Berkeley City Council
February 25, 2025

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 17 and health care coverage for workers. The Bird Safe Building O rdinance, effective July 27, 2023, requires the use of materials known to reduce the incidence of bird collisions for development projects above 10,000 gross square feet and 35 feet in height. 11 The Cit y also sought an analysis of the financial feasibility impacts associated with applying prevailing wage requirement s to construction projects of 50,000 gross square feet and above— comparable to those recently approved by the City Council as part of the Southside Plan Area zoning revisions.12 Report Structure
This report consists of the following content:
• The remainder of this report introduction describes the approach used to complete the feasibility analyses conducted as part of the study.

• Section II describes analysis findings, conclusions, and policy recommendations for adjustments to the in-lieu fee and policy (page 25).

• Section III describes the findings and conclusions of the financial feasibility analysis. This includes analysis of the impacts of the HARD HATS, Bird Safe Building, and proposed prevailing wage requirements on the current market conditions for residential development (page 36).

• Appendix provides detailed tables describing the key assumptions, inputs, calculations, and outputs of the analyses (page 47).

Financial Feasibility Analysis Concepts
The following content introduces important concepts related to the financial feasibility analysis components of the study. At the most basic level, “financial feasibility” simply refers to whether a development project generates sufficient revenues to justify the costs and risks of building the project.

Because inclusionary housing and in-lieu requirements like Berkeley’s seek to leverage the activities of the private market to produce affordable housing, the requirements rely on the financial feasibility of market rate housing projects. This means inclusionary and in -lieu fee policies are reliant on some factors outside of the City’s control. Cities can control what types of housing are allowed on each parcel using land use regulation, and whether project proposals are approved. However, a city cannot control whether developers propose projects within those regulations, nor the exact composition of proposed projects. Developers will only propose projects that they assess as being feasible to construct.

Requirements to provide inclusionary affordable units or pay a certain level of additional fees influence development feasibility for market rate housing developers by reducing revenues or increasing costs.

Thus, for an inclusionary policy to contribute to affordable housing production, its requirements must be high enough that they result in the production of new on-site affordable units or fee revenues, but not be so high that they prevent market rate housing projects from being feasible. This makes it

11 Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.304.150.
12 Approved January 30, 2024 as Ordinance 7,89-N.S. to amend the Berkeley Municipal Code by adding Chapter 13.108.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 18 important to identify how different in -lieu fee levels relate to the total revenue and expenses of a project.

On the other hand, requiring on-site BMR units or in-lieu fee contributions can help Berkeley meet its affordable housing development goals through multiple means of affordable housing production. Thus, the content of this section explains why financial feasibility of housing development matters for setting inclusionary policies; how “affordable” housing is defined and affects financial feasibility considerations; and how inclusionary policies fit within the context of overall affordable housing production in a community.

From a market rate housing developer’s perspective, development projects are only financially feasible when the market value of the project (based on total net operating income) exceeds project costs and investment return. As shown in Figure 6, this is determined by the following factors. • Total project revenue is determined by the market value of the project. o For for-sale projects, the market value consists of the sales prices the units can obtain. o For rental projects, the market value of the project depends on the annual revenue it will generate and the current capitalization rate, which reflects overall project investment risk relative to alternative investments (see the box on Page 13 for more information on investment return metrics).

• Total project costs include hard costs, soft costs, investment return, and land costs. o Hard costs include materials and labor associated with physical construction of the building.
o Soft costs include indirect expenses such as architecture and engineering, taxes, insurance, financing costs, and municipal fees.
o Investment return consists of the required financial return on investment that a project must achieve to attract developer and lender investment. o Land costs refer to the price the developer pays to acquire the land.

Each of these factors is very dynamic; project costs and revenues can fluctuate significantly, and many factors, such as the market rate price of housing, are beyond the City’s direct influence. Instead, the market rate price or rental rate for housing is primarily set by local market demand; the price and rent may rise and fall according to the availability of housing supply, presence of amenities, or other factors in the market area.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 19 FIGURE 6. COMPONENTS OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: PROJECT VALUE AND PROJECT COST COMPONENTS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2023.

An in-lieu fee provides an option for a developer to pay a fixed sum rather than provide on-site units to satisfy the City’s affordable housing requirements. The fee can be set in a variety of ways to encourage development in line with the City’s priorities for affordable housing production. For example, if a fee is significantly less than the cost of providing additional on-site units, it can disincentivize on -site production of BMR units . However, if the City aims to collect funds for affordable housing, fee payments can be a desirable outcome.

Ultimately, in-lieu fees, HARD HATS, Bird Safe Building, and prevailing wage requirements create costs for development projects while the market value of the project remains the same. These policies create tradeoffs between maximizing the potential pace of housing production versus ensuring housing development contributes to other important City goals.

Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Investment
Return

KEY DEVELOPMENT TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Net Operating Income (NOI): The total revenue remaining after accounting for all expenses and vacancies.

Capitalization Rate: A ratio of annual net operating income of an asset to its market value. This rate, which accounts for current market conditions, is used for purposes of analysis to translate the revenue from the income-producing rental prototypes into the equivalent sales value of the pr ojects. This study use d a capitalization rate of five percent to determine the “capitalized value” of each prototype.

Yield on Cost: The project’s potential return on investment as a proportion of total development costs. It is calculated by dividing a property’s net operating income by the total cost to develop the property. Yield on cost is typically the metric used for capturing the potential return of rental properties. This study used a yield on cost threshold of six percent to determine financial feasibility.

Return on Cost: The project’s potential return on investment as a proportion of total development costs. It is calculated by subtracting total development costs from total revenue, and dividing the remainder by the total cost to develop the property. Return on cost is typically used for capturing the return of ownership properties. This study used a return on cost threshold of eight percent to determine financial feasibility.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 20 Approach to the Financial Feasibility Analysis
Strategic Economics performed a financial feasibility analysis to test the impacts of HARD HATS, Bird Safe Building, and prevailing wage requirements on new housing development projects, and to examine the extent to which different market rate housing products in Berkeley can support in-lieu fee contributions.

Strategic Economics first worked with City staff and analyzed information about recent projects to create development “prototypes.” Then Strategic Economics built a pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of each prototype under different requirements and fees . Detailed information about the development prototypes is provided in the following section of the report.

Strategic Economics measured the financial feasibility of each prototype and scenario using a static pro forma model that solves for the financial “return on investment” supported by the project. A pro forma model is a tool used to estimate the financial performance of a development project. The base static model reflect ed today’s market conditions such as prices/rents, construction costs, and financing costs. Cost and revenue assumptions were informed by review of existing reports , recent development activity, market data, and 13 interviews with developers, general contractors, and architects with experience working in Berkeley and the broader Bay Area. This report’s appendix shows detailed cost and revenue assumptions, other inputs and calculations, and a set of basic pro forma statements.

A project wa s considered financially feasible when the investment return met current market thresholds. These thresholds are driven by broader mar ket conditions, recognizing that developers and investors have a range of investment options beyond a given development project.

Financial feasibility was assessed using “yield on cost” for rental prototypes and “return on cost” for ownership prototypes. Yield on cost was calculated by dividing the expected net annual operating income at full lease- up by total development costs. Return on cost was calculat ed by dividing the expected net sales revenue by total development costs.

To establish a reasonable threshold for a developer’s rate of return on new development projects in Berkeley, Strategic Economics interviewed local developers, reviewed other similar financial analyses in the Bay Area, and reviewed publications on the local and regional real estate market. Based on this research, the analysis assumed that rental projects were feasible at a yield on cost of at least six percent and ownership projects at a return on cost of at least eight percent.

Development Prototypes Used in the Feasibility Analysis Strategic Economics created seven development prototypes that represent typical residential developments recently completed or proposed in Berkeley. The prototypes were then used to test the financial feasibility of new and proposed labor and construction policies, as well as potential updates to the in -lieu fee. The creation of the prototypes was completed in collaboration with the City of Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 21 Berkeley. The prototypes represent a range of tenures, locations within the city, residential densities, building heights, parking formats, and use of the State Density Bonus Law (see the pullout on the law).

STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW: BACKGROUND, APPLICATION, AND LOCAL CONTEXT The State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) was originally enacted in 1979 to encourage affordable housing development. The law allows developers to build beyond the maximum allowed density in a jurisdictions’ land use plan in exchange for providing a certain number of new deed- restricted affordable dwelling units on site. It also grants developers access to certain incentives that allow for cost reductions as well as waivers to development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the project from being built on the chosen site.

Developers submit applications for SDBL projects that are based on a base project t hat conforms to the development standards of the site. This base project then has a density bonus applied to it based on the number of on- s
ite affordable units provided and their level of affordability. These elements directly correspond to the increase in density allowed to the project. They also influence the number of incentives and waivers granted to the project. Developments with more below-market rate units and deeper affordability levels (i.e., very low and low income) qualify for larger density bonuses and up to four incentives and waivers. In 2021, the law was modified to allow up to a 50% bonus with the corresponding provision of on- site affordable units. In 2023, AB 1287 was passed, allowing for an additional density bonus with the provision of moderate income units. This study only models projects that use very low and low income units to gain access to a density bonus.

SDBL projects are subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance of the jurisdiction in which they are built. However, the on-site units provided to gain access to the density bonus can be used to satisfy all or part of the local affordable housing requirements, which typically require either the provision of on-site units, the payment of an in-lieu fee, or some combination of both. Inclusionary and in-lieu fees are only applied to the base project version of the SDBL development , which means that the fee is applied based on the square footage of a smaller project than what is eventually built. Since SDBL projects must provide some on- site units to qualify for the density bonus , if they choose to pay a fee to satisfy the remainder of the affordable housing requirements then the fee is prorated. Thus, SDBL projects tend to pay a much smaller in lieu fee than a similar ly sized project that does not take a density bonus.

Several of the prototypes used for this study utilize the SDBL. This decision reflects patterns seen in the recent development activity in the City of Berkeley. The City’s building permit log from 2022 and 2023 demonstrates the increased use of SDBL for midrise and high-rise development; over half of the permitted midrise projects and all the permitted high- rise projects use the law. Local developers interviewed for this study provided further verification of the importance of SDBL for making residential development projects pencil, as the increased unit count and incentives and waivers provide additional revenue while reducing development costs.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 22 The prototypes were also developed to respond to specific policy questions around underrepresented development types, including Missing Middle housing, which is between two and 19 units. Thus, the Missing Middle prototypes draw from real projects in Berkeley and from outside sources, such as Opticos Design’s guidelines for Missing Middle Housing. 13 The development prototype characteristics are described below and summarized in Figure 7.

Missing Middle Prototypes:
• Small Lot Single Family: This prototype was designed to fit three single -family homes on the standard size lot for one single family home in Berkeley, which is approximately 0.1 acres.

Each of the three single family homes included in the prototype is three stories, 1,500 gross square feet, and has one garage parking space.
• F
ourplex/Townhomes: T his prototype con sists of f
our townhomes built around a four -car
garage. This prototype is also designed on a standard size lot for one single family home (0.1 acres) and is three stories at its highest point. Each townhome is 1,200 square feet. • 10-Unit Small Multifamily: This prototype includes ten units split evenly between 1- and 2- bedroom apartments. The one-bedroom units are 750 square feet, and the two-bedroom units are 1,100 square feet.

These prototypes were developed based on existing and proposed developments in Berkeley .

However, there are few existing examples of this type of housing in the city, especially for the 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype. As a result, that prototype draws from Opticos Design’s guidelines for a “multiplex” housing type.

Group Living Accommodation (GLA), Midrise, and High-rise Prototypes:
• 4-Story GLA: This prototype wa s designed according to the City of Berkeley’s definition of a GLA, requires separate sleeping rooms with large common spaces. GLA buildings are typically marketed to students. The prototype fits on a 0.2 acre lot and has 36 units. One unit is a one- bedroom, designed for a resident manager, while the other 35 are micro-studios. The prototype does not include parking.
• 6
-S
tory Midrise: This prototype was designed on a 0.5 acre lot, with 75 units. It reflects newer developments that have been proposed or built near the Ashby BART station and along the San Pablo corridor.
• 8-Story Midrise: This prototype was designed on a 0.5 acre lot, with 120 units. It reflects newer developments that have been proposed or built near the Ashby BART station and along the San Pablo corridor.
• 18-Story High-rise: This prototype is designed on a 0.5 acre lot, with 240 units. This type of development is currently only allowed in the area covered by the Downtown Berkeley Area Plan.

Additional Prototype Characteristics
• Tenure: T he Small Lot Single Family, Fourplex/Townhome, and 10 -unit S mall Multifamily prototypes were tested as ownership and rental products. The other prototypes were only tested as rental products since current development conditions greatly disfavor larger condominium development projects— as indicated by minimal development activity of midrise

13 Opticos Design,”Missing Middle Housing,” https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 23 and high-rise condominium projects in and near Berkeley over the past decade. This is largely due to condo construction liability under California state law, which can make insurance costs prohibitively expensive.

• Project Density : The pro totypes represent various lot sizes and densities found across Berkeley, with denser projects typically located closer to Downtown and the UC Berkeley campus.

• Common Location: “Common Location” in Figure 7 notes where the prototype would most likely be developed, based on past development activity.

• Parking Format:
o The Small Lot Single Family and Fourplex/Townhome prototypes have a parking ratio of one space per unit.
o Al l other prototypes have lower parking ratios, with those located closest to the UC Berkeley campus and most likely to be targeted to students i ncluding zero automobile
parking spaces. This reflects real-world development trends since the City removed its minimum parking requirements in 2022.

• State Density Bonus Law:
o Prototypes from the 4-story GLA and larger were all assumed to use the State Density Bonus Law to achieve their unit counts. The prototypes were therefore derived from an assumed base project that has a certain percent of density added, based on the number of inclusionary BMR units provided on site (see Figure 7 for the percentage of on-site BMR units provided per prototype).

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 24

FIGURE 7. DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPE DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS Small Lot Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily 4-Story GLA 6-Story Midrise 8-Story Midrise 18-Story High- rise
Description
Multiple single
family homes on
a standard
single family lot
size
Stacked
townhomes on
a standard
single family lot
size
3-story multiplex
with surface
parking
Micro-studio
units with
shared common
spaces
Podium style
midrise
Podium style
midrise Type 1 high-rise
Common Location West Berkeley West Berkeley West Berkeley Southside & Downtown
South &
Southwest
Berkeley
South &
Southwest
Berkeley
Downtown
Site Size (acres) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5
Floors 3 3 3 4 6 8 18
Gross Square Feet 4,500 4,800 11,587 14,520 61,930 89,984 208,727 Residential Square Feet 4,500 4,800 9,250 9,400 49,460 71,320 165,780 Housing Units 3 4 10 36 75 120 240
Density (units/acre) 30 40 50 180 150 240 480
Parking Ratio (spaces/unit) 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.125 0
Tenure Rental & Owner Rental & Owner Rental & Owner Rental Rental Rental Rental Uses SDBL* No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Note:
* SDBL = State Density Bonus Law.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 25

IN-LIEU FEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report describes relevant findings and concluding recommendations for updating the City of Berkeley inclusionary housing policy’s in-lieu fee amount and application. The findings examine the in-lieu fee revision from multiple perspectives, including consideration of comparability with the costs of providing on-site BMR units, the cost to produce an off -site affordable housing unit via fee revenue, financial feasibility conditions, comparability with fees in other nearby communities, and consideration of barriers and opportunities to support Missing Middle housing (as defined in the introduction to this report).

The City of Berkeley’s current in-lieu fees vary depending on the size of the projects. As shown in Figure 8, below, projects with 12,000 square feet or greater pay the full $56.25 fee per square foot of RUFA.

Smaller projects pay lower specified fees on the entirety of their square feet of RUFA, and projects below 5,000 square feet do not pay an in -lieu fee and are exempt from inclusionary housing requirements.

FIGURE 8: CURRENT CITY OF BERKELEY IN-LIEU FEES

RESIDENTIAL UNIT FLOOR AREA
SQUARE FEET (SQ. FT.)

FEE PER SQUARE FOOT
(APRIL 1, 2023 – JUNE 30, 2025)
12,000 sq. ft. or more $56.25
11,000-11,999 sq. ft. $53.75
10,000-10,999 sq. ft. $51.25
9,000-9,999 sq. ft. $48.75
8,000-8,999 sq. ft. $46.25
7,000-7,999 sq. ft. $43.75
6,000-6,999 sq. ft. $41.25
More than 5,000-5,999 sq. ft. $38.75

Source: City of Berkeley, 2024.

Approach to Calculating Potential In-Lieu Fee Levels
This study used two methods to calculate a maximum reasonable in-lieu fee: the affordability gap and the production cost affordability gap (production cost). These gaps were then translated into an equivalent fee per square foot of RUFA. These methods establish the maximum fee equivalent to the cost of providing on -site BMR units or a comparable off -site BMR unit . These fees represent the maximum fee that would be justifiable under the City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which sets out a certain percentage of housing units in new development that must be affordable.

The study then used another approach to calculate the average cost for the City of Berkeley to produce an off-site affordable unit as part of a 100 percent affordable housing project— one of the primary uses of in-lieu fee revenue. This cost was then translated into an equivalent fee per square foot of RUFA.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 26 This equivalent fee represents the fee level at which the City is likely to produce a comparable number of affordable housing units (often at deeper affordability levels) by leveraging in-lieu fee revenue.

These three approaches provide a range of possible fees that were then compared against those of peer cities to contextualize the regional landscape of affordable housing impact fees. Each approach is described in greater detail below:
• Affordability Gap: The affordability gap method of calculating a maximum in -lieu fee is based on the difference in revenues between market rate and affordable rents for a typical new housing unit. The maximum fee is equivalent to the reduced revenue associated with providing a BMR unit on site at a new market rate development project. As a result, this method demonstrates the for -profit developer’s perspective by capturing the equivalent loss of revenue to provide an on-site BMR unit.

• Production Cost Affordability Gap: The production cost affordability gap (“ production cost”) method of calculating a maximum in -lieu fee is based on the difference between affordable rents and the cost to produce a unit of income -restricted housing. The maximum fee is the difference between the value of the BMR unit (based on its restricted rental rates or sales price) and the cost to construct it. This method demonstrates the total cost gap to produce an affordable housing unit.

• Average Local Contribution: The average local contribution method of calculating an equivalent in-lieu fee is based on the average dollar contribution from local sources to 100 percent affordable developments. This method involves a survey of recent affordable housing projects in the jurisdiction to determine the average contribution from the City’s Housing Trust Fund program. This method establishes the average minimum in -lieu fee revenue that must be generated for the City of Berkeley to provide its typic al contribution toward an affordable housing unit in a 100 percent affordable development project.

These approaches generated a potential range of in -lieu fee levels. These fees were then compared against neighboring communities’ fees and against the current ability of market rate housing development to support payment of the fees based on current development conditions. A more detailed description of methodology, assumptions, and calculations is included in this report’s Appendix.

The conclusion of Section II describes Strategic Economics’ policy recommendations based on the analyses and policy priorities expressed by the City of Berkeley.

Justifiable Maximum In-Lieu Fee Levels
This section describes the results of the approaches to calculating the maximum justifiable in-lieu fee and the result of the average local contribution analysis. The justifiable in lieu fee level is based on an analysis that determines the per square foot fee equivalent to providing an on-site unit. The maximum justifiable in-lieu fee was calculated using the affordability gap and production cost methods. This established the high end of potential in-lieu fees to consider in this study, as these methods directly translate the City’s affordable housing requirements into equivalent costs per square foot of building area. The average local contribution analysis provided an in-lieu fee amount that is equivalent to the Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 27 average amount of City revenue needed to leverage outside funds to produce an equivalent number of off-site affordable housing units in a 100 percent affordable project.

Using the affordability gap method, the maximum justifiable in-lieu fee for the rental prototypes is $117.69 per square foot (see Figure 9). This method calculates the justifiable cost as the revenue difference between renting or selling new units at market rate and at the affordability level s required by the City’s inclusionary housing policy.

Using the production cost method, the maximum justifiable in-lieu fee for the rental prototypes is $103.77 per square foot (see Figure 9). This method calculates the justifiable cost as the difference between the revenue from renting or selling a BMR unit and the cost to produce the unit.

The average local contribution towards 100 percent affordable multifamily rental developments in the city is $58.59 per square foot— similar to today’s maximum fee level of $56.25 (see Figure 9). While not the maximum justifiable fee, this average provides an equivalent fee level that supports the City of Berkeley’s typical contribution to affordable units in 100 percent affordable housing projects.

The average local contribution fee per square foot does not include the overhead costs for the city to administer its Housing Trust Fund program. Based on City input, these administrative costs add a premium of 15 percent to the per square foot cost of the fee, bringing it to $67.38.

FIGURE 9: IN-LIEU FEE RESULTS BY APPROACH
Affordability Gap Production Cost Local Contribution
Average per BMR Unit $388,374 $342,432 $193,348
Average per Square Foot of
Market Rate Project RUFA $117.69 $103.77 $58.59
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Supportable In-Lieu Fees from a Development Feasibility Perspective
The following findings describe the results of a sensitivity analysis that examined the financial feasibility of the rental and ownership development prototypes after incorporating the range of fee levels calculated in the preceding section of this report. This analysis provides context for how different in-lieu fees impact the financial feasibility of the development prototypes based on characteristics such as the prototypes’ size, density, number of on -site units provided, and use of the S DBL. As described in this report’s Introduction, in-lieu fees only apply to a small share of the total square feet in a SDBL project; in those projects, a portion of the inclusionary requirement is satisfied by on -site BMR units, and the prorated remaining in-lieu fee obligation only applies to the “base” project and not the project’s “bonus” square feet.

Unlike the “Baseline” analysis presented in the following section of this report, the following feasibility analyses do incorporate the cost impacts of the HARD HATS and Bird Safe Buildings requirements since these requirements are already in effect.

Since all the rental development prototypes are currently infeasible except the GLA, only the GLA is currently capable of supporting any in-lieu fee. Figure 10 shows the impacts of the different Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 28 approaches to calculating an in -lieu fee on the financial feasibility of the applicable prototypes. As shown, the negative feasibility impacts of the in -lieu fee are relatively modest for the larger midrise and high-rise prototypes. The fee applies to only a small portion of the overall square feet of these projects since they are assumed to use significant density bonuses. The fee also represents a relatively small share of overall construction costs for these projects due to their size . However, none of these projects are currently financially feasible to build , as they do not achieve a six percent yield on cost return.

The poor financial performance of the development prototypes is primarily attributable to broader development feasibility challenges rather than the current in-lieu fee level. Figure 10 shows the impact of the current fee on the financial feasibility of the applicable prototypes. For the smallest project, the percent change in the yield on cost is a reduction of 5.8 percent, while the largest project sees a much smaller one percent decline. However, both prototypes are currently infeasible, with or without the fee.

Developments that are currently being proposed and built in the city likely have unique attributes that have enabled them to progress to this stage or are relying on market conditions improving in the future.

FIGURE 10. IN-LIEU FEE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR RENTAL PROTOTYPES

Note: These results incorporate the cost impacts of the Bird Safe Building and HARD HATS ordinances.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

The small 10-Unit multifamily ownership (condo) prototype is infeasible with application of an in-lieu fee (see Figure 11). The feasibility of this prototype is more sensitive to the size of the in-lieu fee due to the prototype’s status as a non SDBL project (which therefore means the fee applies to the entire residential area) and the prototype ’s lower construction costs per square foot of building area; both factors result in the fee constituting a larger proportion of the total development costs compared to the midrise and high-rise prototypes. However, reducing or removing the fee burden allows this type of development to perform better financially, as the sensitivity analysis without a fee results in a return on cost of 8.25 percent, which is above the target return on cost of eight percent.

As noted earlier, the smaller Missing Middle prototypes are feasible as ownership products under current development conditions. However, they are not currently subject to the affordable housing requirements.

3.47%

6.74%

3.60%

3.22%

3.64%

3.27%

6.58%

3.48%

3.19%

3.60%

3.23%

6.54%

3.49%

3.18%

3.60%

3.07%

6.40%

3.42%

3.16%

3.57%

3.02%

6.35%

3.40%

3.15%

3.57%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Fee)
4-Story GLA 6-Story Midrise 8-Story Midrise 18-Story Highrise Yield on Cost
Prototype
No Fee Current Fee
Avg. $ of Local Contribution Production Cost
Affordability Gap Target YoC
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 29 FIGURE 11. IN-LIEU FEE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE 10-UNIT SMALL MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE OWNERSHIP

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Consideration of “Peer City” In-Lieu Fee Levels
Housing production in Berkeley does not occur in a vacuum; developers often construct housing in many different areas within a region, and differences in inclusionary requirements can have an impact on where developers choose to pursue projects. Therefore, the analysis compared Berkeley’s current inclusionary housing requirements with those of nearby communities . This comparison provides context for potential changes to Berkeley’s in-lieu fee level and takes into consideration the market factors that are unique to the city.

The City of Berkeley’s current in-lieu fee (and inclusionary requirement) is higher than most peer cities.

In-lieu fees in the cities listed in Figure 12 range from $19.37 per square foot on the lowest end to approximately $100 per square foot on the highest. Several cities levy fees on a per housing unit basis; assuming an average unit size of 1,000 square feet, these fees translate to between $ 12 and $45 per square foot. Berkeley’s current in-lieu fee is $56.25 per square foot. Note, however, that cities apply their fees in a variety of ways, including different exemptions, differences depending on locations, and application on either a building area basis or a housing unit basis.

However, the Berkeley housing market differs from that of the peer cities due to Berkeley’s strong ongoing demand for housing that is influenced by the large population of students residing in the city.

The student population creates consistent and reliable housing demand in the city, particularly in areas close to the UC Berkeley campus such as Downtown and Southside . As a result, Berkeley tends to command relatively high rents and sales prices compared to many peer communities , which can potentially translate to long -term market support for relatively higher City fees. The student market also drives demand for types of housing projects not built elsewhere , such as the group living accommodation prototype tested in this analysis.

8.25%

2.20%

1.01%
-3.89%
-5.29%
-8.00%
-6.00%
-4.00%
-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%
No Fee Current Fee Avg. $ of Local
Contribution
Production
Cost
Affordability
Gap
Return on Cost
In-lieu Fee Type
Sensitivity Test Target RoC
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 30 FIGURE 12. PEER CITIES’ AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS City % On Site Affordable Units Required In-lieu Fee* Year Enacted Alameda 15% for all multifamily projects $20,342 per unit 2023 Emeryville 20% for all multifamily projects $31,032 per unit 2023 Fremont 12.9% for rental projects $27.00 per residential square foot
2022
Hayward 6% for rental, 10% for ownership projects $19.37 per residential square foot
2017
Livermore 10% for projects downtown, 15% for projects
everywhere else
$29.23 per residential
square foot
2023
Oakland 10% of project if providing low- or moderate-income units, or 5% if providing very low-income units
For multifamily projects:
$22,000 per unit in Zone 1
$17,750 per unit in Zone 2
$12,000 per unit in Zone 3
2023
Pleasanton 15% for all multifamily projects $45,083 per unit 2023 San Francisco All requirements below temporarily reduced by 50%:
20% for small projects, 25% for large rental projects,
33% for large ownership projects
50% of $199.50 per gross
square foot
2019
San Jose 15% for all multifamily projects Moderate Market Areas:
$18.26 per net residential
square foot
Strong Market Areas: $43
per net residential square
foot
2022/2023
*Note that the exact application of these fees varies from city to city. Examples of potential differences include application based on building area versus unit area, various exemptions, and potential differences within subareas of the cities.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Key Conclusions of the In-Lieu Fee Analyses
As noted earlier, the financial feasibility results indicate that most development prototypes cannot feasibly support the current in-lieu fee level. This is especially true for the rental prototypes, as only the student -oriented GLA prototype is currently feasible. In general, high construction costs and interest rates are the main factors rendering development infeasible today, while rents have failed to keep pace with these challenges. The GLA performs well due to its relatively low construction costs as a relatively inexpensive to build 4 -story wood frame building , its lack of costly parking, and the high achievable rents in the student-oriented submarkets of the city.

Smaller Missing Middle products — Small Lot Single Family and Fourplex/Townhomes — demonstrate some financial capacity to support an in-lieu fee, but these products are rarely built due to other challenges. The financial feasibility analysis cannot capture the qualitative factors preventing the development of these housing types. The survey of development activity shows that these types of small infill projects are not often built in Berkeley, despite their strong financial performance as a high- end ownership product . Th e mismatch between financial performance and actual outcomes is attributable to factors including the lack of small-scale developers with capacity and interest in this type of development and the limited inventory of lower -cost underutilized sites available for sale in existing neighborhoods.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 31 The multifamily 10-unit Missing Middle prototype is not feasible under current conditions as a rental or ownership product. It is also the worst performing of the rental prototypes when it provides a full fee and no on -site units . This matches trends in recent development activity in Berkeley , which includes no examples of this product being built in the city. The product type does appear marginally feasible as an ownership product if no in -lieu fees or inclusionary requirements applied, but this prototype is also subject to the same development challenges as the other Missing Middle prototypes.

It is likely that the fee should not be adopted at the maximum justifiable level determined by the affordability gap or production cost methods ; tradeoffs exist when selecting a fee level . A variety of tradeoffs must be considered when selecting an in-lieu fee. For example:
• Setting a high fee can incentivize developers to provide on-site BMR units rather than pay the fee; this adds to the City’s affordable housing stock and contributes to mixed -income developments, yet limits City resources to leverage outside funding to produce more deeply affordable housing in 100 percent affordable projects. Setting a high fee worsens development feasibility challenges and can delay when and whether housing projects are built.

• S
etting a low fee can achieve the opposite outcomes — but setting the fee too low c an also
create a scenario in which the City may “miss the market” by failing to collect potential affordable housing funding when development conditions improve.

Regardless of the fee level, larger development projects will continue to include and produce on-site BMR units to receive density bonuses ; these projects typically also contribute prorated fee revenue.

Given the value of SDBL incentives, most midrise and high-rise development projects in Berkeley are likely to be built with density bonuses. These projects inherently contribute to the City’s deed-restricted affordable housing inventory via SDBL’s on-site BMR unit requirements, albeit at a lower level than the City’s inclusionary requirements.

The current in-lieu fee level is similar to the City’s typical contribution toward the cost of providing an equal number of off-site affordable housing units in 100 percent affordable housing projects before accounting for additional administrative costs. The funding contributed by the City of Berkeley to produce an equal number of affordable unit s in a 100 percent affordable housing project is the equivalent of a $58.59 per residential square foot in-lieu fee level, or $67.38 after including a 15 percent increase for administrative costs. The City’s current maximum in-lieu fee is $56.25 per square foot.

A larger in-lieu fee results in a greater relative impact on the financial feasibility of smaller developments— especially Missing Middle products . As a percentage of total project cost, the size of the in-lieu fee plays a greater role in the feasibility of smaller projects, both because of the lower cost per square foot to build these projects and because these projects do not typically make use of SDBL.

In addition, since larger SDBL midrise and high-rise projects are more likely to pay a prorated in -lieu fee that applies to a small portion of the total square feet, these projects are less impacted by changes in the fee level.

In-Lieu Fee Policy Recommendations
Strategic Economics prepared the following recommendations for adjusting the City of Berkeley’s in- lieu fee amount and application of the fee to different sizes and types of projects. The Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 32 recommendations incorporate consideration of the results of the preceding analyses to support the following goals:

1. Continue to p roduce affordable housing through on -site BMR inclusionary units or through production of in-lieu fee resources that the City can use to leverage outside funding to produce affordable units in 100 percent affordable housing developments.

2. Continue to s upport the financial feasibility of market rate housing development so these projects can in turn generate on -site BMR units or in -lieu fee funding resources and achieve the City’s housing production goals.

3. Promote the development of Missing Middl e product types that add two to 19 unit housing options in Berkeley’s neighborhoods.

Recommendation 1: Eliminate the current in-lieu fee structure that currently exempts projects with less than 5,000 square feet of RUFA from the fee and increases fee levels for projects between 5,000 and 12,000 square feet. Instead, apply the same in-lieu fee level to all housing development projects.

Currently there is an exemption to the affordable housing requirements for new residential development with less than 5,000 square feet of RUFA. This exemption is set to expire in April 2025. Strategic Economics recommends removing this exemption as part of a package of recommendations designed to simplify the affordable housing requirements and support the development of Missing Middle housing in Berkeley.

Adjusting the policy to apply to all residential developments, with no “ phase in” based on project size, reduces the incentive for developers to pursue projects just under the applicable square footage to avoid triggering higher in-lieu fees. For example, currently a housing project with 4,999 square feet of RUFA would pay zero in-lieu fees, while a project with 5,001 square feet would pay over $193,000 in in-lieu fees.

Recommendation 2: For any project opting to pay the full fee instead of providing any on -site inclusionary units, exempt the first 5,000 square feet of RUFA from the in-lieu fee.

This exemption for projects that pay the full fee (rather than a prorated fee that typically occurs for SDBL projects ) supports production of Missing Middle housing by ensuring the se small developments pay a relatively low fee per square foot of project area. It also removes the incentive to reduce project size to avoid triggering a significantly higher total fee. At the same time, the full fee would still apply to nearly all larger midrise and high-rise housing projects since developers are likely to continue building these product types as SDBL projects that must include some on-site BMR units. For example, Figure 13 shows that the midrise and high-rise prototypes would continue to pay the same fee amount as under the current policy , assuming the fee is maintained at the same maximum level.

The 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype serves as an illustrative example of the positive feasibility impacts of the exemption for this Missing Middle product type. As shown in Figure 13, the exemption reduces in-lieu fee costs for the rental version of the prototype such that its yield on cost increases by 0.09 percentage points— moving the prototype closer to becoming financially feasible to build . Similarly, the exemption supports the development of higher density Missing Middle ownership housing types. As shown in Figure 14, the 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype experiences an increase in its return on cost of 2.74 percent with the exemption.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 33 The policy change would modestly decrease the total in-lieu fee revenue paid by a limited number of housing product types. The 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype in Figure 13 and Figure 14 is an example of a project that would pay reduced fee revenue , with the exemption reduc ing fee payment by an amount equivalent to the funds needed to leverage 1.1 off -site BMR units.

However, these kinds of small but relatively higher-density product types are likely to constitute a very small share of total housing development in Berkeley due to the feasibility and general development challenges noted in this report.

However, the policy change would also slightly increase fee revenue from other projects. By removing the phase in, some projects pay a slightly higher amount for the in-lieu fee. An illustrative example is the 4-Story GLA prototype . As shown in Figure 13, the policy change would slightly decrease the prototype’s feasibility ( yield on cost ) and increase its fee payment at a level equivalent to approximately one-quarter of the funds needed to leverage an additional unit.

While the exemption slightly disincentivizes satisfying the affordable housing requirement by providing on-site units— since the fee is lower than the equivalent affordability gap— SDBL projects will continue to provide on-site units. In order to satisfy the state’s requirement to be granted valuable additional density, waivers, and concessions, developers of SDBL projects must provide a certain percentage of on -site deed restricted affordable units. Since there are significant advantages for projects qualifying for use of the SDBL, the City of Berkeley will continue to see developments that satisfy the affordable housing requirements through mixed compliance.

Recommendation 3: Maintain the existing $56.25 maximum in -lieu fee level as the universally applicable in-lieu fee.

While the in-lieu fee could justifiably be increased to become equivalent to the cost of producing an on-site BMR unit, Strategic Economics recommends maintaining the new universal in -lieu fee level at its current maximum of $56.25. This supports the produ ction of new housing by not increasing the fee level at a time when project financing and construction materials and labor costs are making residential development particularly challenging. Maintaining the current in-lieu fee level also allows the City of Berkeley to maintain a fee that is approximately equivalent to the City’s typical direct contributions to the cost of leveraging an off -site affordable housing unit. By maintaining the current in -lieu fee, the City will maintain its primary affordable housing funding source as development conditions improve, mitigating the risk of lost opportunity to secure funding when development conditions shift.

Recommendation 4: Continue to adjust the in-lieu fee regularly based on the California Construction Cost Index.

Regular adjustment of the fee increases the likelihood that the revenue collected will continue to support a comparable number of affordable units in future 100 percent affordable housing projects.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 34 FIGURE 13. IMPACTS OF THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT EXEMPTION ON THE RENTAL PROTOTYPES

Small Lot
Single
Family [a]
Fourplex/
Townhomes
[a]
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
[b]
4-Story
GLA [c]
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Yield on Cost:

Current Fee Policy 4.03% 3.69% 3.27% 6.58% 3.48% 3.17% 3.60% Yield on Cost:

Recommended
Exemption Policy

4.03% 3.69% 3.36% 6.55% 3.48% 3.17% 3.60%
YoC Difference 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% -0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% In-lieu Fee
Revenue: Current
Fee Policy
$0 $0 $450,938 $202,737 $1,255,416 $723,642 $1,580,453
In-lieu Fee
Revenue:

Recommended
Exemption Policy
$0 $0 $239,063 $246,572 $1,255,416 $723,642 $1,580,453
Difference in
Number of Off-site
Units Leveraged
0 0 -1.10 0.23 0 0 0
[a] These prototypes are less than 5,000 square feet and are therefore exempt from the in- lieu fee under the existing and recommended in-lieu fee policies.
[b] B ased on this prototype’s size, t
he project would be required to pay $48.75 per square foot of its 9,250 square feet of RUFA under the existing policy. As a project that provides no on-site BMR units, the prototype would qualify for the first 5,000 square feet of RUFA to be exempt from the in-lieu fee under the recommended policy, which means the prototype would be required to pay $56.25 for only 4,250 square feet of RUFA.
[c] As an SDBL project with 9,400 square feet of RUFA, this project is currently required to pay $48.75 per square foot for its prorated in-lieu fee obligation on the base version of the bonus project after accounting for on-site affordable units that partially satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. Under the recommended policy, this project would not qualify for any exemption from payment of the in-lieu fee because it provides BMR units to achieve the SDBL status and therefore must use mixed compliance to pay a prorated fee; the project would therefore pay $56.25 per square foot for its remaining prorated in-lieu fee obligation on the base version of the project.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 35 FIGURE 14. IMPACTS OF 5,000 SQUARE FOOT EXEMPTION ON THE OWNERSHIP PROTOTYPES

Small Lot Single
Family [a]
Fourplex/
Townhomes [a]
10-Unit Small
Multifamily [b]
Return on Cost:

Current Fee Policy 28.44% 29.16% 2.20%
Return on Cost:

Recommended
Exemption Policy

28.44% 29.16% 4.94%
Difference 0.00% 0.00% 2.74%
In-lieu Fee Revenue:

Current Fee Policy $0 $0 $450,938
In-lieu Fee Revenue:

Recommended
Exemption Policy
$0 $0 $239,063
Difference in Number
of Off-site Units
Leveraged

0.00 0.00 -1.10
[a] These prototypes are less than 5,000 square feet and are therefore exempt from the in- lieu fee under the existing and recommended in-lieu fee policies.
[b] B ased on this prototype’s size, the project would be required to pay $48.75 per square foot of its 9,250 square feet of RUFA under

the existing policy. As a project that provides no on-site BMR units, the prototype would qualify for the first 5,000 square feet of RUFA to be exempt from the in-lieu fee under the recommended policy, which means the prototype would be required to pay $56.25 for only 4,250 square feet of RUFA.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 36

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY IMPACTS OF HARD HATS,

BIRD SAFE BUILDING, AND PREVAILING WAGE

REQUIREMENTS
This section of the report describes findings and conclusions of the research and analyses used to assess:

1. T he “Baseline” f
inancial feasibility of the development prototypes under current market conditions, inclusionary requirements, and in -lieu fees— but without incorporation of the Bird Safe Building, HARD Hats, and prevailing wage policies;

2. How the Bird Safe Building, HARD HATS, and prevailing wage policies potentially impact development costs;

3. Influence of the three policies on development feasibility outcomes.

Essentially, the Baseline analysis describes development feasibility outcomes under today’s conditions as if the Bird Safe Building and HARD HATS policies were not in effect. This provides a point of comparison to understand changes created by those requirements. As noted earlier, the Bird Safe Building policy went into effect July 27, 2023 and the HARD HATS policy on January 1, 2024, while a prevailing wage requirement was recently adopted for the Southside Area Plan only.

The analysis examine d the financial feasibility and cost impacts of the policies under today’s conditions based on available information ; the analysis was not a broader assessment of the outcomes and merits of these policies. Information about the specific development cost impacts of the policies is also somewhat speculative, since no projects have yet been completed under these requirements.

Figure 15 displays each of the prototypes and scenarios modeled as part of the analyses. The table describes how different policies apply to each residential development prototype, as summarized below:
• Current Affordable Housing Requirements Applied to the Baseline Analysis:
o Inclusionary Requirements for Rental Projects : Applies to new residential developments above 5,000 gross square feet. 20 percent of units must be provided as Below Market Rate (BMR), with half of the units affordable to Very Low Income households (defined as those making 50 percent of the Area Median Income) and half of the units affordable to Low Income households (defined as those making 80 percent of the Area Median Income). These requirements can be satisfied through a combination of providing units and paying a prorated fee.

o Inclusionary Requirements for Ownership Projects: Applies to new residential developments above 5,000 gross square feet. 20 percent of units must be provided as Below Market Rate (BMR) at levels affordable to Low Income households. These requirements can be satisfied through a combination of providing uni ts and paying a prorated fee.

• Bird Safe Building: Applies to new residential development above 10,000 gross square feet and with an average height above 35 feet.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 37

• HARD HATS: Applies to new residential development above 50,000 gross square feet.

• Prevailing Wage: Applies to new residential development above 50,000 gross square feet within the Southside Plan Area and is under consideration for citywide applicability.

For the 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype, two scenarios were tested (as shown in Figure 15): one in which the project meets inclusionary requirements by providing 20 percent of housing units as BMR units, and another in which the project pays an in -lieu fee. Note that the smaller Missing Middle prototypes are exempt from the City’s current affordable housing requirements because they are under 5,000 gross square feet.

Also shown in Figure 15, the SDBL prototypes satisfy affordable housing requirements by providing the State-required number of BMR units on -site and paying an in -lieu fee to satisfy the remainder of the City of Berkeley’s inclusionary requirement. The analysis followed current City policy to apply the in-lieu fee only to the remainder of the base project.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 38 FIGURE 15. APPLICATION OF AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND TESTED POLICIES TO DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES Small Lot
Single Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
(On-Site BMR
Version)
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
(In-Lieu Fee
Version)
4-Story GLA 6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Baseline Analysis: Affordable Housing Requirements Applicable to the Rental Prototypes Affordable Housing
Requirements
Applicable to
Rental Prototypes
Not
applicable
(under 5,000
gsf)
Not
applicable
(under 5,000
gsf)
On site BMR
units
Full in-lieu
fee
On site units
to satisfy
SDBL*;
prorated fee
On site units
to satisfy
SDBL*;
prorated fee
On site units
to satisfy
SDBL*;
prorated fee
On site units
to satisfy
SDBL*;
prorated fee
BMR % of Units N/A N/A 20% 0% 10% 10% 15% 15%
Affordability Level N/A N/A Half VLI, half
LI** N/A All VLI** All VLI** All VLI** All VLI**
Baseline: Affordable Housing Requirements Applicable to the Ownership Prototypes Affordable Housing
Requirements
Applicable to
Ownership
Prototypes
Not
applicable
(under 5,000
gsf)
Not
applicable
(under 5,000
gsf)
On site BMR
units
Full in-lieu
fee
N/A (Not
tested as an
ownership
product)
N/A (Not
tested as an
ownership
product)
N/A (Not
tested as an
ownership
product)
N/A (Not
tested as an
ownership
product)

BMR % of Units

N/A N/A 20% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Affordability Level N/A N/A All LI** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bird Safe Building Requirements Applied to Prototypes (regardless of tenure) Bird Safe Building
Requirements
Applicability
Not
applicable
(under
10,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(under
10,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(over 10,000
gsf but less
than 35 feet
high)
Not
applicable
(over 10,000
gsf but less
than 35 feet
high)
Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
HARD HATS and Prevailing Wage Requirements Applied to Prototypes (regardless of tenure)

HARD HATS /
Prevailing Wage
Applicability
Not
applicable
(under
50,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(under
50,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(under
50,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(under
50,000 gsf)
Not
applicable
(under
50,000 gsf)
Applicable Applicable Applicable
Note:
* SDBL = State Density Bonus Law.
** VLI = Very Low Income; LI = Low Income.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 39 Baseline Financial Feasibility Analysis
The following findings describe the results of the Baseline financial feasibility analysis. The findings describe the performance of the development prototypes under existing City of Berkeley inclusionary and in -lieu fee requirements without the Bird Safe Building, HARD HATS, and prevailing wage requirements. Since the results show that all but two of the development prototypes are currently infeasible, the basic description of the results is followed by findings of a sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis provides context for factors influencing the financial performance of the prototypes and how changing conditions could eventually improve the performance of the prototypes.

The baseline feasibility analysis is followed by analysis of the feasibility impacts of construction policies to illustrate the current conditions for residential development.

BASELINE FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR THE RENTAL PROTOTYPES
Under current conditions, the only rental prototype that is financially feasible in Berkeley is the 4-Story GLA. Figure 16 shows results for all tested rental prototypes. As shown, only the 4 -Story GLA project achieves the minimum yield on cost threshold of six percent, with all other prototypes achieving a yield on cost of between 2.99 and 4.03 percent.

None of the Missing Middle prototypes are feasible as rental products under current conditions. The 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype paying the full fee performs the worst of all the prototypes (achieving a yield on cost of 3.27 percent). The other two Missing Middle prototypes, the Small Lot Single Family and Fourplex/Townhomes, which are not currently subject to the City’s inclusionary policy, perform slightly better. These prototypes achieve yields of 4.03 percent and 3.69 percent, respectively— still short of the required six percent target yield.

FIGURE 16. BASELINE RENTAL PROTOTYPE FEASIBILITY RESULTS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

4.03% 3.69%
2 .99% 3.27%

6.64%

3.92% 3.58% 3.64%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%Yield on Cost
Prototype
Yield on Cost Target Yield on Cost
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 40

BASELINE FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR THE OWNERSHIP PROTOTOYPES The Small Lot Single Family and Fourplex/Townhomes prototypes are feasible as ownership products (see Figure 17). The target return on cost for the ownership products is eight percent. The Small Lot Single Family and Fourplex/Townhome prototype exceed this with returns of 28.44 percent and 29.16 percent, respectively.

The 10-Unit Small Multifamily prototype is infeasible as an ownership product, both when providing on-site BMR units and when paying a full in -lieu fee (see Figure 17). The multifamily Missing Middle prototype is infeasible under both affordability requirement scenarios. The prototype does, however, perform significantly better when paying the in -lieu fee (return on cost of 2.2 percent) instead of providing on-site units (return on cost of -8.35 percent).

FIGURE 17. BASELINE OWNERSHIP PROTOTYPE FEASIBILITY RESULTS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

COMBINED SUMMARY OF BASELINE FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES Under current development conditions, very few of the residential prototypes are financially feasible.

Only the 4-Story GLA rental, Small Lot Single Family ownership, and Fourplex/Townhomes ownership prototypes are feasible. Figure 18 summarizes the baseline feasibility results for all of the scenarios tested.

Although most typical market rate residential development projects are currently financially infeasible, developers may still propose projects or construct projects in anticipation of improved development conditions or due to project-specific factors. The results of the financial feasibility analysis represent outcomes for a developer initiating a typical market rate project under today’s typical cost, revenue, and thresholds for return on investment. Multiple factors explain why developers continue to propose or construct housing projects in Berkeley. Developers submitted several project applications in 2023 to potentially avoid being subject to HARD HATS, which took effect in January 2024. Other developers are optimistic and believe that development conditions will change soon — such as increasing achievable rents (driven partly by strong student demand), slowing increases in construction costs, or

28.44% 29.16%
-8.35%

2.20%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%
Small Lot Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Units)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Fee)
Return on Cost
Prototype
Baseline Return on Cost Target Return on Cost
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 41 reduced project financing costs . Individual development projects can also have unique beneficial characteristics that reduce development costs, such as lower land acquisition costs , innovative construction techniques (such as modular construction), or access to unique financing arrangements.

FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY RESULTS Prototype Yield or Return on
Cost Target Feasible
(Y/N)
Rental Prototypes
Small Lot Single Family 4.03% 6.00% N
Fourplex/Townhomes 3.69% 6.00% N
10-Unit Small Multifamily (Units) 2.99% 6.00% N
10-Unit Small Multifamily (Fee) 3.27% 6.00% N
4-Story GLA 6.64% 6.00% Y
6-Story Midrise 3.92% 6.00% N
8-Story Midrise 3.58% 6.00% N
18-Story High-rise 3.64% 6.00% N
Ownership Prototypes
Small Lot Single Family 28.44% 8.00% Y
Fourplex/Townhomes 29.16% 8.00% Y
10-Unit Small Multifamily (Units) -8.35% 8.00% N
10-Unit Small Multifamily (Fee) 2.20% 8.00% N
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND CONTEXT FOR THE BASELINE FEASIBILITY RESULTS Given that all but two of the development prototypes are currently infeasible, Strategic Economics conducted a sensitivity analysis to provide context for the factors influencing the financial performance of the prototypes and how changing conditions could eventually improve the performance of the prototypes.

Development costs, revenues, and required return on investment change over time, and each change influences development feasibility outcomes. The financial feasibility of development is driven by the relationships between the total cost to build a development project, the expected revenue generated by the project, and the current required return on investment. Rents or sales prices determine th e expected revenue generated by a development project, while development costs can include a variety of factors, such as construction materials and labor, land, and municipal fees.

The following tables illustrate how changes in development costs and revenues can impact feasibility outcomes. Figure 19 and Figure 20 demonstrate the impact of changes to revenue and development costs on the financial feasibility of one rental housing unit and one ownership housing unit, respectively. T he figures represent one rental unit from the 6 -Story Midrise prototype and one ownership unit from the Fourplex/Townhomes prototype . The axes show the change in revenue and costs. The cell showing “0 percent” and “0 percent” change shows the estimated feasibility outcome for projects currently, expressed as either yield on cost or return on costs . The “-10 percent,” “10 percent” cell in the top left represents the feasibility outcome for projects if re venues decrease 10 percent and development costs increase 10 percent. Green cells indicate feasibility, while red cells indicate infeasibility.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 42 With current rents and development costs, rental projects are not feasible, with an estimated yield on cost of 3. 48 percent. Even with an increase in rents and a decrease in costs, the rental prototype remains unfeasible. The ownership prototype demonstrates how the reduction in sales value and an increase in development costs can make a project infeasible.

As shown, development projects can be highly sensitive to shifting cost and revenue conditions; in reality, the required return on investment would also shift over time, adding additional complexity to when and whether a given development project becomes feasible to build.

FIGURE 19. COST AND REVENUE CHANGE IMPACTS ON THE YIELD ON COST OF ONE RENTAL UNIT Change in Rent
Change in Development
Costs
-10% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%
-10% 3.31% 3.59% 3.86% 4.14% 4.42% 4.70%
-5% 3.13% 3.40% 3.66% 3.92% 4.19% 4.45%
0% 2.98% 3.23% 3.48% 3.73% 3.98% 4.23%
5% 2.84% 3.07% 3.31% 3.55% 3.79% 4.03%
10% 2.71% 2.93% 3.16% 3.39% 3.62% 3.84%
Note: Feasible yield on cost is considered 6 percent. Darker red yield on cost outcomes indicate a weaker return on cost, while lighter outcomes indicate a stronger return. However, none of the outcomes presented is financially feasible, even with increased rev enue and decreased costs.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 20. COST AND REVENUE CHANGE IMPACTS ON THE RETURN ON COST OF ONE OWNERSHIP UNIT Change in Sales Value
Change in Development
Costs
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
-10% 29.16% 36.33% 43.51% 50.69% 57.86%
-5% 22.36% 29.16% 35.96% 42.76% 49.55%
0% 16.24% 22.70% 29.16% 35.62% 42.08%
5% 10.71% 16.86% 23.01% 29.16% 35.31%
10% 5.68% 11.55% 17.42% 23.29% 29.16%
15% 1.08% 6.70% 12.31% 17.93% 23.54%
Note: Feasible return on cost is considered 8 percent. Return on cost outcomes labelled in green indicate a financially feasible project, while numbers in red indicate an infeasible project. Darker green indicates stronger returns.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Development costs, revenues, and required return on investment do not often change at the same rate over time. Changes to each factor occur largely independently and at an uneven pace. For example, Figure 21 shows the year over year change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) tracked by Engineering News Record for San Francisco over the past five years. The chart shows a spike in cost increases in 2022 and 2023 due to supply chain challenges, which are beginning to moderate in 2024. Similarly, rents decreased in Berkeley during the COVID -19 pandemic and have gradually started to increase since 2020— although the increases in rents have been significantly lower than the increases in construction costs since 2020 (see Figure 22).

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 43 FIGURE 21. YEAR OVER YEAR CHANGE IN THE CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX FOR SAN FRANCISCO

Source: Engineering News Report, 2024; Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 22. YEAR OVER YEAR CHANGE IN AVERAGE RENT IN BERKELEY

Source: CoStar, 2024; Strategic Economics, 2024.

Bird Safe Building Ordinance Impacts on Financial Feasibility Strategic Economics conducted interviews and research to examine the cost impacts of the Bird Safe Building policy, and then examined the policies’ impacts on the financial feasibility of the development prototypes. As noted earlier, the Bird Safe Building requirements took effect in 2023.

The Bird Safe Building requirements increase hard costs of development (i.e., materials and labor) by approximately one percent to 1.5 percent. This range was based on input from general contractors and developers interviewed for this study. The Bird Safe Building Ordinance required that new developments of a certain size use a form of glass or other treatments that reduce the risk of bird collisions and fatalities. This policy change applied to the mid- and high-rise prototypes in this study.

The need for and cost of compliance would vary depending on a specific project’s design — especially depending on whether the requirement is triggered based on the building’s ratio of windows to façade, and the total amount of window area requiring compliance.

The Bird Safe Building requirement marginally negatively impacts the feasibility of the mid - and high- rise prototypes. Figure 23 demonstrates the impact of this increase on the yield on cost of the relevant

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Year Over Year % Increase in
CCI
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year Over Year % Change in
Rent
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 44 prototypes. However, interviews with stakeholders indicated that the cost premium for qualifying glass types might decrease as policies such as this become more common across cities.

FIGURE 23. BIRD SAFE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS IMPACTS ON FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

HARD HATS and Prevailing Wage Impacts on Financial
Feasibility
Strategic Economics conducted interviews and research to examine the potential cost impacts of the HARD HATS and prevailing wage policies, and then examined the policies’ impacts on the financial feasibility of the development prototypes. As noted earlier, HARD HATS was adopted in 2023 and came into effect in January of 2024. The ordinance requires that contractors provide or fund apprenticeship programs and provide healthcare to workers on all new construction projects above 50,000 gross square feet. In addition, the City of Berkeley is considering expanding a prevailing wage requirement on new construction projects above 50,000 gross square feet from the Southside P lan Area to the entire city. See Figure 15 for the applicability to the prototypes in this study.

The cost impacts of HARD HATS are based on current conditions and available information — which is limited since no projects have yet been completed under the HARD HATS requirements. The actual impacts of HARD HATS will be clarified over time as projects are proposed or built under the requirements.

The healthcare requirements of the HARD HATS ordinance, as currently written, are most readily met through use of union labor, although a subset of non -union contractors also comply. The ordinance currently requires contractors to show proof of health insurance contributions for workers six months prior to the start of any construction job and does not contain exemptions for workers who have declined coverage. In practice, the HARD HAT S requirement is most readily met through use of contractors using union labor because healthcare is included in workers’ membership and these contractors also meet the apprenticeship program requirements . Local developers and contractors

6.64%

3.92% 3.58% 3.64%

6.58%

3.88% 3.55% 3.60%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%
4-Story GLA 6-Story Midrise 8-Story Midrise 18-Story Highrise Yield on Cost
Prototype
Baseline Yield on Cost Adjusted for Bird Safe Building Target YoC Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 45 interviewed for this study noted that the healthcare reporting requirements are a major factor that limits the pool of contractors to those using union labor. However, a smaller subset of non-union contractors are also likely to comply with the policy.

A potential prevailing wage requirement would have similar cost implications as HARD HATS requirements if met through use of union labor , although not in addition to HARD HATS’ cost implications if a development project is subject to both requirements. The cost differential between non prevailing wage and prevailing wage is approximately equivalent to the shift from non -union to union labor. This is because prevailing wages incorporate costs corresponding to most of the benefits provided by union membership, such as apprenticeships, retirement contributions, and healthcare.

The reported increase in total hard costs for a typical midrise development project to meet the HARD HATS requirements r anges between 18 percent to 25 percent. This percentage reflects the approximate reported cost increase to shift from a project built with largely non-union labor to instead use union labor . This reported cost increase is influenced by the number of trades that are shifting from non-union to union labor.

This cost differential varies based on project size and design, with smaller midrise projects being more likely to experience an increased cost burden. This is because smaller midrise projects are more likely to use a higher percentage of non-union trades for their development, or trades with a larger share of contractors that do not otherwise comply with HARD HATS . Specific trades tend to often use union labor and would automatically qualify under HARD HATS, such as those associated with concrete work.

However, for trades such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP), smaller projects’ contractors often do not meet the requirements.

Larger projects, such as high-rises, are much more likely to use union contractors and subcontractors, minimizing the costs associated with meeting HARD HATS requirements and a potential prevailing wage requirement. Findings from interviews suggest that even if a general contractor on a high -rise project is non-union, they will use about 80 percent of union trades to complete the project. Otherwise, contractors on high-rise projects tend to use union labor, and thus do not experience the cost increase from HARD HATS or the potential prevailing wage requirement.

For this study, HARD HATS and the potential prevailing wage requirement were assumed to have the same impact on project costs — one that represents the shift to costs comparable to a project using entirely union labor since this is the current means of most readily meeting the requirements . The midrise prototypes were assumed to experience a 20 percent increase in total hard costs and the high- rise was assumed to not experience a change in costs. The 20 percent cost increase represents implementation of one or both requirements, since both essentially increase hard costs to a level comparable with a union labor project. This analysis provides an illustrative example to understand how residential development might be impacted by the recent and proposed policy changes. The midrise prototypes were assumed to experience similar cost increases because they are relatively similar in size. In contrast, the high -rise was assumed to already incorporate costs fo r contractors already meeting the requirements in the hard cost assumptions for the prototype’s pro forma analysis.

However, the actual circumstances might vary based on the composition of union and non -union trades used by a specific project.

Based on the 20 percent increase in hard costs, both labor requirements negatively impact the financial feasibility of the 6- and 8-Story prototypes (see Figure 24). While neither prototype is currently feasible, these requirements significantly increase development costs without changing expected revenues. As a result, a larger magnitude of positive change in rents, return on investment thresholds, Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 46 or other costs would need to occur before development of these prototypes could move forward in Berkeley, relative to a condition without the requirements.

FIGURE 24. HARD HATS IMPACT ON FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Key Conclusions
Currently, residential development is infeasible for most of the prototypes tested in this study . The exceptions are the 4 -Story GLA rental, and the Small Lot Single Family and Townhomes/Fourplex ownership products. While these results can and likely will change as development conditions improve, this baseline was used to gauge current feasibility of different housing prototypes and to test the impacts of the recently adopted and proposed labor and construction policies.

The overall cost impact of the Bird Safe Building requirements is relatively limited, but the requirements do create additional development costs and negatively impact project feasibility . The Bird Safe Building requirement adds development costs, but on its own the costs associated with the policy likely won’t determine whether a project is built.

The cost impacts of HARD HATS are significant for midrise development projects, but are limited for high-rise development. While the applicable prototypes are not feasible in current development conditions, the additional costs driven by HARD HATS could become a significant factor for determining when or whether a midrise project is built as conditions improve.

HARD HATS reduces the pool of compliant contractors and their workers available for development projects in Berkeley . As noted, a limited percentage of non -union contractors are currently likely to meet the requirements of HARD HATS.

The cost impact of a prevailing wage requirement would be significant for midrise development. A prevailing wage requirement would increase hard costs for development projects at a level comparable to (but not in addition to) the costs associated with the HARD HATS requirement.

3.92% 3.58%3.51% 3.19%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%
6-Story Midrise 8-Story Midrise
Yield on Cost
Prototype
Baseline Yield on Cost Adjusted for HARD HATS Target YoC Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 47 The additional development costs associated with the HARD HATS, prevailing wage, and Bird Safe Glass requirements are not likely to pose an insurmountable barrier to future market rate residential development in Berkeley when development conditions improve, but any cost impacts associated with the requirements will constrain the likelihood and pace of future housing production. The magnitude of changes in rents, development costs, and other development conditions required to cover the impacts of HARD HATS, etc. are likely achievable over time as market conditions shift. Overall demand for housing is strong in Berkeley, especially given the number of students seeking housing. However, the development cost increases associated with HARD HATS and other tested policies are significant enough to delay or constrain housing production since the policies increase the required changes in rents/prices, development costs, and market return thresholds necessary before housing development becomes feasible.

The cost premium associated with meeting HARD HATS and prevailing wage requirements is likely to decline over time due to a variety of state legislation and legislation in other cities that will incentivize or expand use of contractors meeting or exceeding these labor standards. Many state housing laws require developers to meet labor requirements to qualify for benefits. For example, the ministerial approval benefits under AB 2011 require payment of prevailing wages to construction workers, while SB 6 requires use of a “skilled and trained workforce” — most readily met through use of union contractors. Other California cities are also considering or adopting additional labor requirements. As a result, a greater share of contractors may qualify for HARD HATS requirements over time. This would expand the pool of competing contractors and potentially reduce the cost premiums associated with meeting HARD HATS requirements.

The City of Berkeley could potentially complete a future study to clarify the actual cost impacts of HARD HATS based on completed projects. This report’s findings regarding the construction costs associated with HARD HATS we re based on available information and current conditions. However, developers have not yet built any housing development projects subject to HARD HATS. The City of Berkeley could potentially re-study the HARD HATS construction cost and development feasibility impacts after several projects subject to the requirements are proposed or completed— potentially in three to five years and during the City’s next re-study of inclusionary or in-lieu fee requirements.

The City of Berkeley could also consider studying the HARD HATS policy beyond its impact on construction costs. This study focused solely on the construction cost impacts associated with the HARD HATS requirements. A broader analysis of HARD HATS would allow consideration of the policy’s broader benefits and drawbacks.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 48

APPENDIX
Pro Forma Assumptions
Strategic Economics used a static pro forma to evaluate the financial feasibility impacts of the affordable housing requirements, HARD HATS, Bird Safe Building requirements, and a prevailing wage requirement. This approach involved collecting data on reven ue and cost inputs for the pro forma model. Data was collected through interviews with local stakeholders, including developers, general contractors, and architects, as well as through review of existing studies and analysis of data from CoStar and Redfin.

ESTIMATING REVENUES
Revenue inputs were primarily informed by CoStar and Redfin data on recent market rents and sales prices. However, since several of the prototypes have on -site affordable rental or ownership units, revenue inputs were also informed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development county income limits, as well as guidance from the City of Berkeley.

Figure 25 provides a breakdown of unit sizes, types, and affordability levels across the ownership and rental prototypes used in this study.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 49 FIGURE 25. SQUARE FEET PER UNIT AND SHARE OF UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE AND AFFORDABILITY LEVEL

Small Lot
Single
Family (a)
Fourplex/
Townhomes (a)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Units)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Fee)
4-
Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Units) (b)
Market Rate Units
Unit Count
Studio - - - - 32 23 78 16 -
One Bedroom - - 4 5 1 35 20 41 4
Two Bedroom - 4 4 5 - 11 10 16 4
Three Bedroom 3 - - - - - - 21 -
Units Above 8 Stories (c)
Studio - - - - - - - 27 -
One Bedroom - - - - - - - 45 -
Two Bedroom - - - - - - - 28 -
Three Bedroom - - - - - - - 22 -
Total 3 4 8 10 33 69 108 216 8
Unit Size
Studio - - - - 250 500 510 400 -
One Bedroom - - 750 750 650 660 750 580 750
Two Bedroom - 1,200 1,100 1,100 - 990 950 800 1,100 Three Bedroom 1,500 - - - - - - 1,100 -
Average Unit Size 1,500 1,200 925 925 262 659 595 693 925 BMR Units
Unit Count - VLI
Studio - - - - 3 2 9 5 -
One Bedroom - - 1 - - 3 2 10 -
Two Bedroom - - - - - 1 1 5 -
Three Bedroom - - - - - - - 4 -
Unit Count - LI
Studio - - - - - - - - -
One Bedroom - - - - - - - - 1 Two Bedroom - - 1 - - - - - 1
Three Bedroom - - - - - - - - - Total 0 0 2 0 3 6 12 24 2
Unit Size
Studio - - - - 250 500 510 400 -
One Bedroom - - 750 750 - 660 750 580 750
Two Bedroom - - 1,100 1,100 - 990 950 800 1,100
Three Bedroom - - - - - - - 1,100 -
Average Unit Size N/A N/A 925 N/A 250 662 587 675 925
Note:
(a) These prototypes have the same unit composition and unit sizes in their rental and ownership forms. (b) This prototype represents the ownership version, which has different affordability levels for its below-market rate units. (c) Units above 8 stories were given a premium of $0.75 per square foot for the market rate units. This premium is not applicable to the below-market rate units above 8 stories.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 50

MARKET RATE RENTS
Market rate rent assumptions were established by using CoStar data from the last year. Submarkets data w as used to approximate average rents for the relevant geographic areas of the city. A new construction premium of 10 percent was applied to the rents. The submarket rents were applied to each prototype based on their proposed location in the city, as shown in Figure 26.

FIGURE 26. MARKET RATE RENTAL ASSUMPTIONS PER MONTH (DOLLARS PER MONTH)

Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
4-Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Unit Rent
Studio - - - 2,400 2,800 2,850 3,300
One Bedroom - - 3,000 3,500 3,250 3,500 3,750
Two Bedroom - 4,000 4,100 - 4,500 4,300 4,700
Three Bedroom 5,500 - - - - - 6,000
Unit Rent - Above 8 Floors
Studio - - - - - - 3,630
One Bedroom - - - - - - 4,125
Two Bedroom - - - - - - 5,170
Three Bedroom - - - - - - 6,600
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

BELOW MARKET RATE RENTS
The BMR rents used in the pro forma analysis were adopted from the City of Berkely’s guidance on gross rent maximums for 2023, shown in Figure 27. Utility costs were then subtracted from the rent from each unit type to determine the net rent maximum. 14 The net rent (see Figure 28) was used in the analysis across all of the rental prototypes. Figure 29 shows the operating cost, vacancy rate, and cap rate used across the market and BMR units.

FIGURE 27. CITY OF BERKELEY GROSS RENT MAXIMUMS FOR VERY LOW- AND LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Studio 1 BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR
50% AMI $1,295 $1,480 $1,665 $1,849 $1,998 $2,293
80% AMI $1,964 $2,244 $2,524 $2,804 $3,029 $3,478
Source: City of Berkeley, 2023; Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 28. CITY OF BERKELEY NET RENT MAXIMUMS FOR VERY LOW- AND LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Studio 1 BR 2BR 3BR
50% AMI $1,195 $1,332 $1,473 $1,614
80% AMI $1,864 $2,096 $2,332 $2,569
Source: City of Berkeley, 2023; Strategic Economics, 2024.

14 Utilities were calculated using the City’s Utility Allowance Schedule for BMR units, available here:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023%20COB%20BMR%20Utility%20Allowance%20Schedule.pdf.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 51 FIGURE 29. RETAIL AND RENT ASSUMPTIONS

Units
Market Rate
Apartments
(All except 18-
story High-rise)
Market Rate
Apartments
(18-story High-
rise)
Below Market
Rate Apartments Retail
Operating Expenses % of GSI 30.0% 35.0% (See [a]) See [b] 0.0% Vacancy Rate - Market Rate % of GSI 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 10.0% Cap Rate NOI / Project Value 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
[a] The operating expense ratio assumption of 35 percent for the 18-story High-rise prototype was assumed to be higher than the other prototypes to reflect the additional staffing costs of front desk reception and 24-hour security typical of high-rise developments. [b] O perating expenses for BMR units were assumed to be the same as market rate units, i.e., 30% of the gross scheduled income
(or 35% of GSI for the 18-Story High-rise prototype) for an equivalent market rate unit.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

MARKET RATE SALES PRICES
Market rate sales prices for townhomes, condos, and single -family dwelling units were established using Redfin data for recently built and sold units for similar size developments to those in the for-sale prototypes for this study. Figure 30 provides a summary of the sales prices for each prototype by unit type.

FIGURE 30. MARKET RATE SALES PRICES BY PROTOTYPE

Small Lot Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
Studio - - -
One Bedroom - - $800,000
Two Bedroom - $1,200,000 $1,100,000
Three
Bedroom $1,500,000 - -
Source: Redfin, 2023; Strategic Economics, 2024.

BELOW MARKET RATE SALES PRICES
Affordable housing prices were identified based on resources from California HCD, which sets income levels and maximum housing costs for federal and state-funded affordable housing programs. The City of Berkeley then provided a specific approach for calculating affordable sales prices. Background research, as well as City requirements, informed the assumptions that were used to calculate affordable sales prices (see Figure 31).

FIGURE 31. BELOW MARKET RATE HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS
Assumption Basis Source
Loan Type Conventional - -
Down Payment 5% Sales Price City of Berkeley, 2023
Loan-To-Value (LTV) Ratio 95% Sales Price City of Berkeley, 2023 Interest Rate 6.76% A nnual
FreddieMac 52-Week
Average for 30-Year FRM,
2023
Term of Loan 30 Years City of Berkeley, 2023
Monthly HOA Dues $0.32 Square Foot Zillow, 2023
Property Tax Rate
(Annual) 1.25% Sales Price Bekins AMS Relocation,
2023
Private Mortgage
Insurance Premium Rate
(Annual)

0.98% Mortgage
Amount
Urban Institute Housing
Finance Policy Center, 2023
Homeowner's Insurance 0.35% Sales Price QuoteWizard 2023 Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 52 Based on HCD guidelines, the affordable rent wa s calculated as 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income, minus a deduction for utilities 15 . The maximum monthly housing cost used to calculate the affordable sales price for condos in this study was 30 percent of a household’s gross income, minus the cost of utilities. See Figure 32 for the affordable sales price calculation.

FIGURE 32. BELOW-MARKET RATE CONDO SALES PRICE CALCULATION BY UNIT TYPE 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Household Size (Persons per HH) 2 3
Annual Household Income at 80% AMI $89,750 $100,950
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost $2,244 $2,524
Monthly Deductions
Utilities $229 $283
HOA Dues $237 $348
Property Taxes $224 $238
Private Mortgage Insurance $167 $177
Homeowner's Insurance $63 $67
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment $1,325 $1,410 Maximum Mortgage Amount $204,008 $217,239
Down Payment $10,737 $11,434
Maximum Affordable Sales Price $214,745 $228,672
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

ESTIMATING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Development costs were estimated for each of the development prototypes. Development costs include land costs, direct or “hard” construction costs, indirect or “soft” costs, as well as financing costs, a developer fee, and a contingency for overruns.

Assumptions for development costs were informed by interviews and data analysis. This was supplemented by Strategic Economics’ general experience with the economics of real estate development projects in the Bay Area.

The development cost assumptions for rental and ownership prototypes are shown below in Figure 34 and Figure 35, respectively. The remainder of this section explains the cost assumptions in more detail.

LAND COST
Land costs typically vary widely, depending on factors such as location, zoning, and the amount of site work required to prepare the land for development. Because the price of land is so strongly tied to what can be built upon it, land costs are characteri zed in this study as the cost per dwelling unit of development.

Land costs were estimated based on CoStar land sales data from the past five years. When available, the size and unit count of the proposed redevelopment was used to inform the assumption of land cost per unit and per square foot for each of the prototypes in this study. Assumptions were also informed by the general market trend that larger developments command higher land costs per square foot of land, but lower per unit costs.

15 Utilities were calculated using the City’s Utility Allowance Schedule for BMR units, available here:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023%20COB%20BMR%20Utility%20Allowance%20Schedule.pdf.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 53

HARD COSTS
Hard costs refer to both horizontal site costs and vertical construction costs, including the residential area construction and parking construction.

The construction costs also include horizontal/site costs that include demolition, grading, utility connection installation, paving, and landscaping. For the purposes of this analysis, it wa s assumed that the hypothetical sites are relatively flat, with horizontal costs between $20 to $35 per land square foot. The 10-Unit Small Multifamily was assumed to have higher horizontal costs because it includes surface parking.

The vertical costs include parking structures and building materials. The construction costs were based on assumptions for the materials used to construct each prototype. Type V construction is the least expensive and is used for wood frame structures. The Missing Middle prototypes and the GLA are constructed entirely with Type V building materials. The midrise prototypes utilize a mix of Type V and Type III building materials. Type III construction is used for developments over five stories , above the Type I podium used for a parking structure . The high-rise prototype utilizes Type I building materials, which is typically reinforced concrete and steel, with high fire safety standards. Total building costs were based on the amount of Type V, III, and I materials corresponding to the prototype design . The costs result in the per unit and per square foot costs as seen in Figure 33.

FIGURE 33. BUILDING AREA HARD COST PER UNIT AND PER SQUARE FOOT

Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
4-Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Cost per Unit $600,000 $480,000 $463,480 $141,167 $304,567 $344,360 $479,999 Cost per Square Foot $400 $400 $400 $350 $360 $449 $547 Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Parking costs were assumed to be $100 per square foot for garage spaces, and $200 per square foot for podium spaces. Each space was assumed to be 300 square feet.

The construction costs for the ownership prototypes we re slightly higher than the rental costs per square foot. This is because the ownership prototypes were assumed to be of slightly higher building quality.

SOFT COSTS
Soft costs refer to necessary costs of development that are not directly related to the physical construction of the building. They include architecture, engineering costs and other professional services fees, as well as other costs associated with doing b usiness, such as insurance and taxes.

Finally, soft costs include city permits and fees, and other miscellaneous costs. It is estimated that soft costs are 13 percent of hard costs for the Missing Middle prototypes, and 18 percent for the GLA, midrise, and high-rise prototypes. This was reflected in interviews with local and outside developers.

The developer’s contingency and overhead also account for an additional five and four percent of hard costs, respectively, though there are no overhead fees for the Missing Middle prototypes.

F

INANCING COSTS
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 54 Based on input from developers, 55 percent of the project cost would be financed with debt, with interest rates currently in the 7 percent to 9.25 percent range. For the purpose of this study, an interest rate in the middle of this range was selected (8 percent). Financing assumptions are consistent for the for-rent and for-sale prototypes because the hypothetical projects would have similar loan terms and construction timelines. The development period for the Small Lot Single Family and Townhome prototypes was assumed to be 12 months. It wa s assumed to be 18 months for the 10- Unit Small Multifamily and GLA prototypes, 24 months for the midrise prototypes, and 36 months for the high - rise. All prototypes incorporate a 1.0 percent construction loan fee, which is a standard industry assumption. See Figure 36 for a summary of financing assumptions.

F
EES
City fees were added to the pro forma. These fees include, but are not limited to, the affordable housing in lieu fee. A full breakdown of the fees for each prototype is provided in Figure 37.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 55 FIGURE 34. HARD AND SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS BY RENTAL PROTOTYPE Unit of measure
Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
4-Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Land Costs per square foot $150 $150 $175 $200 $325 $500 $850 Hard Costs
Demolition and Site Work per sf land $20 $20 $35 $20 $25 $25 $25 Residential - Type V per gross sf $400 $400 $400 $350 $350 - - Residential - Type III per gross sf - - - - - $400 -
Residential - Type I per gross sf - - - - $550 $550 $550 Retail - Type I per gross sf $100 $100 - - $200 $200 $200 Parking Garage per space $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Parking Podium per space $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 $0 Tenant Improvement Allowance per net sf $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 Soft Costs
Arch, Eng & Consulting % of hard costs 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 8% 8% Taxes, Insurance, Legal &
Accounting % of hard costs 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Other Soft Costs % of hard costs 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total Soft Costs (Excluding Fees) % of hard costs 13% 13% 13% 18% 18% 18% 18% Contingency % of hard + soft costs 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 56 FIGURE 35. HARD AND SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS BY OWNERSHIP PROTOTYPE Unit of measure
Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit
Small
Multifamily
Land Costs per square foot $150 $150 $175

Hard Costs
Demolition and Site Work per sf land $20 $20 $35
Residential - Type V per gross sf $425 $425 $425
Parking Garage per space $30,000 $30,000 $0
Tenant Improvement Allowance per net sf $0 $0 $0

Soft Costs
Arch, Eng & Consulting % of hard costs 5% 5% 5%
Taxes, Insurance, Legal & Accounting % of hard costs 5% 5% 5% Other Soft Costs % of hard costs 3% 3% 3%
Total Soft Costs (Excluding Fees) % of hard costs 13% 13% 13%

Contingency % of hard + soft costs 5% 5% 5%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 36. FINANCING COST ASSUMPTIONS
Units
Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
3-Story
Missing
Middle
(Units)
3-Story
Missing
Middle
(Fee)
4-Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Total Development Cost (Excl. Financing) Millions of $ $2.90 $3.10 $7.30 $7.80 $8.90 $41.80 $67.70 $170.97 Amount Financed % of hard + soft costs 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% Average Outstanding Balance % of amount financed 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% Construction Loan Fee % of amount financed 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Construction Interest (annual) % of amount financed 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Term Months 12 12 18 18 18 24 24 36
Total Cost of Financing Millions of $ $0.09 $0.09 $0.31 $0.33 $0.37 $2.25 $3.65 $13.35 Financing as Share of TDC % of total costs 2.8% 2.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 4.4% 4.4% 6.9% Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 57 FIGURE 37. CITY FEES BY PROTOTYPE (WHEN TESTED UNDER EXISTING IN-LIEU FEE POLICY)

Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Units)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Fee)
4-Story
GLA
6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
High-rise
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $0 $0 $0 $450,938 $202,737 $1,255,416 $723,642 $1,580,453 BUSD Developer Fee $15,660 $16,704 $40,323 $40,323 $50,530 $215,516 $313,144 $726,370 Building Permit Fees* $31,850 $33,896 $83,218 $83,218 $115,672 $557,448 $936,523 $2,550,810 Plan Check Fees* $20,702 $22,032 $54,091 $54,091 $75,187 $362,341 $608,740 $1,658,027 Other Permit Fees (Fire Plan, etc)* $15,238 $16,216 $39,779 $39,779 $55,283 $266,330 $447,425 $1,218,614 SOSIP (Residential) Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369,689
SOSIP (Commercial) Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,360
Sewer Connection* $10,608 $14,144 $36,000 $36,000 $129,600 $270,000 $432,000 $864,000 1% Arts Fee $0 $0 $3,952 $4,205 $4,205 $20,510 $34,374 $92,755 POPOS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Note:
* C alculated using the City of Berkeley’s online fee calculator. ** Assumes $3,600 per unit for multifamily based on similar projects.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 58 Pro Forma Results
This appendix provides the full pro forma results for the rental and ownership scenarios in Figure 38 and Figure 39. The rental results demonstrate the impacts of HARD HATS/prevailing wage and Bird Safe Building requirements. The section also provides the full pro forma results for the rental and ownership scenarios after the recommended in-lieu fee exemption for the first 5,000 square feet of development is applied in Figure 40 and Figure 41.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 59 FIGURE 38. FULL RENTAL PRO FORMA RESULTS (WITH CURRENT IN-LIEU FEE, BIRD SAFE BUILDING, AND HARD HATS REQUIREMENTS)

Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
3-Story
Missing
Middle (Units)
3-Story
Missing
Middle (Fee)
4-Story GLA 6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
Highrise
Revenues
Market Rate Units
Gross Scheduled Income $198,000 $192,000 $340,800 $426,000 $963,600 $2,731,800 $4,023,600 $11,776,140 Less Vacancy -$9,900 -$9,600 -$17,040 -$21,300 -$48,180 -$136,590 -$201,180 -$588,807 Less Operating Expenses -$59,400 -$57,600 -$102,240 -$127,800 -$289,080 -$819,540 -$1,207,080 -$4,121,649 Below Market Rate Units
Gross Scheduled Income $0 $0 $43,968 $0 $43,020 $94,308 $178,704 $397,392 Less Vacancy $0 $0 -$1,099 $0 -$1,076 -$2,358 -$4,468 -$9,935 Less Operating Expenses $0 $0 -$25,560 $0 -$26,280 -$71,264 -$134,120 -$457,961 Retail Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,075 $8,100 $8,100
Total Net Operating Income $128,700 $124,800 $238,829 $276,900 $642,005 $1,802,431 $2,663,556 $7,003,280 Total Capitalized Value $2,574,000 $2,496,000 $4,776,576 $5,538,000 $12,840,090 $36,048,619 $53,271,128 $140,065,604

Development Costs
Land Costs $653,400 $653,400 $1,524,600 $1,524,600 $1,742,400 $7,078,500 $10,890,000 $18,513,000 Direct Costs
Demolition and Site Work $87,120 $87,120 $304,920 $304,920 $174,240 $544,500 $544,500 $544,500 Building Area $1,800,000 $1,920,000 $4,634,800 $4,634,800 $5,082,000 $22,842,500 $41,323,200 $115,199,850 Parking $90,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,100,000 $900,000 $0 Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 City Initiatives
Bird Safe Glass $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,844 $384,555 $644,516 $1,739,165 Hard Hats $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,127,400 $8,593,540 $0
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs $257,026 $276,526 $642,164 $642,164 $946,123 $4,614,660 $7,734,186 $20,869,983 Municipal Fees $94,058 $102,992 $257,363 $708,553 $633,213 $2,947,561 $3,495,849 $9,064,078 Developer Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $343,119 $1,611,109 $2,603,509 $6,575,656 Financing $88,554 $93,853 $307,809 $326,669 $376,197 $2,554,902 $4,146,489 $13,488,357 Contingency $120,838 $130,025 $307,353 $330,855 $377,745 $1,868,262 $3,047,387 $8,297,121 Total Development Costs $3,190,995 $3,383,915 $7,979,008 $8,472,561 $9,753,881 $51,823,948 $84,123,175 $194,491,711

Feasibility Summary
Yield-on-cost 4.03% 3.69% 2.99% 3.27% 6.58% 3.48% 3.17% 3.60% Target yield-on-cost 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Difference -1.97% -2.31% -3.01% -2.73% 0.58% -2.52% -2.83% -2.40% Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 60 FIGURE 39. FULL OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA RESULTS (WITH CURRENT IN-LIEU FEE, BIRD SAFE BUILDING, AND HARD

HATS REQUIREMENTS)
Small Lot Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Units)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Fee)
Revenues
Market Rate Units
Gross Revenue $4,500,000 $4,800,000 $7,600,000 $9,500,000 Less Marketing Expenses -$225,000 -$240,000 -$380,000 -$475,000 Below Market Rate Units
Gross Revenue $0 $0 $443,417 $0
Less Marketing Expenses $0 $0 -$22,171 $0
Total Proceeds $4,275,000 $4,560,000 $7,641,246 $9,025,000

Development Costs
Land Costs $653,400 $653,400 $1,524,600 $1,524,600
Direct Costs
Demolition and Site Work $87,120 $87,120 $304,920 $304,920 Building Area $1,912,500 $2,040,000 $4,924,475 $4,924,475 Parking $90,000 $120,000 $0 $0
Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs $271,651 $292,126 $679,821 $679,821
Municipal Fees $94,058 $102,992 $258,521 $708,532
Developer Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Financing $92,329 $97,880 $321,540 $340,350
Contingency $127,383 $137,006 $324,464 $347,905
Total Development Costs $3,328,441 $3,530,524 $8,338,341 $8,830,603

Feasibility Summary
Total Revenue $4,275,000 $4,560,000 $7,641,246 $9,025,000 Total Development Cost $3,328,441 $3,530,524 $8,338,341 $8,830,603 Net Revenue $946,559 $1,029,476 -$697,095 $194,397

Return-on-Cost 28% 29% -8% 2%
Target Return on Cost 8% 8% 8% 8%
Difference 20% 21% -16% -6%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 61 FIGURE 40. FULL RENTAL PRO FORMA RESULTS WITH RECOMMENDED IN-LIEU FEE EXEMPTION (INCLUDES BIRD SAFE BUILDING AND HARD HATS REQUIREMENTS)

Small Lot
Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
3-Story
Missing
Middle
(Units)
3-Story
Missing
Middle (Fee)
4-Story GLA 6-Story
Midrise
8-Story
Midrise
18-Story
Highrise
Revenues
Market Rate Units
Gross Scheduled Income $198,000 $192,000 $340,800 $426,000 $963,600 $2,731,800 $4,023,600 $11,776,140 Less Vacancy -$9,900 -$9,600 -$17,040 -$21,300 -$48,180 -$136,590 -$201,180 -$588,807 Less Operating Expenses -$59,400 -$57,600 -$102,240 -$127,800 -$289,080 -$819,540 -$1,207,080 -$4,121,649 Below Market Rate Units
Gross Scheduled Income $0 $0 $43,968 $0 $43,020 $94,308 $178,704 $397,392 Less Vacancy $0 $0 -$1,099 $0 -$1,076 -$2,358 -$4,468 -$9,935 Less Operating Expenses $0 $0 -$25,560 $0 -$26,280 -$71,264 -$134,120 -$457,961 Retail Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,075 $8,100 $8,100
Total Net Operating Income $128,700 $124,800 $238,829 $276,900 $642,005 $1,802,431 $2,663,556 $7,003,280 Total Capitalized Value $2,574,000 $2,496,000 $4,776,576 $5,538,000 $12,840,090 $36,048,619 $53,271,128 $140,065,604

Development Costs
Land Costs $653,400 $653,400 $1,524,600 $1,524,600 $1,742,400 $7,078,500 $10,890,000 $18,513,000 Direct Costs
Demolition and Site Work $87,120 $87,120 $304,920 $304,920 $174,240 $544,500 $544,500 $544,500 Building Area $1,800,000 $1,920,000 $4,634,800 $4,634,800 $5,082,000 $22,842,500 $41,323,200 $115,199,850 Parking $90,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,100,000 $900,000 $0 Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 City Initiatives
Bird Safe Glass $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,844 $384,555 $644,516 $1,739,165 Hard Hats $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,127,400 $8,593,540 $0
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs $257,026 $276,526 $642,164 $642,164 $946,123 $4,614,660 $7,734,186 $20,869,983 Municipal Fees $94,058 $102,992 $256,436 $496,678 $677,048 $2,947,561 $3,495,849 $9,064,078 Developer Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $344,872 $1,611,109 $2,603,509 $6,575,656 Financing $88,554 $93,853 $307,770 $317,812 $378,103 $2,554,902 $4,146,489 $13,488,357 Contingency $120,838 $130,025 $307,304 $319,819 $380,119 $1,868,262 $3,047,387 $8,297,121 Total Development Costs $3,190,995 $3,383,915 $7,977,994 $8,240,793 $9,803,750 $51,823,948 $84,123,175 $194,491,711

Feasibility Summary
Yield-on-cost 4.03% 3.69% 2.99% 3.36% 6.55% 3.48% 3.17% 3.60% Target yield-on-cost 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Difference -1.97% -2.31% -3.01% -2.64% 0.55% -2.52% -2.83% -2.40% Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 62 FIGURE 41. FULL OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA RESULTS WITH RECOMMENDED IN-LIEU FEE EXEMPTION (INCLUDES BIRD

SAFE BUILDING AND HARD HATS REQUIREMENTS)
Small Lot Single
Family
Fourplex/
Townhomes
10-Unit Small
Multifamily
(Units)
10-Unit Small
Multifamily (Fee)
Revenues
Market Rate Units
Gross Revenue $4,500,000 $4,800,000 $7,600,000 $9,500,000 Less Marketing Expenses -$225,000 -$240,000 -$380,000 -$475,000 Below Market Rate Units
Gross Revenue $0 $0 $443,417 $0
Less Marketing Expenses $0 $0 -$22,171 $0
Total Proceeds $4,275,000 $4,560,000 $7,641,246 $9,025,000

Development Costs
Land Costs $653,400 $653,400 $1,524,600 $1,524,600
Direct Costs
Demolition and Site Work $87,120 $87,120 $304,920 $304,920 Building Area $1,912,500 $2,040,000 $4,924,475 $4,924,475 Parking $90,000 $120,000 $0 $0
Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs $271,651 $292,126 $679,821 $679,821
Municipal Fees $94,058 $102,992 $258,521 $497,584
Developer Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Financing $92,329 $97,880 $321,540 $331,533
Contingency $127,383 $137,006 $324,464 $336,917
Total Development Costs $3,328,441 $3,530,524 $8,338,341 $8,599,849

Feasibility Summary
Total Revenue $4,275,000 $4,560,000 $7,641,246 $9,025,000 Total Development Cost $3,328,441 $3,530,524 $8,338,341 $8,599,849 Net Revenue $946,559 $1,029,476 -$697,095 $425,151

Return-on-Cost 28% 29% -8% 5%
Target Return on Cost 8% 8% 8% 8%
Difference 20% 21% -16% -3%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 63 Maximum Justifiable In-Lieu Fee Calculation

METHODOLOGY
The following steps illustrate the methodology for calculating the production cost affordability gap:

1. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in target groups (see pages 36 and 37 for a description, and Figure 28 and Figure 32 for affordable rents and sales prices used in this study);

2. Estimate development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data from the pro forma analysis;

3. Calculate the difference between what renters and homeowners can afford to pay for housing, and the cost of developing those rental and for-sale units (see Figure 42).

The following steps illustrate the methodology for calculating the affordability gap:

1. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in target groups (see pages 36 and 37 for a description, and Figure 28 and Figure 32 for affordable rents and sales prices used in this study);

2. Subtract the difference in annual revenue between a market rate and below market rate unit (see Figure 26 for the market rate rents used in this study);

3. Divide the difference by the cap rate to determine the difference in revenue between producing a market rate and BMR unit.

The following steps illustrate the methodology to translate the gap per unit to a gap per square foot for both the production cost and the affordability gap methodologies:

1. Average the gap per unit across the income groups tested to determine the average gap per unit;

2. Multiply the average gap per unit by the required number of BMR units of a test prototype that satisfies the jurisdiction’s inclusionary requirement via on-site units; 16

3. Divide the total gap of the development project by the project’s net square feet (see Figure 44).

16 The test prototype used for this study has 100 units, of which 20 were below market rate. This satisfies the city’s 20% inclusionary requirement.

Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 64 FIGURE 42. PRODUCTION COST AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION BY INCOME LEVEL Unit Type Unit Sq Ft Units Maximum
Monthly Rent
Annual
Revenue
Net Operating
Income (a)
Available for
Debt Service
(b)
Supportable
Debt (c)
Development
Costs
Affordability
Gap (d)
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Studio 500 33 $1,195 $14,340 $5,222 $4,540 $57,728 $351,000 $293,272 1 Bedroom 660 51 $1,332 $15,984 $6,824 $5,934 $75,449 $463,320 $387,871 2 Bedroom 990 16 $1,473 $17,676 $8,474 $7,369 $93,688 $694,980 $601,292 Average Affordability Gap $390,801

Low Income (80% AMI)
Studio 500 33 $1,864 $22,368 $13,049 $11,347 $144,265 $351,000 $206,735 1 Bedroom 660 51 $2,096 $25,152 $15,763 $13,707 $174,275 $463,320 $289,045 2 Bedroom 990 16 $2,332 $27,984 $18,524 $16,108 $204,802 $694,980 $490,178 Average Affordability Gap $294,064
Note:
(a) Assumes 2.5% vacancy and $730/month operations cost per unit. (b) Assumes 1.15 debt coverage ratio.
(c) Assumes 6.76% interest rate and 30 year loan.
(d) Calculated as the difference between development costs and the supportable debt.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 43. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION BY INCOME LEVEL Unit Type Unit
Sq Ft Units Maximum
Monthly Rent Annual Revenue Market Rate
Rent*
Annual Market
Rate Revenue
Annual
Difference
Difference/Cap
Rate**
Affordability
Gap Per Unit
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Studio 500 33 $1,195 $14,340 $2,800 $33,600 $19,260 $385,200 $385,200 1 Bedroom 660 51 $1,332 $15,984 $3,250 $39,000 $23,016 $460,320 $460,320 2 Bedroom 990 16 $1,473 $17,676 $4,500 $54,000 $36,324 $726,480 $726,480 Average Affordability Gap $478,116

Low Income (80% AMI)
Studio 500 33 $1,864 $22,368 $2,800 $33,600 $11,232 $224,640 $224,640 1 Bedroom 660 51 $2,096 $25,152 $3,250 $39,000 $13,848 $276,960 $276,960 2 Bedroom 990 16 $2,332 $27,984 $4,500 $54,000 $26,016 $520,320 $520,320 Average Affordability Gap $298,632
Note:
* Market rate rents are assumed in the pro forma analysis and ar e based on the rent of the 6-S tory Midrise prototype.
** The cap rate is assumed to be 5.0%.

Source: Strategic Economics, 202
Attachment 5

City of Berkeley Housing Policies Economic Feasibility Analysis Report 65 FIGURE 44. MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE IN-LIEU FEE PER SQUARE FOOT Production Cost Affordability Gap
Prototype
Units 100 100
Required BMR units 20 20
Weighted Average Unit Sq. Ft. 660 660
Affordability Gap per Unit
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $390,801 $478,116
Low Income (80% AMI) $294,064 $298,632
Average Affordability Gap per Unit $342,432 $388,374
Affordability Gap Fee per Sq. Ft. $103.77 $117.69
Source: Strategic Economics, 2024.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION EQUIVALENT IN-LIEU FEE
In order to determine the equivalent local contribution needed to leverage funding for one off -site affordable unit, Strategic Economics reviewed recent data from the City of Berkeley on its financial support for 100 percent affordable tax credit projects (Figure 45).

The steps to calculate the local contribution fee include:

1. Calculate the average per unit contribution of local funding towards 100 percent affordable projects;

2. Multiply the average gap per unit by the required number of BMR units of a test prototype that satisfies the jurisdiction’s inclusionary requirement via on-site units;17

3. Divide the total gap of the development project by its net square feet (see Figure 46).

FIGURE 45: CITY OF BERKELEY'S LOCAL CONTRIBUTION PER UNIT TO TAX CREDIT PROJECTS Ephesian St Paul
Terrace
Supportive
Housing in
People's
Park
BUSD
Workforce
Housing
1740 San
Pablo Maudelle Blake
Apartments
Hope
Center PSH
+ BRIDGE
Affordable*
$ per
unit $228,958 $250,000 $121,691 $224,771 $150,000 $197,674 $193,548 $180,142 Note:
* Hope Center PSH and BRIDGE Affordable were combined because they are part of the same development project.

Source: City of Berkeley, 2023; Strategic Economics, 2024.

FIGURE 46. LOCAL CONTRIBUTION EQUIVALENT IN-LIEU FEE PER SQUARE FOOT Local Contribution
Prototype
Units 100
Required BMR units 20
Weighted Average Unit Sq. Ft. 660
Average Contribution per Unit $193,348
Local Contribution per Sq. Ft. $58.59
Source: Strategic Economics, 2023.

17 The test prototype used for this study has 100 units, of which 20 were below market rate. This satisfies the city’s 20% inclu sionary requirement.

Attachment 5

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: https://berkeleyca.gov/

PUBLIC HEARING
February 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code for Consistency with State Law Related to Electric Vehicle Charging and Technical Edits

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance to align the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) with state law related to electric vehicle charging, as well as additional non-substantive edits and corrections:
 23.106.020 Lot Coverage
 23.106.080 Building Separation
 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts)
 23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses (Commercial Districts)
 23.204.090 C-NS North Shattuck Commercial District
 23.204.100 C-SA South Area Commercial District
 23.204.130 C-DMU Downtown Mixed-Use District
 23.204.140 C-W West Berkeley Commercial District
 23.204.150 C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial District
 23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)
 23.206.040 Use-Specific Regulations (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.050 Protected Uses (Manufacturing)
 23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations (Supplemental Use Regulations)  23.306.010 Purpose (Accessory Dwelling Units)
 23.306.030 Development Standards (Accessory Dwelling Units)

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

 23.306.040 Permit Procedures (Accessory Dwelling Units)  23.310.020 General Requirements Excluding Incidental Beer and Wine  23.310.030 Alcohol Beverage Standards When Incidental to Food Service  23.322.030 Required Parking Spaces
 23.322.080 Parking Layout and Design
 23.334.030 Transportation Demand Management Program Requirements  23.502.020 Defined Terms (Glossary)

SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the proposed amendments to incorporate state law requirements and non-substantive technical edits.

State Law: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (AB 1236 & AB 970) AB 1236 (2015) and AB 970 (2021) require all cities to approve applications to install an electric vehicle charging station with a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit.

Any zoning review for electric vehicle charging stations is prohibited by state law.

Therefore, the proposed zoning amendments remove the Electrical Vehicle Charging Station use from the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts Table and clarify that an Electric Vehicle Charging Station is considered an allowed use in all zoning districts in the Glossary. Electrical vehicle charging stations would still be required to obtain a Building Permit.

State Law: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The proposed updates to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) reflect changes in state law and ensure compliance with requirements from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Senate Bill 477 (SB 477) reorganized and re-numbered sections of the Government Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). To align with these changes, the proposed zoning amendments update references in the Zoning Code and adjust local regulations to meet state requirements.

The proposed amendments also revise the ADU application review process by removing the neighborhood notification requirement for an application to be deemed complete. While neighborhood notifications will continue to be provided as a courtesy, they are no longer required for application processing under state law. Additionally, the amendments update the JADU owner-occupancy requirements to include a codified exemption for governmental agencies, land trusts, or housing organizations.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

These updates aim to streamline the approval process, enhance clarity, and ensure compliance with state and HCD standards.

Technical Edits
The proposed zoning amendments include non-substantive changes to correct mistakes and errors and to codify existing practice.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the recommended amendments would not result in any costs or revenues to the City.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Zoning Ordinance must comply with state laws, including those related to land use and zoning. The 2023 California Legislative Session saw the enactment of a number of significant new housing laws and extensions of existing laws.

While some state laws may require more extensive amendments or require changes to the City’s internal permitting procedures to be consistent, the proposed zoning amendments constitute only minor technical amendments to maintain consistency.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are summarized below in Table 1:

Table 1 Policy Summary and Zoning Amendment Proposals
Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)

1. Lot Coverage,
Measurement and
Projections
 Clarify that lot coverage includes
pergolas, trellises, and similar
horizontal features.
 Clarify that the lot coverage
calculation excludes the first 24
inches of eaves.
 Correct transmittal error and clarify
that the number of stories of a
main building shall be used to
determine lot coverage, where
applicable.
1

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)
 Clarify that building separation is
measured from main or ADU
buildings within the same lot.
2 2. Residential Allowed
Land Uses Table
 Correct the Allowable Land Uses in
Residential Districts table to
include Residential, Hotel use.
 Correct an error that transposed
the required permits for Alcohol
Beverage Service in the R-SMU
and R-BMU zoning districts.
3 3. Commercial Allowed
Land Uses Table
 Remove permitting requirements
for Electric Vehicle Charging to be
consistent with state law.
 Correct an error in the Allowed
Land Uses in the Commercial
Districts table that incorrectly
showed blank spaces instead of
dashes for some uses in the C-NS
district.
4 4. C-NS Development
Standards
 Correct an error in the C-NS
Development Standards Table to
clarify that Maximum FAR should
only apply to non-residential
projects (not mixed-use residential
projects).
5

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)

5. C-SA South Area
Commercial District
 Correct omission of a reference to

23.304.130 (Non-residential
Districts Abutting a Residential
District).
6 6. C-DMU Setbacks  Correct an error in C-DMU
Setbacks that unintentionally
limited ZAB’s ability to modify
setback standards.
7 7 C-W Land Use
Regulations
 Correct a transmittal error: the
definition for automotive uses in C-
W does not include vehicle parts
store.
 Replace “Lodging,” which is not
defined in the BMC, with “Tourist
Hotel and Tourist Motel” in the list
of C-W Ground Floor Uses
 Revise the C-W Designated Node
maps to clarify that they indicate
entire parcels, not just frontages.
8 9
10 11
8 C-AC Development
Standards
 Update C-AC Subarea
Development Standards footnote
to include the 100% affordable
housing use, consistent with state
law.

12

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)

9. C-AC North and
South Subareas
Adeline Development
Standards
 Correct formatting error related to
Maximum Lot Coverage in C-AC
North and South Adeline Subarea
Development Standards table.
 Update C-AC Subarea
Development Standards table
notes to include 100% affordable
housing use, consistent with state
law
13 10. Alcoholic Beverage
Service and Sales
and Outdoor Seating
 Correct permitting threshold in R-
SMU and R-BMU, which were
inadvertently switched.
 Correct a section reference under
MU-R in Allowed Uses in
Manufacturing Districts table.
 Clarify that outdoor sales or food
service is permitted, consistent
with Berkeley Business
amendments adopted in February,
2024.
 Provide a more detailed definition
of what constitutes an increase in
alcoholic beverage sale or service.
 Correct section and subsection
titles to match Glossary terms.
3 14
15 27
28 29

11. Manufacturing
Allowed Use Table
 Removal of unnecessary asterisks. 14

12. Manufacturing
District Protected
Uses
 Correct a transmittal error to clarify
that permit findings are only
applicable to projects that meet
certain thresholds.
16 17

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)
 Correct a transmittal error related
to conversions to non-protected
industrial use across multiple
buildings. The requirement is that
25% or more of the floor area
remain protected, not 25% or less.
 Clarifying outdoor café seating is
permitted in the MU-LI and MU-R
zoning districts with an AUP.
18 13. California
Government Code
Update
 Update sections of the BMC which
reference missing or moved
California Government Code
sections.
 Clarify ADU conversion is
applicable to existing buildings or
accessory structures, per state law.
19 20
24 26
30 14. Accessory Dwelling
Units
 Clarify that certain building
elements may project two feet into
any setback, not just a front or side
setback.
 Update language consistent with
state law requirements for review
of ADU applications. Remove
neighborhood notice as a
requirement for a completed
application. (Note: neighborhood
notice will still occur.)
 Clarify that certain types of housing
are exempt from ADU owner-
21 22
23 24
25

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

Berkeley Municipal
Code
Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Att. 1)
occupancy requirements, per state
law.
 Grammatical clarifications.

15. Parking Layout and
Design and
 Clarify that off-street parking for an
ADU is permitted in any
configuration regardless of parking
requirements.
31 16. Transportation
Demand
Management Update
 Clarify that group living
accommodation uses must still
provide transit benefits.
32 17. Glossary  Clarify that there can be more than
one main building on a lot.
 Clarify that Electric Vehicle
Charging is considered an allowed
use in all zoning districts.
33 34

BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2021, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 7,787-N.S., a thorough revision of Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, to make the City’s Zoning Ordinance easier to understand and administer. The City Council gave staff direction to make minor changes to comply with state law or codify prior zoning interpretations. Staff was directed to regularly return to the Planning Commission and City Council with amendments necessary to maintain the integrity of the new Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed zoning amendments are required for compliance with recently adopted state laws, and make other corrections and technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The removal of zoning review for electric vehicle charging stations would streamline the approval process for charging stations, which could result in an increased number of charging stations in Berkeley. The increased availability of charging stations could

Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 PUBLIC HEARING
for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits February 25, 2025

encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles, which produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle mile travelled than gas-powered vehicles.

The proposed ordinance includes revisions related to vehicle charging requirements as well as technical edits which correct or clarify language. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments do not include any allowances for additional development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendments would in no way have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are required to ensure compliance with all applicable state laws and maintains the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. All recommended changes either reflect ordinances that have previously been specifically authorized by City Council, or that are required by state law.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Council could consider taking no action on the recommendations proposed by staff.

In this scenario, Title 23 would remain unchanged, leaving the BMC inconsistent with state law. As a result, state law would take precedence, potentially leading to challenges in enforcement.

CONTACT PERSON
Robert Rivera, Senior Planner, Land Use and Development Department, (510) 981- 7480
Attachments:
1: Draft Ordinance
2: PC Staff Report 7-17-24
3: Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF MEASUREMENT CHAPTER (BMC 23.106), RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.202), COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.204), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS CHAPTER (BMC 23.302), ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS CHAPTER (BMC 23.306), ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND SERVICE CHAPTER (BMC 23.310), PARKING AND LOADING CHAPTER (BMC 23.322), TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT CHAPTER (BMC 23.334), AND GLOSSARY (BMC 23.502) FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW, AND

TECHNICAL EDITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That BMC Section 23.106.020 is amended to read as follows:

A. Lot Coverage Defined. Lot coverage means all the area of a lot, as projected on a horizontal plane, which is:

1. Enclosed by the exterior walls of buildings or enclosed accessory structures; or

2. Covered by decks, porches, stairs and/or landings which cover an enclosed space or paved ground area.

2.3. Covered by a pergola, trellises or similar horizontal features.

B. Exclusions. The lot coverage calculation excludes:

1. Uncovered porches, landings and stairs;

2. Uncovered decks, except that a deck on the roof of a building or accessory structure or over an enclosed space or paved ground area is included in the lot coverage calculation; and

3. The area of the roof of a subterranean structure, when such a structure is not more than 3 feet above finished grade.

3.4. The first 24 inches of eaves extending from a building or structure.

4.5. The area of any existing or proposed accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, up to 800 square feet per lot. See 23.306 Accessory Dwelling Units.

C. Lot Coverage Standards. Number of stories of main building(s) shall be used to determine the allowable lot coverage where applicable.

Section 2. That BMC Section 23.106.080(A) is amended to read as follows:

A. Measurement. Building separation is measured as the distance between the surface of a main building or ADU’s outer wall and the outer wall surface of the closest main building or ADU on the same lot.

Section 3. That the lines named “Alcoholic Beverage Service” is amended and the lines “Hotel, Residential” are hereby added, within Table 23.202-1 within BMC 23.202.020 to read as follows Table 23.202‑1: Allowed Land Uses in Residential Districts ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
* Use-Specific Regulations Apply
**Required permits for specific
uses are set forth in the R-BMU
Master Development Permit
(MDP). See 23.202.150.A and

23.202.150.D

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS

APPLIES TO USES WITH AN

ASTERISK FOLLOWING THE
PERMIT REQUIREMENT (E.G.,
ZC*)
R-1 ES-R R-2 R-2A R-3 R-4 R-5 R-S R-
SMU
R-
BMU**
Residential Uses
Hotel, Residential NP NP NP NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) NP Commercial Uses
Alcoholic Beverage Service NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP ZC UP (PH)*
UP(PH)
ZC*

23.310—Alcoholic
Beverage Sales and
Service

Section 4. That the lines named “Electric Vehicle Charging Station”, “Vehicle Parts Store”, “Construction Products”, “Light Manufacturing”, “Pesticides/Herbicides/Fertilizers”, “Petroleum Refining and Products”, “Pharmaceuticals”, and “Warehouse-based Non-Store Retailer”, are amended in Table 23.204-1 within BMC 23.204.020 to read as follows:

Table 23.204-1. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
-- = Permitted with AUP, see 23.204.020(B)
[#] = Table Note Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Regulations Apply

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC

USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS
Vehicle Service and Sales Uses
Electric Vehicle Charging
Station
AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP* AUP
Vehicle Parts Store ZC NP ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC NP AUP [1]
* ZC
Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
Construction Products – – – – – – – – – UP(PH) --
Light Manufacturing – – – – – – – – – AUP [1] --
Pesticides/Herbicides/
Fertilizers
– – – – – – – – – UP(PH) --
Petroleum Refining and
Products
– – – – – – – – – UP(PH) --
Pharmaceuticals – – – – – – – – – UP(PH) --
Warehouse-Based Non-
Store Retailer
– – – – – – – – – – --

Section 5. That Table 23.204-24 within BMC Chapter 23.204.090 is amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.204--24: C-NS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Project Land Use
Non-Residential
and Mixed Use Residential Only
Supplemental
Standards
Lot Area, Minimum
New Lots 4,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.

Per Group Living Accommodation
Resident 350 sq. ft. [1]

23.304.020
Usable Open Space, Minimum
Per Dwelling Unit 40 sq. ft. [2] 200 sq. ft.

Per Group Living Accommodation
Resident No minimum 90 sq. ft.

23.304.090–
Usable
Open Space
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 1.0 [3] No maximum
Main Building Height [43]
Minimum 2 stories No minimum
Maximum 35 ft. and 3
stories
28 ft. and 2
stories
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Abutting/Confronting a Non-
residential District No minimum
Abutting/Confronting a Residential
District
See

23.304.030.C.2
See Table

23.204-25

23.304.030
Building Separation, Minimum No minimum
[54]
See Table

23.204-25

23.304.040
Lot Coverage, Maximum 100% See Table

23.204-26

23.304.120

Project Land Use
Non-Residential
and Mixed Use Residential Only
Supplemental
Standards
Notes:
[1] One additional resident is allowed for remaining lot area between 200 and 350 square feet.
[2] For mixed use projects, usable open space dimensions may be smaller than required in 23.304.090.B.3, but no dimension may be less than 6 feet. [2][3] For mixed-use residential projects, no maximum floor area ratio. [3][4] Basement levels devoted exclusively to parking are not counted as a story. [4][5] For mixed-use projects, minimum building separation shall be as required for residential-only projects. See Table 23.204-25
Section 6. That BMC 23.204.100(D)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Lots Abutting or Confronting a Residential District. See 23.304.130 (Non- Residential Districts Abutting a Residential District) for additional building feature requirements for lots that abut or confront a Residential District.

2.3. Modification for Mixed Use and Residential Projects. The ZAB may modify development standards in Table 23.204-27, Table 23.204-28, and Table 23.204-29, and Table 23.20430 – excluding FAR - for a mixed-use or residential-only project with a Use Permit upon making one of the following findings:
a. The project encourages utilization of public transit and existing off-street parking facilities in the area of the proposed building; b. The modification allows consistency with the building setbacks existing in the immediate area where a residential building setback would not serve a useful purpose;
c. The modification facilitates the construction of affordable housing as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines; or
d. The modification provides consistency with the purposes of the district as listed in Section 23.204.100.A (District Purpose).

Section 7. That BMC 23.204.130(E)(3)(b) is amended to read as follows:
(b) Modifications to Standards. The ZAB may modify the all C-DMU district setback standards in Table 23.204-38 with a Use Permit upon finding that the

modified setbacks will not unreasonably limit solar access or create significant increases in wind experienced on the public sidewalk.

Section 8. That BMC Section 23.204.140(B)(3)(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) As used in this paragraph, “automotive use” means a use classified in Table

23.204-1 as a vehicle service and sales use, except for vehicle parts store. “Automotive site” means a site which was legally used or approved for use as an automotive use as of March 1, 1997.

Section 9. That BMC Section 23.204.140(D)(3) is amended to read as follows:

3. Ground Floor Uses. The ground floor of buildings in designated nodes may be used only for the following:
(b) Retail sales
(c) Personal and household services
(d) Retail financial services (banks)
(e) Food and alcohol service
(f) Lodging Tourist Hotel and Tourist Motel
(g) Entertainment and assembly uses
(h) Gasoline/vehicle fuel stations
(i) Vehicle repair uses
(j) New car sales
(k) Used vehicles sales
(l) Required access to and lobbies serving upper-story uses

Section 10. That Figure 23.204-7 C-W Designated Nodes within BMC Chapter 23.204.140 is amended to read as follows:

FIGURE 23.204-7: C-W DESIGNATED NODES

Section 11. That Figure 23.204-8 within BMC Chapter 23.204.140 is removed:

Section 12. That the line “Notes,” in Table 23.204-43, C-AC South Shattuck Subarea Development Standards, within BMC Chapter 23.204.150, C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial District, is amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.204-43: C-AC SOUTH SHATTUCK SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Notes:
[1] One additional resident is allowed for remaining lot area between 200 and 350 square feet. [2] For the purposes of calculating the State Density Bonus the Tier 1 density shall constitute the maximum allowable gross residential density. Tier 2, 3, and 4 density and 100 percent affordable housing density is authorized as a local density bonus under Government Code section 65915(n).
[3] An AUP may be granted to reduce usable open space requirements if shown to be necessary to build an all-electric building. [4] Each square-foot of open space that is designated as publicly accessible open space shall be counted as two square-feet of required on-site open space.
[5] Affordable units calculated as percentage of total units Section 13. That Table 23.204-44, C-AC North and South Adeline Subarea Development Standards, within BMC Chapter 23.204.150, C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial District, is amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.204-44: C-AC NORTH AND SOUTH ADELINE SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Project Land Use [6]
Residential
and Mixed
Use Tier 1
(Less than
14%
affordable
housing)
Residential
& Mixed Use
Tier 2 (14%
affordable
housing)
Residential
& Mixed Use
Tier 3 (21%
affordable
housing)
Residential
& Mixed Use
Tier 4 (25%
affordable
housing)
Residential &
Mixed Use
(100%
affordable
housing)
Group Living
Accommodation
Non-
Residential
Supplemental
Standards
Lot Area Minimum 23.304.020-Lot
Requirements

New Lots No minimum
Per Group Living
Accommodation
Resident
N/A 350 sq. ft. [1] N/A
Usable Open Space,
Minimum [3]
40 sq. ft.

Per Dwelling
Unit/GLA Resident
[4]
N/A
40 sq. ft.

23.304.090-
Usable Open
Space
Floor Area Ratio,
Maximum 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.8
Residential Density,
Maximum (du/acre) [2] 100 150 210 250 250
1 GLA
resident per
350 sf of lot
area
N/A
Main Building Height,
Maximum 3 stories
35 feet
5 stories
55 feet
6 stories
65 feet
7 stories
75 feet
7 stories
80 feet
4 stories
45 feet
3 stories
45 feet
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Abutting/Confronting
a Non-residential
District
No minimum 23.304.030-
Setbacks

Abutting/Confronting
a Residential District
10 ft
20 ft from any shared lot line for any portion exceeding 35 feet 45 ft from front property line for any portion exceeding 45 feet N/A

23.304.030-
Setbacks

23.204.150.E.5
Building Separation,
Minimum
No minimum 23.304.040-
Building
Separation in
Residential
Districts
Lot Coverage,
Maximum
Interior Lot 60% 90% 90% 90% 90% 60% 100%
Corner Lot 70% 90% 90% 95% 95% 70% 100%
Lot Coverage,
Maximum
100%
Notes:
[1] One additional resident is allowed for remaining lot area between 200 and 350 square feet. [2] For the purpose State Density Bonus calculation, the Tier 1 density is the maximum allowable gross residential density. Tier 2, 3, and 4 density and 100 percent affordable density is authorized as a local density bonus under Government Code section 65915(n).
[3] An AUP may be granted to reduce useable open space requirements if shown to be necessary to build an all- electric building.
[4] Each square-foot of open space that is designated as publicly accessible open space shall be counted as two square-feet of required on-site open space.
[5] Affordable units calculated as percentage of total units

Section 14. That the lines named “Bar/Cocktail Lounge/Tavern/Tap Room/Wine Tasting,” “Construction Products,” and “Light Manufacturing,” in Table 23.206-1, within BMC 23.206.020 are amended to read as follows:

Table 23.206-1. Allowed Uses in Manufacturing Districts

MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
Use-Specific
Standards
Applies to uses with
an asterisk following
the permit requirement
(e.g., ZC*)
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use
Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP,
see 23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards
Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R Use-Specific
Regulation
Bar/Cocktail
Lounge/Tavern/Tap
Room/Wine Tasting
NP NP NP See

23.306

23.310
Construction Products ZC *[9] ZC *[9] UP(PH) NP
Light Manufacturing ZC *[7] ZC *[7] ZC *[1] AUP*[3] 23.206.090(B)(5) Section 15. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.040(I)(3) be removed:

3. Outdoor sales or food service is not permitted.

Section 16. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.050(A)(3) is amended to read as follows:

3. Permit Findings.
(a) To approve a Use Permit required by Table 23.206-6 for to changes to any amount of ground-floor protected industrial use in the MM and MU-LI districtsto a non-protected use in the MM district, or to change more than 20,000 square feet or 25 percent or more of a protected use to a non- protected use in the MU-LI district, the review authority Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) must find that replacement space is provided as required by Paragraph 4 (Replacement Space) below.
(b) To approve a Use Permit in the MU-LI district for a to change 25 percent or more of the floor area to from a protected industrial use to a non-protected usein the MU-LI district, the ZAB must Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) must also find that either:

(1) The City has approved necessary Use Permits to provide comparable quality replacement space in Berkeley at a comparable rent that will be available before the demolition or change of use of the space; or (2) Both of the following:

1. As a result of lawful business and building activities, there are exceptional physical circumstances (exclusive of the presence of hazardous materials in the building(s), soil or groundwater) found at the building not generally found in industrial buildings in the MU-LI district which make it financially infeasible to reuse the building for any of protected industrial uses permitted in the district. The analysis of the financial feasibility effects (which shall be verified by the City) of these physical circumstances shall consider those costs necessary to make the building meet current minimum standards for manufacturing, wholesale trade or warehouse buildings.

2. Appropriate mitigation has been made for loss of the protected industrial use space in excess of 25 percent of that space through providing such space elsewhere in the City, payment into the West Berkeley Building Acquisition Fund, or by other appropriate means.

Section 17. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.050(A)(7)(d)(ii) is amended to read as follows:
ii. 25 percent or less more of the total gross floor area in all buildings on the lot(s) remains as a protected industrial use.

Section 18. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.302.070(E)(1) is amended to read as follows:

1. Outdoor Cafe Seating.
(a) Outdoor cafe seating on private property outside of the public right-of-way is allowed in the commercial districts with the following permits:
(1) Zoning Certificate when seating does not abut a residential district. (3) AUP when seating abuts a residential district.
(b) Outdoor cafe seating on private property outside of the public right of-way is allowed in the MU-LI and MU-R districts with an AUP.
(b)(c) Sidewalk cafe seating within the public right-of-way is subject to

23.302.060 (Sidewalk Cafe Seating).

Section 19. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.010(A) is amended to read as follows:

A. Implement California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 13. Accessory Dwelling Units Sections 65852.1, 65852.2 and 65852.22.

Section 20. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.030(A)(1) is amended to read as follow:

1. Existing Building or Accessory Structure Conversion. An ADU created entirely through conversion with no modifications to the existing building or accessory structure envelope that exceeds the development standards for maximum gross floor area in Table 23.306-2, ADU Development Standards, is allowed a physical addition of no more than 150 square feet. The addition must comply with maximum height and setback requirements.

Section 21. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.030(A)(2) is amended to read as follow:

2. Duplex or Multi-Family Dwelling Conversion. Interior ADU(s) must be created entirely through non-habitable residential portions of the an existing main building that are not within the living space of a dwelling unit (e.g. basement, attic, garages, storage room).

Section 22. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.030(A)(8) is amended to read as follows:

8. Attached ADU, New Construction Height. Attached ADUs with maximum building height up to 25 ft. feet allowed with a Zoning Certificate.

Section 23. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.030(C)(1) is amended to read as follows:

1. Outside of the Hillside Overlay. Chimneys, water heater enclosures, flues, heating and cooling equipment, eaves, cornices, canopies, awnings, bay windows, and balconies may project two feet into the required front and side setbacks, so long as there remains at least a two-foot setback from property lines. Bay windows and balconies may not project into a required rear ADU setback.

Section 24. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.040(A) is amended to read as follows:

A. Zoning Certificate. An application for an ADU or Junior ADU shall be allowed with a Zoning Certificate. Review must be completed within 60 days of submission of a completed application. A completed application must include evidence of compliance with this Chapter, including development standards and, deed restrictions.., and neighborhood noticing.

1. If an application to create an ADU or Junior ADU is submitted as part of a project that requires discretionary review, a Zoning Certificate for a building permit shall not be issued for the ADU or Junior ADU until the discretionary approval(s) has/have been granted and any applicable appeal periods have expired. See 23.404.060(A) Post-Decision Provisions (Effective Dates).

2. Issuance of a Zoning Certificate shall not be denied for the construction or conversion of an ADU or Junior ADU that complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 66314 65852.2(e)(1).

3. Issuance of a Zoning Certificate for the construction or conversion of an ADU or Junior ADU shall not be denied based on the failure of an applicant to correct a nonconforming zoning condition.

Section 25. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.040(C)(4) is amended to read as follows:

4. If the property includes a Junior ADU, the Junior ADU or the Single Family Dwelling in which the Junior ADU is located shall be owner-occupied. Owner- occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Section 26. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.306.040(D) is amended to read as follows:

D. ADUs Developed by a Qualified Nonprofit Developer. An ADU built or developed by a “qualified nonprofit corporation” may be sold or conveyed separately from the main building to a “qualified buyer,” as such terms are defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6634165852.26 of the California Government Code. The ADU must be held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement recorded on or after December 31, 2021 that includes the following elements:

1. Delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant;

2. Delineation of each cotenant’s responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and repair, and improvements associated with the property;

3. Procedures for dispute resolution among cotenants before resorting to legal action;

4. Allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies;

5. A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the ADU or primary dwelling if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property;

6. A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the ADU or primary dwelling as the buyer’s principal residence; and

7. Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the ADU or primary dwelling that ensure the ADU and primary dwelling will be preserved for low- income housing for 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.

8. If requested by a utility providing service to the primary residence, the ADU shall have a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility.

Section 27. That the title of BMC Section 23.310.020 is amended to read as follows:

23.310.020 General Requirements Excluding When Incidental to Food Beer and Wine= Service
Section 28. That BMC 23.310.020(B) is amended to read as follows:

B. Permit Required.

1. An Administrative Use Permit is required to begin service of alcoholic beverages, except as provided in 23.310.030 (Alcoholic Beverage Service When Incidental to Food Service).

2. To increase sales and service of alcoholic beverages, an existing Administrative Use Permit or Use Permit may be modified with an AUP regardless of the original review authority. An increase in alcoholic beverage sales or service includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Adding the sales or service of distilled spirits to any existing sales or service of beer and/or wine; or
(b) Adding to the capacity, floor area, or shelf space devoted to alcoholic beverages of any establishment that sells or serves any alcoholic beverages.

Section 29. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.310.030(B) is amended to read as follows:

B. Incidental Beer and Wine Alcoholic Beverage Standards. The following standards apply to beer and winealcoholic beverage service incidental to a food service establishment.

1. Licensing.
(a) The food service establishment shall comply with all applicable regulations of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (b) An operator of the licensed establishment may not have a prior licensed establishment that was the subject of verified complaints or violations regarding alcohol, public safety, or nuisance statutes or regulations before issuance or transfer of a business license at this location.

2. Service.
(a) Beer and wine Alcoholic beverage service shall be incidental to the primary food service use.
(b) Beer and wine Alcoholic beverage service incidental to seated food service shall only be allowed at a bona fide eating place making actual and substantial sales of meals as determined and required by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
(c) The sale of beer and wine alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption is not permitted.
(d) Hours of operation are subject to review and amendment by the review authority as necessary to avoid detriment to the neighborhood or to achieve conformance with revised City of Berkeley standards or policies.

3. Operation.
(a) The food service establishment must operate at least five days a week. (b) The service of beer and wine alcoholic beverage shall be limited to normal meal hours (per California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) during the food service establishment’s hours of operation.
(c) During the food service establishment’s hours of operation, all customer accessible areas shall be available for meal service and the food service establishment must possess the necessary utensils, and condiment dispensers with which to serve meals to the public.
(d) The owner or operator of the establishment shall take reasonable measures to prevent disturbances by patrons in the immediate vicinity. Such measures shall include:

i. Signs reminding patrons of nearby residences and requests not to congregate or loiter near such residences nor operate vehicles in a noisy manner on residential streets; and
ii. Surveillance to public areas near the establishment, keeping public areas free of trash and litter, providing lighting, and otherwise preventing conduct that might disturb the peace and quiet of residences in the vicinity. (e) The operator shall assume reasonable responsibility for ensuring that patrons do not block the entrance or interfere with pedestrian activity on the adjacent public sidewalk.
(f) The applicant shall establish cash handling procedures to reduce the likelihood of robberies and theft.

4. Advertising.
(a) Establishments shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 20.67 (Alcohol Product Advertising)

5. Training.
(a) The operator shall finish a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) survey before beginning alcohol service.
(b) All employees selling and/or serving alcoholic beverages beer and wine, or directly supervising such sales and/or service, shall comply with Municipal Code Section 9.84.030 (Responsible Beverage Service Training) and finish the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) program, or another equivalent program offered or certified by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control within 90 days of employment at the establishment.

Employees who have finished the course within the last 12 months are exempt from this requirement.

Section 30. That the lines named “Accessory Dwelling Unit” Table 23.322-1, within BMC 23.322.030 is amended to read as follows:

Land Use Number of Required Off-street Parking Spaces
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Junior ADU: None required
ADU outside of Hillside Overlay: None required
ADU within Hillside Overlay: 1 per ADU unless the parcel satisfies the criteria in subdivision (ad) of Government Code Section 66322 65852.2 , using the definition of public transit as

Land Use Number of Required Off-street Parking Spaces
established in subdivision (lj)(11) of Government Code 66313 65852.2
Section 31. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.322.080(G) is amended to read as follows:

G. Placement—ADU.

1. On a lot with an existing or proposed ADU, replacement of required off-street parking for the a main building, or required off-street parking for an ADU, is allowed in any configuration on the lot, including within the front setback; or

2. Within the Hillside Overlay on a lot with an existing or proposed ADU, where no legal off-street parking exists for the main building, required parking provided for the main building is allowed in any configuration on the lot, including within the front yard setback.

Section 32. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.334.030(B) is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Transit Benefit.

1. At least one of the following transit benefits shall be offered, at no cost, to project residents for a period of ten years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
(a) A monthly pass for unlimited local bus transit service; or (b) A functionally equivalent transit benefit in an amount at least equal to the price of a non-discounted unlimited monthly local bus pass. Any benefit proposed as a functionally equivalent transportation benefit shall be approved by the Zoning Officer in consultation with the Transportation Division Manager.

2. For projects that include 99 dwelling units or fewer, the project shall provide one transit benefit per bedroom, up to a maximum of two benefits per dwelling unit. For projects of 100 dwelling units or more, the project shall provide one transit benefit for every bedroom in each dwelling unit.

3. 3. For projects that include Group Living Accommodations, the project shall provide one transit pass per Group Living Accommodation bedroom.

3.4. A notice describing these transportation benefits shall be posted in a location or locations visible to residents.

Section 33. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(B)(11)(b) is hereby amended to read as follows:
b) Main Building. A building which is designed for, or in which is conducted, the primary use of the lot on which it is situated. In any residential district any dwelling, except an accessory dwelling unit, is the a main building on the lot.

Section 34. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(E)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Electrical Vehicle Charging Station. A facility that supplies electric energy for the recharging of plug-in electric vehicles. An electric vehicle charging station is considered an allowed use in all zoning districts.

Section 35. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 17, 2024
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Robert Rivera, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Amendments to Title 23 for Consistency with State Law Related Electric Vehicle Charging and Technical Edits

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, and upon conclusion make a recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to Title 23 (Attachment 1) to align the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) with state law related to electric vehicle charging, as well as additional non-substantive edits and corrections. The proposed changes apply to the sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code listed below:
 23.106.020 Lot Coverage
 23.106.080 Building Separation
 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts)
 23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses (Commercial Districts)
 23.204.090 C-NS North Shattuck Commercial District
 23.204.100 C-SA South Area Commercial District
 23.204.130 C-DMU Downtown Mixed-Use District
 23.204.140 C-W West Berkeley Commercial District
 23.204.150 C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial District
 23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.040 Use-Specific Regulations (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.050 Protected Uses (Manufacturing)
 23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations (Supplemental Use Regulations)  23.306.010 Purpose (Accessory Dwelling Units)

 23.306.030 Development Standards (Accessory Dwelling Units)  23.306.040 Permit Procedures (Accessory Dwelling Units)  23.310.020 General Requirements Excluding Incidental Beer and Wine  23.310.030 Alcohol Beverage Standards When Incidental to Food Service  23.322.030 Required Parking Spaces
 23.322.080 Parking Layout and Design
 23.334.030 Transportation Demand Management Program Requirements  23.502.020 Defined Terms (Glossary)

SUMMARY
In response to recent changes in state laws, staff has prepared Zoning Ordinance amendments to align land use standards with state law requirements for electrical vehicle charging. Furthermore, staff has incorporated technical, non-substantive amendments to maintain consistency and accuracy throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Zoning Ordinance must comply with state laws, including those related to land use and zoning. The 2023 California Legislative Session saw the enactment of a number of significant new housing laws and extensions of existing laws.

While some state laws may require more extensive amendments or require changes to the City’s internal permitting procedures to be consistent, the proposed zoning amendments constitute only minor technical amendments to maintain consistency.

BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2021, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 7,787-N.S., which replaced Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code and adopted a new Title 23 to make the City’s Zoning Ordinance easier to understand and administer. The City Council gave staff direction to make minor changes to comply with state law or codify prior zoning interpretations. Staff was directed to regularly return to the Planning Commission and City Council with amendments necessary to maintain the integrity of the new Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed zoning amendments are required for compliance with recently adopted state laws and include corrections and technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachment 1)

DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of state law requirements and also non-substantive technical edits. Each section provides a brief summary of the relevant law and the proposed zoning amendment. A summary table is below in Table 1.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (AB 1236 & AB 970)

AB 1236 (2015) and AB 970 (2021) require all cities to approve applications to install an electric vehicle charging station through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. All zoning review for electric vehicle charging stations are prohibited by state law. Therefore, the proposed zoning amendments remove the electrical vehicle charging station use from the allowable land use table and clarify as such in the glossary definition.

Technical Edits
The proposed zoning amendments include non-substantive changes to correct mistakes and errors and to codify existing practice. The following technical edits are proposed:

Table 1 Policy Summary and Zoning Amendment Proposals
Policy Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)

1. Lot Coverage,
Measurement and
Projections
 Clarify that lot coverage includes pergolas,
trellises, and similar horizontal features.
 Clarify that the lot coverage calculation
excludes the first 24 inches of eaves.
 Correct transmittal error and clarify that the
number of stories of a main building shall be
used to determine lot coverage, where
applicable.
 Clarify building separation is measured from
main or ADU buildings within the same lot.
1 2

2. Residential Allowed
Land Uses Table  Correct the Allowable Use Table to include missing Residential, Hotel use.
 Correct an error that transposed the
required permits for Alcohol Beverage
Service in the R-SMU and R-BMU zoning
districts.
3 3. Commercial Allowed
Land Uses Table  Correct an error in the Allowed Uses table that incorrectly shows blank spaces instead
of dashes for some uses in the C-NS
district.
 Remove permitting requirements for Electric
Vehicle Charging to be consistent with state
law.
4 4. C-NS Development
Standards  Correct an error in the C-NS Development
Standards Table to clarify that Maximum
FAR should only apply to non-residential
projects (not mixed-use residential projects).
5

Policy Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)

5. C-SA South Area
Commercial District  Correct omission of a reference to

23.304.130 (Non-residential Districts
Abutting a Residential District).
6 6. C-DMU Setbacks  Correct an error in C-DMU Setbacks that unintentionally limited ZABs ability to modify
setback standards.
7 7 C-W Land Use
Regulations  Correct a transmittal error: the definition for automotive uses in C-W does not include
vehicle parts store.
 Replace C-W Ground Floor Use called
“Lodging,” which is not defined in the BMC,
with “Tourist Hotel and Tourist Motel” which
are.
 Clarify that C-W Designated Node figures so
they indicate entire parcels, not just
frontages.
8 9
10 11
8 C-AC Development
Standards  Update C-AC Subarea Development
Standards to include 100% affordable
housing density, consistent with state law.

12 9. C-AC North and South
Subareas Adeline
Development Standards
 Correct formatting error related to Maximum
Lot Coverage in C-AC North and South
Adeline Subarea Development Standards
table.
 Update C-AC Subarea Development
Standards to include 100% affordable
housing density, consistent with state law
13 10. Alcohol Beverage and
Sales and Outdoor
Seating
 Correct permitting threshold in R-SMU and
R-BMU which were incorrectly switched.
 Correct section reference under MU-R in
allowed use table.
 Clarify that outdoor sales or food service is
permitted, consistent with Berkeley
Business amendments.
 Provide more detailed definition of an
increase in alcoholic beverage sale or
service.
 Correct section title to match glossary terms.
3 14
15 27
28 29

Policy Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)

11. Manufacturing Allowed
Use Table  Removal of unnecessary asterisks. 14

12. Manufacturing District
Protected Uses  Correct transmittal error to clarify that permit findings are only applicable to projects that
meet certain thresholds.
 Correct transmittal error related to
conversions to non-protected industrial use
across multiple buildings. The requirement
is that 25% or more of the floor area remain
protected, not 25% or less.
 Clarifying outdoor café seating is permitted
in the MU-LI and MU-R districts with an
AUP.
16 17
18 13. California Government
Code Update  Update sections of the BMC which
reference missing or moved California
Government Code sections.
 Clarify ADU conversion is applicable to
existing buildings or accessory structures,
per State law.
19 20
24 26
30 14. Accessory Dwelling
Units  Clarify that certain building elements may
project two feet into any setback, not just a
front or side setback.
 Update language consistent with state law
requirements for review of ADU
applications. Remove neighborhood notice
as a requirement for a completed
application. (Note: neighborhood notice will
still occur.)
 Clarify that certain types of housing are
exempt from ADU owner-occupancy
requirements, per State law.
 Grammatical clarifications.
21 22
23 24
25 15. Parking Layout and
Design and  Clarifying that off-street parking for an ADU is permitted in any configuration regardless
of parking requirements.
31 16. Transportation Demand
Management Update  Clarifying group living accommodation must still provide transit benefits.
32 17. Glossary  Clarify that there can be more than one main building on a lot.
33 34

Policy Proposed Zoning Change Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)
 Clarify that Electric Vehicle Charging is
considered an allowed use in all zoning
districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance includes revisions related to vehicle charging requirements as well as technical edits which correct or clarify language. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments do not include any allowances for additional development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendments would in no way have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

NEXT STEPS
Upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The proposed zoning amendments would be effective 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance by the City Council.

CONTACT PERSON
Robert Rivera, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7480

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Zoning Ordinance Amendments

2. Public Hearing Notice

Attachment 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENTS TO BMC TITLE 23 ZONING
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Planning and Development Department is proposing amendments to the following sections of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 23) to align the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to State laws and technical edits and corrections which do not include any substantive policy changes.
 23.106.020 Lot Coverage
 23.106.080 Building Separation
 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts)
 23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses (Commercial Districts)
 23.204.090 C-NS North Shattuck Commercial District
 23.204.100 C-SA South Area Commercial District
 23.204.130 C-DMU Downtown Mixed-Use District
 23.204.140 C-W West Berkeley Commercial District
 23.204.150 C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial District
 23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.040 Use-Specific Regulations (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.050 Protected Uses (Manufacturing)
 23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations (Supplemental Use Regulations)  23.306.010 Purpose (Accessory Dwelling Units)
 23.306.030 Development Standards (Accessory Dwelling Units)  23.306.040 Permit Procedures (Accessory Dwelling Units)  23.310.020 General Requirements Excluding Incidental Beer and Wine  23.310.030 Alcohol Beverage Standards When Incidental to Food Service  23.322.030 Required Parking Spaces
 23.322.080 Parking Layout and Design
 23.334.030 Transportation Demand Management Program Requirements  23.502.020 Defined Terms (Glossary)
The hearing will be held on, February 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of February 13, 2025. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Robert Rivera at (510) 981-7480.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley 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 or in person to the City Clerk. 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 at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: February 14, 2025 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on February 13, 2025.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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: https://berkeleyca.gov/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
February 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Community Health Assessment Report

INTRODUCTION
On April 11, 2023, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution 70,754 N.S. authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with JSI Research & Training Institute, Inc. to serve as a Community Health Assessment, Innovation, and Improvement Plan consultant for the City of Berkeley’s Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As a local public health jurisdiction, the City’s core public health functions include assessing and improving the health of the community’s population. HHCS has managed and supported JSI Research & Training Institute’s (JSI) landscape scan for partnership opportunities to reduce chronic racial disparities and improve Berkeley's public health strategies.

JSI completed a Community Health Assessment (CHA) in collaboration with a Community Steering Committee - a group of ten diverse individuals who live and/or work in Berkeley who are committed to the city’s health and wellness. They play a central role in ensuring the CHA and Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) remain community-led.

The CHA has identified four health priority areas: behavioral health, housing, climate health, and community safety. The Community Steering Committee is currently working on developing a CHIP in collaboration with HHCS, and other city staff. The CHIP will outline goals and interventions to address the disparities within the health priority areas that were identified in the CHA.

HHCS’ health equity work is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity and achieving health equity.

Community Health Assessment Report INFORMATION CALENDAR February 25, 2025

BACKGROUND
The State of California encourages all public health jurisdictions to complete regular Community Health Assessments and develop Community Health Improvement Plan.

These are prerequisites for public health department accreditation, which has been discussed as a state priority.

The City of Berkeley is a thriving community with considerable wealth, high levels of educational attainment, and a rich culture that all contribute to a healthy community.

However, Berkeley is not a city where all people are living long and healthy lives and achieving the highest possible level of health. In Berkeley, African American/Black and other people of color are more likely to die prematurely and experience a wide variety of adverse health conditions throughout their lives.

As reported in the 2018 City of Berkeley Health Status Report, a higher incidence of disease is linked to neighborhoods that have been historically under-resourced and overexposed to unhealthy conditions. These neighborhoods have more people living in poverty and more people of color than surrounding neighborhoods. Like other jurisdictions, these historic and ongoing health inequities have been exacerbated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities of color, specifically African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx residents, have a higher COVID-19 positivity rate, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to White residents.

Since 2018, extensive work has been done by HHCS to analyze and identify solutions to overcome the underlying issues that perpetuate these health inequities. HHCS programs serve individuals who are most impacted in Berkeley and continue to make progress toward addressing health inequities that have existed and been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Council could request a presentation by staff to provide an overview of the findings from the Community Health Assessment at a future Council meeting or session.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Manager, Public Health Division, HHCS, 510-981-5308 Attachments:
1: Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment Report

BERKELEY WELLNESS BLUEPRINT

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY

HEALTH HEALTH

ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department Tanya Bustamante, Interim Deputy Director
Janice Chin, Manager, Public Health Division
Kellie Knox, Future of Public Health Coordinator
Catherine Roseman, Public Health Promotion & Prevention Officer, Community Services Specialist III
Patricia Zialcita, Supervising Epidemiologist
Community Steering Committee
Rosio Almaguer Andrade
Penelope Collins
Michai Freeman
JW Frye
Kaitlyn (Kati) Khov
Isabella Ledezema
Matt Matusiewicz
Israel Nikodimos
Claritza Rios
Michael Rodriguez
JSI Research & Training Institute
Jeremy Cantor
Emma Gier
Deanna Lewis
Corina Pinto
Alison Salomon
Anupam Sharma
Hannah Young
This Community Health Assessment is the result of robust input and partnership from all of the individuals below:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Key Findings 5
Finding 1: There is a lot to be proud of when it comes to wellness in Berkeley 6 Finding 2: Diversity is highly valued and racism is deeply rooted 9 Finding 3: Health is connected to where people live 13 Finding 4: More transparency and collaboration are needed to increase trust and effectiveness of health improvement efforts
Finding 5: Berkeley is becoming a more difficult place for people to afford to live well 19 Finding 6: Connection and safety are essential for supporting mental and physical wellbeing 22 Conclusion 26
Appendices 28
16

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 1 In 2023, the City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) Department engaged JSI Research and Training Institute (JSI) to lead a Community Health Assessment (CHA) and create a Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP ). Together, the CHA and CHIP pr
ocesses are called the Berkeley Wellness Blueprint (BWB). This CHA document is the culmination o
f an extensive research process, guided by the community steering committee (CSC). The CSC is a diverse group of individuals who live and/or work in Berkeley who are committed to the city’s health and wellness. They play a central role in ensuring the CHA and CHIP remain community-led. (For more details on the research methods and CSC members, see Appendix B & C.) Taken as a whole, Berkeley looks like a pretty healthy place, but that misses the ways in which health in the c
ity is significantly worse for some groups of people, in certain neighborhoods, and for people experiencing specific health and social challenges. This CHA report aims to present a snapshot of health, safety, and equity in Berkeley informed by data. It also seeks to highlight community perspectives on key topics in a way tha
t is easy to digest. Ultimately, this will lay the foundation for the development of the CHIP.

IntroductionIntroduction

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 2

BERKELEY

AT A GLANCE
Berkeley is a vibrant city in the heart
of the San Francisco Bay Area, known
for its progressive politics, social and
academic innovation,culture and history.

Home to over 121,000 people, Berkeley’s
diverse population reflects a multitude
of racial and ethnic groups, with nearly
half (48%) identifying as non-white.

The city is also home to a significant
immigrant community: more than one
out of every five residents (22%) was born
outside of the United States and over
6% of the population has limited English
proficiency. Berkeley is also home to the
world-renown University of California,
Berkeley. A large number of students and
staff associated with the university live in
Berkeley, and account for approximately
one-third of the overall population. (See
Appendix A for a city health profile).

Percent of the total population
Percent of the Population by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data, 5-year estimates 2018-2022

51.9%51.9%51.9%

20.7%20.7%20.7%

12.1%12.1%12.1%

7.5%7.5%7.5%

6.6%6.6%6.6%

0.8%0.8%0.8%

0.2%0.2%0.2%

0.2%0.2%0.2%
White
Asian
Hispanic/Latine/x
African American
Multiple Races
Other Race
American Indian/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
mySidewalk.com · US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2018-2022
121,385
Total Population
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2018-2022

6.4%
of People ages 5+
Limited English Proficiency
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2 018-2022
Note: Limited English Proficiency is definied as
speaking English less than “very well.”

21.5%
Immigrant Population
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2018-2022

51.8%
Bachelor’s Degree
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2018-2022
Percent of the Population by Race/Ethnicity

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 3

PURPOSE AND

PROCESS
This assessment is one part of a health
and wellness improvement process that
is intended to be repeated over time (see
Figure 1). We decided to use the metaphor
of a blueprint because there are parallels
to building a physical structure. First,
information is gathered and a vision is
developed (Assessment); then, specific and
workable plans are drawn (Improvement
Planning); and finally, work begins
(
Action). Similar to a building process, new
information and challenges will emerge
along the way that require consideration
and problem solving. It is crucial to
have clear accountability and space for
collective thinking and course correction.

GOALS OF THE

COMMUNITY HEALTH

ASSESSMENT (CHA)
The goals of this CHA phase are to:
• Engage community members in
deepening shared understanding of the
health and
wellness status of Berkeley residents;
• Gather existing data on health,
resiliency, and equity in Berkeley’s
communities; and
• Have enough information at the end of
this phase to make an informed decision
on priorities for the CHIP.

FRAMEWORK
There are a range of factors that shape health,
safety, and equity in a city like Berkeley. In the
Ber
keley Wellness Blueprint, we are thinking about
three groups of factors:

INDIVIDUAL: W
hat does each person
need to be healthy and flourishing?
Examples: access to affordable
cultur
ally appropriate services, ability
to afford basic needs, opportunities for
connection and belonging.

COMMUNITY:

What are the
characteristics of communities that
support individual health?
Examples: safe and appealing parks,
enough affordable housing, clean air and
water.

SYSTEMS: How do systems and policies
support the health of communities and
individuals? Examples: How are harmful
products and substances controlled?
How are historic racist housing policies
being addressed? How are resources
distributed throughout the city?
These domains are useful both to understand
what is currently happening and to organize
action. For example, if we were trying to increase
physical activity in Berkeley, we might focus on
getting information about exercise classes into
doctor’s offices (individual), cleaning up parks in
areas of the city with low physical activity rates
(community) or providing additional funding to
af
terschool sports programs (systems). In many
cases, effective solutions are going to involve
strategies in more than one domain.

Assessment
Improvement
PlanningAction
FIGURE 1: Health and Wellness
Improvement Process

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 4

CHA PROCESS
This report comes at the end of a data
collection and analysis process that began
in fall o
f 2023. JSI and the CSC, with
substantive input from the Berkeley HHCS
team, have:
• Reviewed existing reports related to
health and wellbeing in Berkeley, such
as the Alameda County Department of
Public Health health assessment;
• Searched databases of health
information including the census and
national health interview survey as well
as locally collected data;
• Conducted over 15 interviews with local
leaders and community members;
• Held 4 community focus groups; and
• Fielded a community wellness survey
completed by over 320 community
members from across Berkeley.

PRIORITY POPULATIONS,

HEALTH TOPICS, & THE
C

OMMUNITY SURVEY
Following an initial data review and first
round of key informant interviews (n=16),
several priority populations were identified
by JSI and the CSC.

Individuals from these priority populations
were engaged via focus group discussions
(n=4), additional interviews (n=6) and
were target audiences for the community
wellness survey (n=320). The reports, data
review, interviews, and focus groups were
analyzed by JSI and the CSC.

From that analysis, ten topics were
identified (see right sidebar) that shaped
the community-wide health survey. The
survey aimed to gather a diverse range of
perspectives on these topics. More details
on the CHA methods, including the survey
development and response, are available in
the appendices.

TABLE 1: HEALTH TOPICS
Community Safety: how often people get hurt or
experience violence and whether everyone feels
safe in all areas of Berkeley
Disparities in Health: some people have better
or worse health based on their race, ethnicity,
and/or where they live in Berkeley
Drugs and Alcohol Use: use, misuse, and
availability of legal and illegal drugs and alcohol,
and if people can get the help they need
Environmental Health: being safe from things
like pollution and wild fires, having clean air, water, and land, having access to parks and green spaces,
and dealing with the effects of climate change
Go
vernment Responsiveness: Ci
ty follow
through and communication on health projects,
and how much Berkeley residents help make
decisions
Housing: being able to live in a place that is safe,
affordable, and stable
Jobs and Money: having a steady job that pays
enough for food, childcare, healthcare, school, and
savings
Mental Health: how common mental health
problems are (like depression, anxiety, and stress),
and if people can get the care they need
Physical Health: how often people get sick, hurt,
or have long-term health problems, and if they can
get the care they need
Sense of Belonging: feeling included, respected,
and connected
Priority Populations
An extra emphasis was placed on including
information and perspectives from these
populations.
• Black/African American people
• Latine/Latinx/Hispanic people
• LGBTQIA+ people
• Residents of South and West Berkeley
• Youth

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 5

KEY FINDINGS
At the conclusion of the community survey, JSI and the CSC systematically reviewed all of the data collected via survey, interviews, focus groups, reports and statistics. Based on that review, a set of 6 key findings emerged. Although not all of the input, data and voices could be included in full detail, this report summarizes the information as best as possible to tell a clear story of the current situation and perspectives in Berkeley regarding health and wellness.

Finding 1: There is a lot to be proud of when it comes to wellness in Berkeley Finding 2: Diversity is highly valued and racism is deeply rooted Finding 3: Health is connected to where people live
Finding 4: More transparency and collaboration are needed to increase trust and effectiveness of health improvement efforts
Finding 5: Berkeley is becoming a more diffcult place for people to afford to live well Finding 6: Connection and safety are essential for supporting mental and physical well-being Key FindingsKey Findings
Reports &
statistics
Interviews
& focus
groups
Community
survey
CSC
CSC
10 Health,
Safety, and
Equity topics
Priority
Populations
6 Key Findings
FIGURE 2: CHA Process

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 6 Berkeley residents consistently highlight three
strengths that contribute to the city’s health and
wellness: its inviting physical environment, the
diversity and character of its people, and the
effectiveness of local community organizations.

Citywide health statistics are generally positive
compared with other geographies. For example,
Berkeley has consistently had a higher life
expectancy than Alameda County and California
(see figure 3).

FINDING 1
There is a lot to be proud of when There is a lot to be proud of when it comes to wellness in Berkeleyit comes to wellness in Berkeley Age in Years
Life Expectancy at Birth in Berkeley, Alameda County and California Source: California Department of Public Health, California Community Burden of Disease and Cost Engine *Estimates are for Alameda County excluding Berkeley Alameda County*Berkeley California
74 76
78 80
82 84
86 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FIGURE 3: Life Expectancy at Birth

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 7

PHYSICAL

ENVIRONMENT
In Berkeley, it’s easy to step outside
and find a place to walk, roll, or simply
breathe. Home to 59 parks, Berkeley
boasts almost 6 parks per square mile.
1 The community sees this as more
than convenience—these walkable,
wheelable routes bring people closer
to nature, reduce stress, and create
a more connected environment.

The numbers support these general
sentiments: Berkeley stands out for its
high walkability, scoring 15.9 on the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Walkability Index - surpassing the
county (14.2), state (12.4) and national
(9.8) averages.
2 “There’s so many pretty places to
go. And it’s right on the water.

There’s the Berkeley Marina. I
have great memories there with
my dog and my kids at different
stages in our life”
- FOCUS GROUP PARTCIPANT
Berkeley is filled with places where
people naturally come together.

W
hether it’s a farmers market, the Ed
Roberts Campus, a church, or a senior
center, these gathering spots foster
a strong sense of belonging. They are
spaces where people connect, feel
seen, and know they belong.
“Quiero [tratar de] relacionarme
con gente, platicar con gente,
eso mismo como que te va a
ayudar a no hundirte y hay unas
tiendas donde puedes encontrar
ese ambiente, donde se puede
simplemente [conversar].”
- FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT
Translation: “I want to [try] to relate with
people, talk to people, that will help to not
further dig into a hole and there are stores
where you can find that environment, where
you can simply [converse].”

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 8

COMMUNITY MEMBERS
At the heart of Berkeley’s community
are the people who live here. Residents
describe themselves and their neighbors
as resilient, caring, diverse, and passionate,
from people looking out for one another
to city leaders’ commitment to the city.

Berkeley also has a proud tradition of
activism. It was the first city to start
municipal recycling, make sidewalks
wheelchair accessible, and implement a
sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Residents
engage with issues of justice and equity
both historically and today. This dedication
to advocating for change strengthens the
entire community and inspires future
generations to continue the work of
creating a better, more inclusive city.
“The community is really connected
[...] even if [...] we don’t know each
other, the people from the Todos
Santos de Cuchamatán are united. So
if one of our community members is
hurting or in danger or their family
member had an accident and they
need support and anything.”
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT

COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATIONS
Community organizations–such as
the Multicultural Institute, Center for
Independent Living, and Healthy Black
Families–bring a feeling of connectedness
and support the Berkeley community to
feel healthy, well, seen and understood.

They are powerful resources, providing
essential support, services, and advocacy.

In many ways, community residents see
these organizations as the backbone of
Berkeley’s health and wellness, working to
meet the diverse needs of the community
and foster a sense of belonging for all.
“I was going to the food pantries. I
have 3 kids and it’s all different types
of people and the volunteers that
work there are so kind they never
make you feel less than, are always
smiling, and they really love what
they do.”
- FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 9 Berkeley has a reputation as a diverse and welcoming city, not afraid to be at the vanguard of social and cultural movements. This diversity is a source of pride and a significant strength to the community. Activists and leaders in Berkeley continue to work on a range of issues through many initiatives. However, as in other places, issues related to demographics and identity are complicated and reflect historical and structural factors that are difficult to address. The data on disparities in health make both the magnitude of advantages based on race/ ethnicity and opportunities for improvement abundantly clear–the greatest opportunities to advance wellness in Berkeley lie in improving health among people who experience the worst outcomes.

FINDING 2
Diversity is highly valued Diversity is highly valued
and racism is deeply rootedand racism is deeply rooted
“I love Berkeley because of
the diversity…I just
appreciate how open
Berkeley i
s. Ideas and
different types
of people.”
- FOCUS GROUP PARTCIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 10

DISPARITIES ACROSS

RACIAL GROUPS
Across nearly every indicator of health and wellbeing
collected for Berkeley there are significant differences f
or racial and ethnic groups. For the most comprehensive health indicator, life expectancy at birth, African Americans have consistently been projected to live 9 fewer years than the overall city average. It is also estimated that the life expectancy among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN)
and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders
(NH/PI) is significantly
lower than the overall life expectancy of Berkeley residents based on California data (see Figure 4). African American residents also have higher rates of many health conditions, including diagnoses f
or common cancers (breast, prostate,
lung) and chronic conditions such as diabetes.3
Age in Years
Life Expectancy at Birth by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Source: City of Berkeley Public Health Officer Unit, Epidemiology & Vital Statistics, US Census Bureau
*Due to small population sizes, life expectancy estimates presented for American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander are based on data for the entire State of California.

White
Hispanic/Latine/x
American Indian/Alaska Native*
All Race/Ethnicities
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander*
60 80
100
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FIGURE 4: Life Expectancy at Birth in Berkeley

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 11 Health disparities are the result of decisions, practices, and policies enacted over time that provide unjust advantages to some based on r
ace and ethnicity, geography, and/or socioeconomic status. Any data point that highlights differences by race should be taken as a measure of the effects of racism.
4 This type of systematic racism is evident
across all sectors including housing, education, employment, and law enforcement. For example, numerous housing policies in Berkeley restricted non-white residents to certain neighborhoods and limited their ability to build wealth through property ownership (see Figure 5). The city’s recent Preferential Housing Policy
5 acknowledges and
attempts to respond to a number of these historical policies. Similarly, the Berkeley Unified School District’s Reparations Task Force 6 looked at
structural racism in education.
“There’s a lot of redlining in [Berkeley]...I think historically, if we have a community that has been here long enough to remember the train tracks and they talk about not crossing the train tracks, that is generational..
.it’s historical trauma
that they experienced.”
- FOCUS GROUP PARTCIPANT
Redlining, a practice sanctioned by the federal government from the 1930s until the late 1960s, systematically denied access to mortgages, not only to individuals but to entire neighborhoods, based on their racial and ethnic composition. The above map of the City of Berkeley shows how neighborhoods were rated for mortgage lending using this practice. Red areas were labeled “hazardous” and deemed the riskiest for lending. Yellow areas were considered “declining” with elevated risk. Blue areas were marked as “still desirable” with lower risk, while green areas were identified as the “most desirable” and least risky.

FIGURE 5: Historical Redlining Grades

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 12

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
Based on survey data and input from focus
groups and interviews, it is clear that
members of identified priority populations
view their own health and the health of their
communities differently from other Berkeley
residents. For example, of the ten health topics
(See Table 1), mental health ranked as the
second highest priority for African American
survey respondents, but it did not make
the top three in the overall survey results.

Similarly, drugs and alcohol use ranked among
the top three priorities for both Hispanic/
Latine/ Latinx respondents and youth
respondents, yet it fell into the bottom half
of priorities in the overall results. Disparities
in health was another high-ranking concern
among priority populations, placing third for
African American respondents and LGBTQIA+
respondents and tying for second among
youth, but it fell outside the top three in the
overall rankings (See figure 6).
“As a person of color and minority, I have
experienced or know others who have
experienced worse living conditions
or limitations in access to health and
resources because of socioeconomic
factors in which race plays an important
role, historically speaking.”
- COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENT
FIGURE 6: Community Survey Responses by Population
Differences are also reflected in responses to other community survey questions.

For instance, 20% fewer youth agreed with the statement “Berkeley residents have ac
cess to resources necessary to be healthy” compared to the overall survey results.

Similarly, nearly 40% fewer African Americans agreed with the statement, “Overall, I’m satisfied with my quality of life [health, comfort, happiness] in Berkeley.”

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 13 FINDING 3
Health is connected toHealth is connected to
where people livewhere people live
Berkeley has neighborhoods with distinctive geographic, architectural, and cultural features that elicit strong feelings of connection from r
esidents. However, some neighborhoods in the city face greater health challenges than others. South and West Berkeley residents, in particular, experience worse health outcomes and face more environmental hazards compared to those in the North and East, underscoring the importance of addressing geographic inequities to improve community health. 7 LIFE EXPECTANCY
The average Berkeley resident can
expect to live to age 86 (see Figure 4), an
impressive number that reflects the city’s
overall health. However, this longevity is
not evenly distributed. Residents in the
Berkeley Hills, where resources are more
abundant, have the highest life expectancy
in the city, with one census tract averaging
91 years. In contrast, residents in South and
West Berkeley face significantly shorter
life expectancies; one tract averages just 78
y
ears – a striking 13-year gap (see Figure 7).
“I live in a part of the city that
sometimes feels as if it is not as well-
resourced as other parts of the city,
and I’d like to see a more equitable
distribution of resources”.
- COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENT
FIGURE 7: Life Expectancy at Birth by Census Tract
Source: City of Berkeley Public Health Officer Unit, Epidemiology & Vital Statistics, US Census Bureau 5-year estimate 2019-2023
Note: Life expectancy for the census tract where the University of California, Berkeley campus is located is omitted because a very small number of people actually live in this census tract.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 14

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
Berkeley faces significant environmental risks, which are unevenly distributed across the city and exacerbated by climate change. Areas in West and Southwest Berkeley are disproportionately burdened by pollution, including diesel exhaust from vehicles, toxic emissions from facilities, and hazardous chemicals from cleanup sites (see Figure 8).

These areas experience higher rates of asthma-related hospitalizations compared to the rest of the city.
8 Meanwhile, in the eastern, wealthier
neighborhoods, residents face growing wildfire risks due to changing weather patterns and drier conditions.
9 “Climate change is the number one collective issue
impacting all of us. Low-income communities of color are disproportionately impacted and need support to be safe during these precarious times.”
- COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENT
In addition to these localized hazards, Berkeley as a whole is increasingly affected by worsening air quality. Climate change has led to more frequent and severe wildfire seasons in California, causing spikes in particulate matter and “bad air days” that pose serious health risks for everyone, particularly children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions. However, as highlighted throughout this report, some communities face greater risk due to social vulnerability, leaving them less equipped to withstand these environmental hazards (see Figure 9).

FIGURE 8: Environmental Hazard Vulnerability Percentile by Census Tract Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard, CalEnvironScreen 4.0 2021 Note: The CalEnvironScreen 4.0 percentile for the census tract where the University of California, Berkeley campus is located is omitted because ther
e is a very small number of poeple that actually live in this census tract

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 15 In the community survey, the environmental health topic emerged among the top three for both the general population and for many of the priority populations. It was ranked as the third most important topic area for South and West Berkeley residents and the Hispanic/ Latine/ Latinx community, and it emerged as the second most important topic for LGBTQIA+ and Youth respondents (See figure 6). Community survey respondents also highlighted climate change as a key area of concern and a desire for more efforts like the Climate Action Plan10 that reflect commitment to broader climate action.
“If you die in a fire or have your health ruined from breathing polluted air, the question of how much you enjoy living here becomes no longer relevant.”
- COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENT
FIGURE 9: Integrated Fire Hazard by Berkeley Fire Zones Integrated Fire Hazard
Lowest Value Highest Value
Source: City of Berkeley’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Community Base Map, last updated 2023 Note: The percentile for the census tract where the University of California, Berkeley campus is located is omitted because there is a very small number of poeple that actually live in this census tract

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 16 FINDING 4
More transparency and collaboration are More transparency and collaboration are needed to increase trust and effectiveness needed to increase trust and effectiveness of health improvement effortsof health improvement efforts Berkeley is known for a very active and participatory political culture. Robust debates and campaigns are not uncommon on a range of topics. There are more than 30 boards and commissions to guide aspects of public decision making. Berkeley is also one of only three cities in California to have a Public Health Department, along w
ith Long Beach and Pasadena. This is intended to allow for more responsiveness to community needs. However, there are
substantive concerns about capacity and follow-through when it comes to community collaboration.
“Even though Berkeley has some incredibly difficult bureaucracies to deal with… when you can make contact with an individual, you feel seen and h
eard and cared for, which is not what I’ve experienced in other cities in California”
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTCIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 17

CAPACITY
Most sentiments about city employees were
positive, though there was a consistent
thread about agencies and departments being
understaffed, over-stretched, and operating in
limited siloes. Community members referenced
limited capacity and lack of collaboration
specifically around mental health, a topic where
residents see a lot of complexity and barriers
to service. Barriers mentioned included limited
coverage, the need for different providers
depending on condition and severity, and lack of
integration with physical health and other social
services such as housing.
“If Multicultural Institute wasn’t here.

If Berkeley Food Network wasn’t here
offering the food to folks. If Lifelong
wasn’t offering those services, who
would be offering the services? Would
the city have the capacity and the
ability to offer services the way that our
community organizations are able to
offer it in a more appropriate way…the
answer right now I think is no, right?
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT
Berkeley has diverse and strong Community
Based Organizations (CBOs) that are deeply
connected to communities. However, systems
can be difficult to navigate for both clients
and staff at these CBOs. Referrals across
organizations of care require multiple steps and
o
ften organizations cannot share data with one
another. Increased coordination with each other
and the City would further their impact and
efficiency. However, funding for developing and
improving operations and collaboration is hard
to come by.

PROCESS

ACCOUNTABILITY
There are many planning and assessment
processes underway at any moment in Berkeley.

While seeking community input is an important
step and intention, relationships are undermined
when a process ends with simply identifying
problems. Community members can feel
frustrated and lose trust when they are not
included in sharing power to design solutions or
when there is little follow-up or communication
about progress.
“A lot of requests are for the
community to tell us your
st
ory and then in return,
they feel like they don’t
get anything so…there’s a
feeling of hopelessness. If
you’re gonna promise people
things, at the very baseline
deliver on that promise.”
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 18

PANDEMIC EFFECTS
The COVID-19 pandemic caused, or exacerbated, a wave of health, mental health, and social challenges that extended far beyond the direct deaths and illnesses it caused.11 As one survey respondent put it, “Understand that all of us have PTSD from the pandemic.” Young people
in particular are experiencing significantly higher rates of anxiety and depression.12 For many, connections to neighbors and friends became a matter of life-or-death, especially for the most vulnerable, such as older adults, people with pre-existing conditions, and those who were unhoused. At the same time, the pandemic revealed both weaknesses and strengths in relationships between public agencies, CBOs, and the public. Efforts like rapid testing and masking protocols, brought these dynamics to light. Despite all the challenges, the pandemic taught some big lessons, like how important connection and resilience across systems ar
e during extreme stress.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 19 FINDING 5
Berkeley is becoming a more difficult Berkeley is becoming a more difficult place for people to afford to live wellplace for people to afford to live well

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

AND DISPLACEMENT
The rise in housing costs has significantly
impacted Berkeley residents, forcing some
to live in overcrowded conditions, move to
other communities, or become unhoused.

Displacement due to unaffordable housing can
have serious health and social consequences,
such as living in homes with health hazards,
losing access to essential services, and becoming
disconnected from communities of belonging.

Percent of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data, 5-year estimates 2018- 2022
53%53%53%

34.2%34.2%34.2%

31.2%31.2%31.2%

23.3%23.3%23.3%

20.6%20.6%20.6%

14.3%14.3%14.3%
White African American
Asian Hispanic/Latine/x
American Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
FIGURE 10: Percent of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley Percent of Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data, 5-year estimates 2018- 2022
53%53%53%

34.2%34.2%34.2%

31.2%31.2%31.2%

23.3%23.3%23.3%

20.6%20.6%20.6%

14.3%14.3%14.3%
White African American
Asian Hispanic/Latine/x
American Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
Berkeley residents feel strongly about their community and want their families to have the option to stay in the city.

However, the high cost of living, particularly housing, has created a lot of stress, displacing long-time residents and forcing individuals and families to make difficult economic decisions. These decisions–like whether to prioritize spending on housing, utilities, food, or medicine–have profound impacts on health and wellbeing.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 20 Importantly, rising housing costs have not affected all groups equally (see Figure 11). White residents, for example, are much mor
e likely to own homes than other racial and ethnic groups (see Figure 10). This inequity is particularly felt by Berkeley’s African American population, which has declined by more than 50% over the past 50 years.
13 Today, African Americans make
up just 7.5% of the city’s population but account for over 40% of its unhoused residents. For African American residents who are housed, many face significant housing challenges, with the majority renting their homes (66%) and struggling to afford them.

Over 60% of African American renters in Berkeley are considered housing cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent (see Figure 11).

UC Berkeley students, who account for a large share of the city’s renters, also face challenges, with 10% of undergraduate and graduate students reporting being unhoused due to the high cost of living and education expenses.
14 “There have been several people that I’ve met who are living in a car or staying with friends living on a couch, and if you don’t have secure housing and food, you can’t have good mental health. You can’t have good health.

You’re stymied from the beginning.”

FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT
Individuals who do not have stable housing have much worse physical and mental health outcomes and also affect the overall he
alth of the city by overtaxing systems and services. While the city recently reported significant improvements 15 in the number of unhoused individuals, the reality for those lacking shelter remains grave. Housing emerged as the top issue for both the overall survey respondent pool and for all five priority populations.
“Berkeley has so much affluence, but resources are not
equitably distr
ibuted. I have seen many families of color
leave my area in South Berkeley because the rent became too high to afford. Better public services and more
affordable housing could allow people to stay in Berkeley.” - COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONDENT
Percent of Households Paying More Than 30% of Their Income for Rent by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Sources: US Department of Housing and Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data 2017-2021
*Due to the small number of households that identify as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, the percent shown for this race are based on data for the entire state of California.

60.8%60.8%60.8%

59.3%59.3%59.3%

53.8%53.8%53.8%

47.5%47.5%47.5%
45%45%45%

35.3%35.3%35.3%
African American Hispanic/Latine/x
Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander*
White American Indian/Alaska Native
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
FIGURE 11: Percent of Berkeley Households Paying More Than 30% of Their Income for Rent b
y Race/Ethnicity

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 21

INCOME INEQUALITY
Median household income, a key measure of economic stability that is highly correlated with home ownership, is just under $105,000 for the city overall; well above the median for the state ($92,000) and the nation ($75,000). However, this overall number masks significant disparities: when disaggregated by race and ethnicity, we see the median household income for African American households is $52,000, not even half that of the citywide media (see Figure 12).
“We’re going on strike because we’re not getting paid
salaries that are livable anymore. A lot of teachers are on strike as well because the wages
aren’t affordable.

No one could afford to live in Berkeley anymore. It’s a reality, right?”
- F

OCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT
The median for Hispanic/Latine/Latinx households ($67,000) is also much lower than the average. Much like life expectancy, median household income in Berkeley varies signi ficantly by geography. Census tracts in the Berkeley Hills report the highest median household income levels (more than $200,000) while c
ensus tracts in South Berkeley and West Berkeley report the lowest levels (less than $100,000). 16 In the community survey, the topic of jobs and money was near the bottom for the overall population, but it was ranked as the third most important topic by two priority populations: Hispanic/Latine / Latinx and Youth.

There is a deep emotional component that underlies these statistics.

The influx of white and affluent residents, that many
describe as
gentrification, threatens the character and long-standing narrative of Berkeley as home to an economically thriving Black and Brown community at the forefront of social movements. 17 Although the toll of displacement is hard to measure, there is not only a need to prevent displacement b
ut to remember the stories of the communities that
shaped
Berkeley into the place that so many people hold dear.

FIGURE 12: Median Income of Berkeley Households by Race/Ethnicity Median Income by Race/Ethnicity of Householder in Berkeley Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data, 5-year estimates 2018-2022
*Due to the small number of households that identify as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, the percent shown for this race are based on data for the entire state of California.
$138,398$138,398$138,398
$95,021$95,021$95,021
$81,250$81,250$81,250
$80,386$80,386$80,386
$79,596$79,596$79,596
$66,916$66,916$66,916
$62,541$62,541$62,541
$52,125$52,125$52,125
White Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander*
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian
Two or More Races Hispanic/Latine/x
Other Race African American
$0 $20000 $40000 $60000 $80000 $100000 $120000 $140000

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 22 Community safety ranked just behind housing in the community survey. Notably, the two highest-ranking topics are not directly related to health or within the jurisdiction of public health agencies. This suggests that members of the Berkeley community are thinking broadly about what determines health and how to achieve wellness. The responses to the survey and discussions in our focus groups and interviews about safety reflected a focus on reducing crime but also on reducing stress and creating spaces where people from diverse backgrounds can come together to build connections.

The violent crime rate in Berkeley has fluctuated over the years but has remained lower than rates in Alameda County, while rates of non-violent crime are consistently higher in Berkeley than the county as a whole (see figures 17 & 18).

Crime, particularly violent crime, spiked upwards across the country during the COVID 19 pandemic and has since declined sharply. The city is in the midst of an extensive, community-involved process to reimagine public safety18 that includes holistic framing of safety and connection similar to this report.

FINDING 6
Connection and safety are essential for Connection and safety are essential for supporting mental and physical wellbeingsupporting mental and physical wellbeing “[I prioritized Community
Safety because] I think it can
be an in
dicator of community
wellness. No, I do not think
we need more police, nor do I
think they need more funding.

But I would love to see more
funding for social services,
including providing housing
security for our unhoused
residents.”
- COMMUNITY SURVEY PARTCIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 23

MENTAL HEALTH AND

CONNECTEDNESS
Mental Health emerged as a significant concern,
ranking as the fourth highest priority in the overall
survey
and the second-highest priority among African
American respondents. Many participants correlated
their mental health with feelings of safety and
community connectedness and belonging. In
addi
tion, responses reflected a desire for responses
that address a range of mental health issues from
anxiety and loneliness to serious and persistent
illness as well as the need for more mental health
services that accept insurance and are culturally
responsive. As with other issues discussed previously,
there are significant disparities by race for mental
health issues and service utilization (see Figur e 14
).
“When folks feel like they are part of a
community, they’re happier, they feel more
included. They feel overall better.”

COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT
Percent of the population over 18 years
Percent of Residents 18 Years and Older that Needed Help for Mental Health Problems in Berkeley, Alameda County and California Source: University of California, Los Angeles, California Health Interview Survey, Neighborhood Edition
Berkeley Alameda County California
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2013-2014 2015-2016 2017-2018 2019-2020 2012-2022
FIGURE 13: Percent of Residents 18 Years Old+ that Needed Help for Mental Health Problems Hospitalization Rate per 100,000
Rate of Mental Health Related Hospitalization Among Residents 18 Years and Older by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Source: California Department of Health Care Access and Information, Hospitalization Data 2020-2022, Esri Demographics 2020-2022 *Due to the small number of hospitalizations among residents 18 and older that that identify as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, the percent shown for this race are based on data for the entire state of California.
16,43916,43916,439
14,32314,32314,323
5,6245,6245,624
5,0275,0275,027
3,9233,9233,923
1,6601,6601,660
African American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander* Hispanic/Latine/x American Indian/Alaska Native White Asian
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,0… FIGURE 14: Rate of Mental Health Related Hospitalization Among Residents 18 Years old+ by Race/Ethnicity in Berkeley
Source: California Department of Health Care Access and Information, Hospitalization Data 2020-2022, Esri Demographics 2020-2022
Note: Due to the small number of hospitalizations among residents 18 and older that that identify as Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, the percent shown for this race are based on data for the entire state of California.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 24 LGBTQIA+ SAFETY
Participants shared particular concerns about th e health and safety of the LGBTQIA+ community, especially the mental health and personal safety of LGBTQIA+ youth.

Young
people who identify as LGBTQIA+ experience higher rates of attempted suicide, depression and anxiety. There are very few programs that provide mental health services to this demographic. Existing services may also not be set up to meet the specific needs of LGBTQIA+ people. For example, individuals who identify as nonbinary and/or trans may
experience unsafe situations when seeking stable housing due to programs that separate based on male and female
identities.
“[LGBTQIA youth have] over 120% higher chance of
bein
g unhoused than non-queer youth. Youth may feel
the need to do survival sex work...LGBTQIA youth are
at risk, they are a population that is not prioritized in funding…I want to see LGBTQIA youth
prioritized as a
population.”
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 25

DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON

SAFETY STRATEGIES
There are a range of ideas about how to improve safety
in Berkeley including support for expanded resources for the Berkeley Police Department, a focus on community
connected law enforcement, diversion of police resources into alternative response models, a focus on improving
traffic safety, and a recognition that safety is connected to a number of other issues, like housing, economic security, and belonging. As noted above, many participants in this assessment discussed safety in terms of both physical
and psychological effects and also in terms of individual, neighborhood and systems level solutions.
“… when we actually center connection and belonging
as a public health matter, we can see that the
community starts healing itself.”
- COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT
Rate per 100,000
Rate of Violent Crimes in Berkeley and Alameda County
Source: State of California Department of Justice, OpenJustice Data Portal, Esri Demographics 2005-2022 *Estimates are for Alameda County excluding Berkeley Alameda County* Berkeley
0 500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Rate per 100,000
Rate of non-violent crimes in Berkeley and Alameda County Source: State of California Department of Justice, OpenJustice Data Portal, Esri Demographics 2005-2022 *Estimates are for Alameda County excluding Berkeley Alameda County* Berkeley
0 5k
10k
15k
20k
25k
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 FIGURE 15: Rate of Violent Crimes
FIGURE 16: Rate of Non-violent Crimes

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 26 Berkeley is considered a great place to live, start a family, and grow old. Its physical and social environments make it a unique small city. However, there is still work to do to ensure that Berkeley is a place where all people thrive.

The priority populations that were identified during the CHA process deserve particular focus and investment in order to advance and achieve health equity.

Participants in the CHA process expressed desire that the city of Berkeley provide sustainable investments to improve services, center community voice in non-extractive ways, encourage collaboration across community organizations, and work to change harmful systems.

Although the challenges are significant, with commitment and thoughtful allocation of resources, the Berkeley community can improve the ability of all residents–regardless of factors such as neighborhood, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity– to live healthy, fulfilling lives.

ConclusionConclusion

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 27 Endnotes
1 National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Parks by Census Tract, United States, 2018 https:/ /www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/117921/ version/V1/view
2 “National Walkability Index.” 2021. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https:/ /epa.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer. html?useExisting=1.
3 California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), Patient Discharge Data 2020-2022 (for hospitalization rates), and the California De - partment of Public Health, California Comprehensive Death File (2020-22) (for death rates and YPLL). 4 Boyd, Rhea W., Edwin G. Lindo, Lachelle D. Weeks, and Monica R. McLemore. 2020. “On Racism: A New Standard For Publishing On Racial Health Inequities.” Health Affairs. https:/ /www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/racism-new-standard-publishing-racial-health-inequities. 5 Arreguín, Jesse. 2023. “Berkeley Council Adopts Housing Preference Policy as Redress for Redlining & BART Construction.” Mayor Jesse Arreguín. https:/ /www.jessearreguin.com/press-releases/2023/7/24/berkeley-council-adopts-housing-preference-policy-as-redress-for-redlining-amp-bart- construction.
6 BUSD Reparations Task Force. 2024. “Reparations Task Force.” Berkeley Public Schools. https:/ /www.berkeleyschools.net/reparations-task-force/. 7 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard, CalEnvironScreen 4.0, 2021 release 8 California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) , Patient Discharge Data 2020-2022 9 City of Berkeley, Fire Zones Map, https:/ /berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/Berkeley-Fire-Zone-Map.pdf 10 Klein, Jordan. 2022. “Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update”. City Council Report. https:/ /berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/2022-11-29%20Item%2016%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf 11 Hosseinzadeh P, Zareipour M, Baljani E, Moradali MR. Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Systematic Review. Invest Educ Enferm. 2022 Mar;40(1):e10. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v40n1e10.
12 California Health and Human Services Agency, Youth at the Center: Calls-to-action for a reimagined behavioral health ecosystem from children, youth, and families across California. https:/ /www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CYBHI-Youth-at-the-Center-Report.FINAL_.pdf 13 Fozi C, Roseborough V, Lin A. Black exodus from Berkeley. Daily Cal Projects, February 2022. https:/ /dailycal-projects.netlify.app/2022-01-21-exodus 14 UC Office of Planning and Analysis, Housing Survey Findings, https:/ /housing.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/HousingSurvey_03022018.pdf. 15 Yelimeli, Supriya. 2024. “Homeless count shows 45% drop in unsheltered people in Berkeley.” Berkeleyside. https:/ /www.berkeleyside.org/2024/05/15/ homeless-count-shows-45-drop-in-unsheltered-people-in-berkeley 16 ACS 2018-2022 5 year estimates.
17 Truly CA. “Welcome to the Neighborhood”. 2018. PBS. https:/ /www.pbs.org/video/welcome-to-the-neighborhood-truly-ca-zag6fb/ 18 City Manager’s Office. 2024. “Reimagining Public Safety”. City of Berkeley. https:/ /berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Reimagining%20 Public%20Safety%20Fall%202024%20Update.pdf

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 28

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Berkeley Health Profile
Appendix B: Methodology
Appendix C: Community Steering Committee Members and Bios Appendix D: Participating Organizations
Appendix E: Principles
Appendix F: Qualitative Data Findings
Appendix G: Survey Findings

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 29 APPENDIX A: BERKELEY HEALTH PROFILE
This section includes a selection of data points relevant for understanding the landscape of wellness in Berkeley.

Demographics
The population of the City
of Berkeley continues to
grow. Close to half (48%)
of Berkeley’s population
identifies as a race other than
white.
1 Approximately one-
third of Berkeley’s overall
population are students and
staff associated with the
world-renowned University
of California, Berkeley.
2 Over
20% of the population are
immigrants that speak a
number of different languages
(Spanish, Indo-European
languages, languages from Asia
and the Pacific Islands, etc.).

The population is clustered
by race/ethnicity and
socioeconomic status across
the city map.
1 US Census Bureau, American Community
Survey Data, 5-year estimates 2018-2022
2 University of California, Berkeley, Office of
Planning and Analysis Quick Facts 2024; US
Census Bureau, American Community Survey
Data, 5-year estimates 2018-2022

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 30 Behaviors
Differences in socioeconomic
status and other social
determinants of health affect
the health behaviors of people.

People with less resources
have been found to be more
likely to smoke tobacco,
be less physically active,
and are less likely to attend
routine, preventative medical
check-ups than people with
more resources. In Berkeley,
disparities in socioeconomic
status are across different
races and ethnicities, which
correlate to the disparities
seen geographically.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 31 Health Outcomes
Disparities in res ources and
health behaviors result in
impacts on health outcomes.

More adults in West and
South Ber
keley report fair
or poor general health than
in other parts of the city.

Rates of asthma are higher
in W
est, Central and South
Berkeley. Death rates from all
types of cancer
are different
among the different racial
and ethnic groups in Berkeley,
with African Americans
e
xperiencing the highest
mortality rates from cancer.

Overall, African Americans
suffer a disproportionate
number of years of potential
life lost, which estimates the
ye
ars of life lost to premature
death. Of the total number of
years of potential life lost in
Berkeley, African Americans
account for 27.7% while
only
comprising
8% of the entire
population.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 32 APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
Formation of the Community Steering Committee
To ensure that the Berkeley Wellness Blueprint is a community-driven process, the JSI team assembled a community steering committee (CSC). CSC members are expected to:
• Attend regular meetings for the duration of the project • Provide feedback on the design of the CHA and CHIP process • Review materials that will be distributed to the community • Support in prioritizing action items for the CHIP
• Help to identify and connect with community members and organizations to participate in interviews and focus groups
• Help develop data collection tools such as the questions that are asked during an interview or focus group
• Lead or co-lead community engagement activities, such as focus groups or community listening sessions
Recruitment
An open application was used to recruit CSC members, with flyers distributed both electronically and in public spaces throughout Berkeley (e.g., libraries, community organizations, parks, grocery stores). Over 60 applications were submi
tted. The eight members were selected based on several criteria:
residency or employment in Berkeley; a demonstrated interest in Berkeley’s health and wellness; experience with accessing, providing, or advocating for improved services or policies; diverse identities and backgrounds; and the capacity and availability to participate throughout the project. Additionally, two youth representatives were added to the CSC with assistance from the Youth Employment Program.

Acknowledging that each member would be making a significant time commitment, a stipend was given to either the individual or to the community- based organization they represent. Due to resource limitations, the CSC was only eligible to individuals who are comfortable communicating in English.

Qualitative Data Collection Plan
Through a codesign process with the CSC, four guiding questions emerged:

1. In what spaces do you feel cared for, seen, and loved?

2. How does lived experience and identity affect the way individuals interact and feel connected with(in) the Berkeley community?

3. What are the assets and challenges in the Berkeley community that affect health and wellness? And how can assets be used differently to address challenges?

4. What initiatives (existing or not) would help in achieving a vision of wellness for all Berkeley residents?
These guiding questions shaped engagement methods used for CHA, as well as questions to be asked during interviews and focus groups, and the analysis plan for the data collected.

Identifying Priority Populations
While it would have been ideal to engage with every group represented in Berkeley, this was not feasible. As a result, it became necessary to prioritize populations for the Community Health Assessment (CHA) data collection. CSC members, drawing on information from the landscape scan as well as their knowledge and experiences in Berkeley, were asked to:
• Define priority groups for CHA data collection
• Provide insights into the best ways to engage with each priority population • Identify key locations and spaces for connecting with these groups • Determine how to engage in a respectful, culturally relevant manner that fostered trust and avoided an extractive approach
Through this process, several priority populations were identified as disproportionately affected by health inequities in Berkeley. These included asylum seekers, immigrants, refugees, the Black community in South and W
est Berkeley, the Latinx/Latine community in South and West Berkeley,

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 33 and the LGBTQIA+ community. These perspectives were crucial to center in the CHA data collection, as they were likely to be most impacted by the recommendations emerging from the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP). In line with our commitment to health equity, the interviews and focus groups conducted during the CHA centered the voices of those facing the greatest challenges, our priority populations
Priority Populations
• Black/African Americans
• Latine/Latinx/ Hispanics
• LGBTQIA+
• Youth
• Residents in South and West Berkeley
We spoke to members of these communities along with staff from organizations who directly work with these groups.

Recruitment of CHA Interviewees and Focus
Group Participants
After prioritization, the CSC and JSI team began recruiting individuals and organizations who either represented the priority populations or who worked closely with the priority groups. Existing relationships were crucial in recruitment. We conducted five individual interviews, 2 group interviews, and three focus groups.

Interviews were completed with community and nonprofit leaders as well as direct service providers. The three focus groups engaged priority populations and were completed in collaboration with nonprofit organizations based in Berkeley who have established relationships with and trust among community members. The focus groups took place with 1) the Pacific Center for Human Growth, the oldest LGBTQIA+ center in the Bay Area whose mission is to enhance the mental health and overall well-being of the LGBTQIA+ and QTBIPOC communities by providing cultur
ally responsive therapy, peer to peer support groups, community outreach services, and facilitated workshops; 2) the Multicultural Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on accompanying immigrants in their transition to workforce participation and prosperity, and 3) the South Berkeley Senior Center which offers a variety of enrichment activities and suppor
t services designed to empower seniors to learn, grow, and discover new ways to be actively engaged in living. This center also supports seniors living in prioritized geographic locations and the attendees are largely African American.

All focus group participants were given a $50 gift card for their participation in the discussion and for filling out a demographic questionnaire. Organizations were provided with a $200 gift card for their support in organizing and recruiting participants for the focus groups.

I
t is important to emphasize that, while the number of participants may seem small compared to the total population of Berkeley, the purpose of the interviews and focus groups, and qualitative data collection more generally, is to gain deeper insights into perspectives and experiences. Rather than seeking a large volume of responses, this approach aimed to explore the complexity and nuance of lived experiences of community members, particularly those from priority populations and individuals who work closely with them.

We also acknowledge that people hold multiple intersecting identities, which cannot be fully captured by a single checkbox. We encouraged participants to share any aspects of their lived experience they felt comfortable discussing, knowing that identity is multifaceted. Additionally, we recognize that one person’s experience reflects their unique perspective and does not necessarily represent the views of everyone who shares a similar identity. Our goal was not to generalize but to gain a deeper, more nuanc
ed understanding of the challenges and strengths within these communities.

Qualitative Data Analysis
Following interviews and focus groups, a team of three analyzed the notes and transcripts to identify a set of themes and sub themes that emerged (see table below). For example, if a focus group participant talked about how they feel appreciated and heard when they spend time in the senior center that quote was highlighted and coded as a community strength, sub-theme community organization.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 34 All findings and coded passages were de-identified and quotes were presented in a way that did not directly attribute it to any participants.

These major themes and de-identified quotes were then brought to two sense-making sessions, one with JSI
team members and the second with CSC members. The goal of the sense making sessions w
as to understand what story the data was telling and
what major themes emerged. These sessions also informed and shaped aspects of the community survey.

Community Survey
The stories and insights that emerged during interviews and focus groups and internal sense making sessions were utilized to inform a community- wide survey aimed at assessing people’s views on health and wellbeing in Berkeley. The goal of the survey was to receive input from the wider Berkeley community on their health status and recommendations on the priorities for the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP).

The CSC guided the development of the survey to ensure that the survey was accessible to the wider Berkeley community.

The survey had three main sections: Sentiment Statements, Focus Area Prioritization and Demographics (Appendix J). We collected extensive demographic data in order to disaggregate and analyze the responses from priority populations.

For the second section of the survey, respondents were asked to prioritize three out of ten areas as “the most important for the Berkeley Wellness Blueprint to focus on in order to improve community health and wellbeing in Berkeley.” These ten focus areas emerged from the Landscape Scan, interviews, focus groups and CSC consultation.

Community surveys provide valuable insights but have inherent limitations that can affect the representativeness and accuracy of results. One challenge is participation bias, as individuals who choose to respond may differ significantly from those who do not. Respondents are often people with more time, higher education levels, or stronger opinions, which can lead to an overrepresentation of certain perspectives.

Addi
tionally, access and outreach barriers may prevent some groups - such as individuals with limited internet access, non-native speakers, or those with lower literacy - from participating. Even among those reached, survey fatigue can reduce response quality, with some participants choosing not to complete the survey and dropping off part way through.

For this survey, we had low engagement from some of the priority populations we had identified, meaning that key perspectives may be missing from the data. In particular, we struggled to reach non-English speakers and individuals identifying as Hispanic Latine/ Latinx. These limi
tations underscore the importance of using complementary methods, such as focus groups and interviews, to ensure representative and actionable insights.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 35 APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY STEERING

MEMBERS AND BIOS
Rosio Almaguer Andrade (she/they) Rosio works at Berkeley’s Ecology Center focusing on food systems and is currently getting their master’s in urban planning. They identify as a non-binary, Latinx first-generation college graduate who works with farmers market professionals as well as local government and community members to expand food access.

Rosio views public health through the intersectional lens of food justice and urban planning and hopes the Community Steering Committee experience will give them the opportunity to continue their current avenue of work.

Penelope Collins (she/her) Penelope is a retired veterinarian who is currently on the Commission on Aging for the City of Berkeley and whose family has lived in Berkeley for generations. She currently lives in the South Berkeley house her grandparents built in 1929 and brings a deep understanding of Berkeley’s history with hopes it can help inform the development of realistic wellness goals for Berkeley residents. Penelope doesn’t want Berkeley to lose the magic she has experienced as a lifelong resident.

Michai Freeman (she/her) Michai is the Systems Change Advocate at the Center for Independent Living where she works to reduce barriers to accessibility and inclusion in community and public programs. She identifies as black woman with a physical disability, with experience in disability and health education, as well as wellness delivery services.

Michai feels it is essential for people with disabilities to be involved in the Berkeley Wellness Blueprint, especially when it comes to community engagement.

JW Frye (he/him) J.W. is the Executive Director at Rebuilding Together East Bay Network where his work focuses on addressing health equity in housing and senior services through workforce development, opportunities for older adults, as well as intergenerational engagement and skill sharing.

He believes there are ways to continue improving public health through uplifting the diverse lived experiences of Berkeley’s residents. J.W. sees his background in public service as valuable to the Community Steering Committee to ensure any recommendations are informed by community members.

Kaitlyn (Kati) Khov (she/they) Kati is a transfer student at UC Berkeley majoring in urban studies who has experience in advocating for policy change and proposal writing. As a cancer survivor and member of the disabled and LGBTQIA+ communities, her goal for the Community Steering Committee is to work collaboratively to inform funding initiatives and development in disenfranchised communities. Kati’s highest priority is to serve local communities in highly exposed areas facing displacement.

Isabella Ledezema (she/her) Isabella is a junior at Berkeley High and is also involved with Berkeley’s Youth Equity Partnership with experience presenting deliverables to the city and school district. She is excited to be part of action oriented work to impact community health.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 36 Matt Matusiewicz (he/him) Matt is a research analyst for the Division of Health Equity and Society in the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Drawing on his family’s experiences and strength, Matt is dedicated to advancing the health and well-being of low-income and immigrant communities. Since 2019, he has been heavily involved with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant/Santuario in Berkeley, working to enhance the health and welfare of asylum seekers through comprehensive social, legal, and health services. As a graduate from UC Berkeley with experience in health and social service provision focused on housing, homelessness, and immigration, Matt is committed to supporting the Steering Committee in its mission to shape impactful policies that improve the well-being of Berkeley’s residents.

Israel Nikodimos (she/her) Israel is a student at Berkeley High who also has been involved in Berkeley’s Youth Equity Partnership is a volunteer at UCSF children’s hospital shadowing doctors and seeing what it means to be heavily involved in medicine. She has participated in a numerous amount of services that help benefit my community such as black student union president and student council as well as read and reviewed grants to help fund our local programs that help benefit young children.

Claritza Rios (she/her) Claritza is a physician from South Berkeley who has experience providing care in emergency, internal, and palliative medicine. She identifies as an immigrant Latina as well as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community who wants to be able to “slam doors open for people, ’’ by being an agent of change towards health equity and becoming a voice for the oppressed. Claritza appreciates the importance of addressing health equity by tackling social determinants of health and advocating for better services and policies for her community.

Michael Rodriguez (he/him) Michael is a physician and the Executive Director of the California Alliance for Academics and Communities for Public Health Equity and currently resides in Berkeley’s Oceanview neighborhood. As a bi-lingual, first-generation Latino American, he has experience providing health care for low income communities and people with mental illness. Michael has a passion for promoting health equity in his city and around the world.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 37 APPENDIX D: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
Pacific Center for Human Growth
Provides resources and services supporting and enhancing the mental health and well-being of LGBTQIA+ and QTBIPOC people.

Multicultural Institute
Provides resources and services for immigrant communities, particularly Hispanic/Latinx/ Latine immigrants.

Healthy Black Families
Provides resources and services to support and uplift Black individuals and families in Berkeley La Peña Cultural Center
Fosters and hosts cultural events, gatherings, and performances rooted in the Latin American and Caribbean diaspora.

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
Provides programming to asylum seekers, refugee, and immigrant communities for legal, social, and advocacy services.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 38 APPENDIX E: GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE CHA
Principles
• Share and build from existing information: We aren’t asking questions without providing relevant data (conclusions from other reports and assessments, quantitative data); qualitative data collection should help interpret quantitative information.
• Lead toward solutions: Qualitative processes should both expand understanding of needs/issues and point toward potential solutions; community perspectives should be centered throughout the CHA/ CHIP.
• Emphasize balance between upstream and downstream perspectives: Questions and dialogues should make connections between health and safety outcomes and community and structural factors. • Emphasize balance between asset and de ficit perspectives: Assessment processes tend to focus on what is wrong; it is important to also identify community strengths as those can be instrumental to solutions.
• Acknowledge but don’t be limited by resource and accountability constraints: Set realistic expectations for participants; some ideas are more readily actionable than others, but we want a genuine perspective on the issues that are shaping health in Berkeley. • Strive for broad understanding: Bias and professional language can create barriers and misunderstandings; focus on deeply listening and providing space for arriving at shared meaning.

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 39 APPENDIX F: QUALITATIVE

DATA FINDINGS
The table is a summary of the themes and findings from
CHA data collection. This included focus groups (n=4),
and community interviews (n=6)
Theme Analysis from CHA Community Data Collection
Strength In Berkeley, the physical environment is:

Accessible and walkable/wheelable routes
Nature: like Parks, Mountains, Water
the environment as places of connection and acceptance
Strength In Berkeley, community members
Characteristics: Resilient, Passionate, Caring, Treat people well, Diverse, Welcoming
Passionate and caring city leadership
Build spaces of connection and networks of support
Community activism
Strength In Berkeley, Community Organizations
Are helpful and kind
Places where community members feel seen, heard, and understood Have a good amount of resources and services
Opportunity for
Improvement
Jobs and Money in Berkeley
Need for more access to jobs that pay a living wage
Job training and placement services and supports
HIgh cost of basic necessities and services (food, transportation, healthcare) Opportunity for
Improvement
Housing in Berkeley
People are having to live in overcrowded housing situations Low access to affordable housing
Concerns about the health and safety of unhoused people Gentrification and displacement a topic of concern
Opportunity for
Improvement
Mental Health in Berkeley
Need for more access and affordability of mental health services Need for more availability of a range of services and supports that match community need
Need efforts to destigmatize mental health issues
Need more coordination across mental health, physical health, and other social services
Stress and social isolation are connected to mental health Opportunity for
Improvement
Sense of Belonging in Berkeley
Need for more safety and welcoming public spaces
Need to create spaces where people come together and build connections Opportunity for
Improvement
Unsupportive Systems and Structures in Berkeley
challenge around government accountability
need for improved community engagement
Lacking representation, discrimination and racism is prevalent

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 40 APPENDIX G: SURVEY FINDINGS

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 41

Berkeley Wellness Blueprint Community Health Assessment 42

Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF