-SO/

C-AC/C-DMU

C-U C-SA C-W MU-LI MU-R
Single-family Detached UP UP1 UP UP NP UP2
Duplex UP UP1 UP UP NP UP2
Multi-family UP UP1 UP UP NP AUP/ UP2,3
Accessory Dwelling Units4 ZC ZC ZC ZC NP ZC
Community Care Facilities5 AUP AUP AUP ZC NP ZC6
Emergency Shelters ZC/UP7 ZC/UP7 ZC/UP7 ZC/UP7 NP NP
Single Room Occupancy Units UP UP1 UP UP NP NP
Senior Congregate Housing ZC/AUP/UP8 ZC/AUP/
UP8

ZC/AUP/
UP
8 ZC/AUP/
UP
8 NP ZC/AUP/UP8
Live/Work Units ZC ZC UP AUP/UP9 AUP/UP10 AUP/UP10
Mixed-Use Projects UP UP1 ZC/UP11 ZC/AUP/
UP
12 NP AUP/ UP2,3
Group Living Accommodation UP UP1 UP UP NP UP2
ZC=Zoning Certificate, AUP=Admin. Use Permit, UP=Use Permit, NP=Not Permitted Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022.

Notes:

1. Resi
dential uses must be part of a mixed-use development within University Avenue Node Ar eas; outside of Node
Areas exclusively residential projects are permitted with a use permit.

2. UP required within 150’ of M or MM district or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. See BMC Section. 23.206.090.B.8.

3. AUP required for 3-4 units; UP required for 5 or more units. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.7. For mixed use projects see also Section 23.206.090.B.9.

4. Provided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306.

5. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing.

6. Change of use only. New construction of a community care facility is not permitted.

7. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020.

8. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H).

9. AUP required when project has 9 or fewer live/work units and does not involved conversion of an existing dwelling unit. All other live/work projects require a use permit. See BMC Section 23.312.030.C.3.

10. Permit required dependent on floor area, number of units, and other factors. See BMC Section 23.312.030.D.

11. ZC required for projects under 5,000 square feet in gross floor area with only residential above ground floor, provided the project complies with applicable standards. Use permit required for all other mixed-use projects. See BMC Section 23.204.100.B.4.

12. Permit required dependent on project size and other factors. See BMC Section 23.204.140.B.2.

Single Family Housing

83 As defined by the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance, a single-family dwelling is a building designed for and occupied exclusively by one household. Detached single family housing is permitted with approval of a use permit in all residential zones and all commercial zones within the City.

Mobile homes or manufactured homes, as defined in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and consistent with State law, are considered dwelling units if they are mounted on a permanent foundation and connected to all utilities. Therefore, mobiles homes intended for single family occupancy are subject to the same permit requirements and development standards as conventional single-family housing.

Multi-Family Housing
Multi-family housing developments of three or more units are permitted with a use permit in Berkeley’s multi -family residential zones (R -2, R -2A, R -3, R -4, R -5, R -S, and R -SMU) and all commercial zones. In the MU -R zone, smaller multi -family projects of three to four units are permitted with an administrative use permit provided they are not within 150 feet of the M or MM zones or a manufacturing use. Multi-family projects with five or more units in the MU-R zone or those not meeting the distance requirements described require use permit approval. The Zoning Ordinance also allows duplexes with use permit approval in all zones where larger multi -family projects are permitted. Additionally, duplexes are permitted with a use permit in the R-1A zone.

The City is actively working on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow for by-right development of “missing middle” multi -unit residential projects in the lower density residential zones to encourage a mix of unit types and affordability in the lower density zones (R -1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R). See Program 29 -Middle Housing.

Mixed-Use Development
The Zoning Ordinance defines mixed-use residential as “a development project with both residential and non-residential uses which are either 1) located together in a single building; or 2) in separate buildings on a single site of one or more contiguous properties.” Mixed-use residential developments are permitted with a use permit in all zones that allow multi - family residential uses (R -2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R -SMU). A use permit is also required for mixed-use development within the majority of the City’s commercial zones. However, in the C -SA zone, mixed-use projects can be approved administratively with a zoning certificate if they have less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area and the residential component is located above the ground floor.

In the C- W zone, certain mixed -use projects can be approved administratively. Mixed -use projects less than 5,000 square feet in size are subject only to zoning certificate approval. Additionally, projects which are less than 20,000 square feet and where the retail space comprises 15-33 percent of the gross floor area can also be approved with a zoning certificate. Projects that are 5,000 to 9,000 square feet in size can be approved with an administrative use permit. All other mixed -use projects in the C-W zone are subject to use permit approval.

Accessory Dwelling Units

84 The State legislature has passed numerous bills in recent years with the goal of facilitating the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These bills, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13, limit how local jurisdictions can regulate ADUs and JADUs with provisions related to development standards, application and approval process, and fees.

The City’s provisions related to ADUs are located in Chapter 23.306 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and were most recently updated in 2022. ADUs and JADUs which comply with the standards set forth in State law are permitted with zoning certificate approval on any lot with at least one existin g or proposed dwelling unit. Chapter 23.306 states that the purpose is to implement California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and ensures that the City’s provisions are compliant with State law and will remain in compliance even if the Legislature makes changes to ADU regulations.

Group Living Accommodations
The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance defines group living accommodations as “a building or portion of a building designed for or accommodating a residential use by persons not living together as a household. This use includes dormitories, convents and monasteries, and other types of organizational housing, and excludes hospitals, nursing homes and tourist hotels. Group living accommodations typically provide shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. Residential hotels and senior congregate housing are separately defined types of group living accommodations each with their own permit requirements.” Note that student housing that is not available for rent to non- students may be considered noninstitutional group quarters and is not counted towards meeting the City’s RHNA.

With the University of California located within the City, group living accommodations are an important housing type in Berkeley. Group living accommodations are permitted with a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones. Additionally, they are allowed with use permit approval in the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single room occupancy (SRO) units are small units intended for occupancy by a single individual and differ from studio apartments or efficiency units in that they may have shared kitchen or bathroom facilities. SRO units provide an affordable housing option for extremely low income or formerly homeless individuals because they are typically rented on a monthly basis and do not require a rental deposit.

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance permits SRO units within residential hotels. Residential hotels are defined by the Zoning Ordinance as “a type of group living accommodations which provides room for rent for residential purposes, including single residential occupancy (SRO) rooms.” Residential hotels are permitted with approval of a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones.

Emergency Shelters
SB 2 (2007) requires local jurisdictions to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right if adequate capacity in existing shelters is not sufficient to serve the population in

85 need of emergency shelter. This determination is based on the number of individuals experiencing homelessness identified in the most recent point in time count.

In 2019, the State Legislature passed AB 139, which limits the development and performance standards that a local jurisdiction can impose on emergency shelters. Local provisions can only impose standards that apply to other commercial or residential uses in the same zone along with the following standards:
• Maximum number of beds;
• Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff, provided that this standard does not require more parking for shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone; • Size and location of onsite client waiting and intake areas; • Proximity to other shelters, provided that shelters are not requires to be more than 300 feet apart;
• Length of stay;
• Lighting;
• Provision of onsite management; and,
• Securing during operating hours.

Chapter 23.308 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance contains the City’s regulations pertaining to emergency shelters. The City permits emergency shelters ministerially by-right with approval of a zoning certificate in several zones based on the number of beds provided in th e facility, as shown in Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone. S h elters with 60 or fewer beds are permitted by right in the C-DMU zone. Within all other commercial zones, facilities with 25 or fewer beds are permitted by right. Additionally, shelters with 15 or fewer beds are permitted by right within the R -4, R-5, R-S, and R -SMU zones. In addition to underutilized sites identified in the sites inventory, some of the existing older hotels/motels largely located along the University Avenue corridor and commercial surface parking that are not included in the City’s sites inventory, may be repurposed or redeveloped to emergency shelters.

The C-DMU zone s pans over 168 acres on 265 parcels, including 35 sites identified for 5.2 acres in the sites inventory, and one existing hotel site (2045 University) located outside of the sites inventory. The C-DMU zone allows for 100 percent coverage, no lower story set backs, and building heights of 50 to 180 feet depending on location. The C -DMU zone is located in the highest transit accessible area of the City, and is within walking distance to ample services (e.g., the Dorothy Day House at 1931 Center, Berkeley Food a nd Housing Project at 2140 Dwight). These characteristics indicate the feasibility for either redevelopment or potential conversion of existing structures to shelter use in this zone.

Furthermore, the commercial zoning districts encompass approximately 1,900 parcels, including 96 sites identified for 33.4 acres in the sites inventory. The majority of the other commercial zones located close to services and major transit (C- C, C-U, C-W, C-T, C-AC) allow for 90 to 100 percent coverage for mixed-use residential uses, no minimum setbacks when adjacent to other commercial districts, and maximum heights of 36 to 90 feet depending on location. All of the commercial districts

86 are proximate to transportation and services, being located along major corridors that eit her currently contain and/or allow a wide range of service uses. For example, the C -AC zone is located along the South Shattuck corridor, which is served by AC Transit local, all-nighter and transbay lines, as well as the Ashby BART station. Further east, the C -T and C-C zones located along the Telegraph corridor are served by several AC Transit lines and are within walking distance to services such as Bay Area Community Services (2809 Telegraph), Suitcase Clinics (2407 Dana and 2236 Parker), Bonita House (1802 Fairview) and the Berkeley Drop-In Center (3234 Adeline). Within the western portion of the City, the C-W zone is located along the San Pablo transit corridor, as well as the North Berkeley BART station, and is located within walking distance of the Women’s Daytime Drop-in and North County Housing Resource Center (2218 Acton Street), as well as the West Campus Pool at 2100 Browning, a City-operated drop-in shower program.

Based on the 2019 Point -in-Time Count, an estimated 1,108 homeless persons are located in Berkeley. At 200 square feet per bed, 1,108 beds could be accommodated in multiple facilities totaling approximately 221,600 square feet of floor area to accommodate the City’s estimated unsheltered need. The shelters can be accommodated in one or a combination of the following locations:
• In C-DMU, where building heights of 50 to 180 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate five stories totaling approximately 1 acre and containing up to 60 beds each. • In transit-rich commercial zones, where building heights of 36 to 90 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate three stories totaling approximately 2 acres and containing up to 25 beds each.

Outside of the sites inventory, the commercial zoning districts contain 22 surface parking parcels on 5 acres, as well as several hotels/motels located along the University Avenue corridor that can be converted to emergency shelters via adaptive reuse:
• C-W District hotels/motels: 920, 975 University
• C-U District hotels/motels: 1175 (split zoned with R-4), 1619, 1761, 1820, 2045 University.

Therefore, the City has complied with the requirements of SB 2 by providing opportunities for the by right development of emergency shelters in various zones throughout the City, particularly throughout higher density residential and commercial districts which are located close to services and major transit.

As demonstrated in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, the City has many underutilized commercially designated properties where emergency shelters are permitted by right. Furthermore, adaptive reuse of existing structures is another option for establishing shelter facilities without redevelopment of the properties. The City has sufficient properties in these zones to accommodate its unsheltered homeless.

Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone Zones Permit Required
Residential Zones - R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU
15 beds or fewer Zoning Certificate

87 More than 15 beds Use Permit
Commercial Zones

C-C, C-U, C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SA, C-T, C-SO, C-W, C-AC
25 beds or fewer Zoning Certificate
More than 25 beds Use Permit
C-DMU
60 beds or fewer Zoning Certificate
More than 60 beds Use Permit
Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, Table 23.308-1
For larger emergency shelters approval of a use permit is required, as indicated in Table 4.8. In addition to the required findings for approval for all use permits, the Zoning Adjustments Board must also make the following required findings specifically for emergency shelters:

1. A larger shelter facility will help meet the City’s goals pertaining to emergency housing of the homeless;

2. The circumstances of the subject property make the larger facility appropriate; and,

3. Design features will minimize impacts on the surrounding area.

Separate from the permit approval process, shelter providers are required to conduct a community meeting for a proposed shelter after providing notification of the meeting to owners and occupants within a 100 -foot radius of the proposed shelter location (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.9). However, the purpose of the community meeting is informational and does not impact the decision of the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board to approve or deny an application.

The development and performance standards for emergency shelters are contained in Section

23.308.030.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The City’s requirements include the following:
• A client intake area equal to one-quarter of the area provided for client beds. The area may be multi-use.
• Showe r and restroom facilities.
• Lighting shall be provided in all exterior areas and must be directed in a manner that does not cast light onto neighboring properties.
• Provision of on-site
management during all hours of operation and at least one hour before and after facility operation hours.
• Preparation and implementation of a Shelter Safety and Management Plan which addresses aspects of shelter operations, including staffing levels, security, procedures for client queuing and enforcement of rules, and others.

There are no parking requirements for emergency shelters and the provision of v ehicle and/or bicycle parking is stated as optional (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.5.g ). The City’s standards are in compliance with AB 139 and therefore, do not constrain the development of emergency shelters within the City.

88 With the most recent changes to State law regarding emergency shelters, the City will identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size. AB 2339 makes two changes to Housing Element law. AB 2339 provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential uses are permitted or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services. The law also seeks to ease constraints on the development of emergency shelters by requiring that any development standards applied to emergency shelters be "objective." This Housing Element includes an action to evaluate the City ’s compliance with AB 2339 and if modifications may be necessary (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing).

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101 (2019) defines “low barrier navigation centers” and requires local jurisdictions to permit them by right in zones that allow mixed -use development and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses, provided the facility meets certain standards. Per AB 101, a low barrier navigation center is “a Housing First, low- barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Housing First refers to an overall approach to serving individuals experiencing homelessness where a decent, safe place to live is provided before addressing any other barriers or factors that may have resulted in the person’s homelessness. Low barrier shelters may also provide additional flexibility, such as allowing partners to share living space or allowing pets.

In addition to requiring local jurisdictions to permit low barrier navigation centers by right in certain areas, AB 101 requires jurisdictions to act on applications for these facilities within a specified timeframe. The provisions of AB 101 are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed. Low barrier navigation centers are not addressed in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance.

Therefore, the Housing Programs chapter of this Housing Element includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit low barrier navigation centers as required by AB 101 (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Pursuant to State law (SB 2 of 2007 and SB 745 of 2013), transitional and supportive housing are residential uses that shall only be subject to the same permitting requirements and development standards as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

The Zoning Ordinance defines transitional housing as follows:

From Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2: Any dwelling unit or a Group Living Accommodation configured as a rental housing development, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted units to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time.

The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify transitional housing as a use in the Allowed Uses table for the residential or commercial zones (BMC Tables 23.202.1 and 23.204 -1). However, based

89 on the definition above, the Zoning Ordinance permits transitional housing in the same manner as the housing type in which it is located (i.e., single-family home, multi-family residence, or group living accommodation). Therefore, the City’s requirements pertaining to transitional housing are compliant with State law and do not constrain their development.

Supportive housing is included in the definition of community care facility, wh ich is allowed in the residential and commercial zones. In all zones where multifamily and mixed -uses are permitted , applications for supportive housing facilities which involve the creation of a new facility or conversion of an existing dwelling unit(s) are permitted by-right with zoning certificate approval.

AB 2162 (2018) introduced new regulations to facilitate the development of supportive housing. For cities with a population of less than 200,000, supportive housing projects with 50 or fewer units must be permitted by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed -use residential development is permitted, provided the project meets other specified criteria. Additionally, local jurisdictions may not require parking for supportive housing projects located within one half mile of a public transit stop. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 - Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing .

In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Employee and Farm Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) requires local jurisdictions to consider employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees as a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows unrelated individuals to live together as a household, but does not include any specific provisions related to employee housing; therefore, an implementation program proposes to make necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments to address employee housing ( see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment:

Special Needs Housing).

The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use.

There is no agricultural land located in Berkeley and the 2015 -2019 American Community Survey estimated just 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries residing in the City. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers. Therefore, specific zoning regulations for farmworker housing are not necessary.

4.1.5 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DI SABILITIES
Individuals with disabilities may have special housing needs related to restricted mobility, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to live independently. State law requires the Housing Element to analyze the City’s zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and building codes to identify any potential constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Definition of Family

90 Zoning Ordinance definitions of “family” or “household” may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities, specifically group homes or care facilities, when they limit the number of members of a family or household or require that family or household members be related. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance definitions for “family” and “household” are provided below. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a separate definition for family, and instead references the definition for household.

The definition for household is not restrictive based on relation or number of household memb ers and, while it states that household arrangements are “usually characterized” by shared living expenses and single leasing contracts, the City does not require a single lease or rental agreemen t nor does the City monitor and enforce shared living expenses. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance definitions do not limit communal, inter -generational, or other forms of caregiving household arrangements and do not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Family. See Household.

Household. One or more persons, whether or not related by blood, marriage or adoption, sharing a dwelling unit in a living arrangement usually characterized by sharing living expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, food costs and utilities, as well as maintaining a single lease or rental agreement for all members of the household and other similar characteristics indicative of a single household
However, the City will simplify the definition of “Household” to be characterized by one or more persons with common access and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas, while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing).

Residential Care Facilities
The State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) requires that licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer individuals be treated as residential uses and permitted by right in all zones where residential use is permitted. Berkeley Zoning Ordinance Section

23.502.020 (Defined Terms) includes residential care facilities in the definition for community care facility. These definitions are compliant with state law and are provided below:

Residential Care Facility. See Community Care Facility.

Community Care Facility. A state-licensed facility for the non-medical care and supervision of children, adolescents, adults or elderly persons. This use includes community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 1500 et seq, residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.), facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped (California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq.), alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11834.02), supportive housing (California Government Code Section 65582), and other similar facilities. This use excludes medical care institutions, skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, foster homes, family day care homes, child care facilities, and transitional housing.

91 Section 23.202.040(A) includes the permit requirements for community care facilities, including residential care facilities, in the residential zones. Conversion of an existing dwelling into a community care facility is permitted through the zoning certificate process, regardless of the number of residents the facility serves. If a facility serves more than six people, the community care facility requires approval of a use permit, which is the same review procedure applied to other residential development.

There are no specific development standards that apply to community care facilities that do not also apply to other residential development in the same zone, except for parking. The parking requirement for community care facilities in the residential and manufacturing zones is one space per two non -resident employees. There are no parking requirements specific to community care facilities located in co
mmercial zones.

Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing . In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Reasonable Accommodation
In some circumstances, development standards which may otherwise be acceptable may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. For example, wheelchair access to a dwelling may not be able to be constructed without a ramp encroaching into the front yard setback.

In such cases, state and federal law require local jurisdictions to provide relief from specific requirements or standards to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.

The City of Berkeley first added reasonable accommodation procedures to the Zoning Ordinance in 2001. Section 23.406.090 contains the application and review requirements for reasonable accommodations. Applications for reasonable accommodations are reviewed by the Zoning Officer is, unless the reasonable accommodation application is submitted concurrently with another permit application reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Under these circumstances, the reasonable accommodation is reviewed by the ZAB. There is no required fee to apply for a reasonable accommodation and independent accommodation requests are processed within 45 days of receiving the application.

The review authority considers the following factors in the approval findings:

1. Need for the requested modification.

2. Alternatives that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

3. Physical attributes of and proposed changes to the property.

4. Whether the requested modification would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

5. Whether the requested modification would constitute a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning or subdivision regulations.

6. Whether the requested accommodation would result in a concentration of uses otherwise not allowed in a residential neighborhood to the substantial detriment of the residential character of that neighborhood.