Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, November 6, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M E E T I N G O F T H E

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

Thursday, November 6, 2025
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT
DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB
DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE
DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA
DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 160 523 7524. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Page 1 ends

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Worksession
Public comment is limited to items on this agenda only. The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda as the item is taken up.

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

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

Worksession

1. Corridors Zoning Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

2. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 30th day of October, 2025.

/s/ Adena Ishii, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 2 ends

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 3
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

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

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

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas
and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

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

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

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

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Page 3 ends

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 4
Communications
Item #1: Corridors Zoning Update
Item #2: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

1. Leslie Sakai

2. Kirk McCarthy (2)

3. Preet Dhillon

4. Doris Fulder Nassiry (3)

5. Susan Jones

6. Barbara Gilbert (2)

7. John J. Parman (2)

8. Sharon Entwistle (2)

9. Diana Collins

10. Steve Ratcliff

11. Amy & Garet O’Keefe

12. Barbara Sargent

13. Ian Wulfson

14. Helane Zeiger

15. Robin Kibby

16. Alison Klairmont Lingo

17. Carolyn F. McNiven

18. Pam Zelnik

19. Zelda Bronstein

20. Peggy Mendelson

21. Meredith Miller

22. Save Berkeley Shops (2)

23. Lynn Sherrell

24. Ondine Norman

25. Brandon Essex

26. Elizabeth Horowitz

27. George Rose

28. Mary Mackey

29. Eric King

30. Bonnie Fore

31. Larry Hendel

32. Jim Reynolds

33. Shirley Haberfeld and Bob Allegrotti

34. Chris Mays

35. Erika St John

36. Barbara Fisher

37. Sam Busa

38. Sarah Stearns

39. Gina Rieger

40. Carolyn Holm

41. Kathleen Haberer

42. Susan Blew

43. Mykael and John Moss

44. Diane Shavelson

45. Madeleine Shearer

46. Emily Benner

Page 4 ends

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 5

47. Ryan Van Valer

48. Hawley Holmes

49. Kate Pocass

50. Petra Lamberson

51. Mindy Loginotti

52. Claire Kahane and Robert Melville

53. Kristin

54. Barbara and Christopher Wagstaff

55. Mary Staats

56. Lorraine Lerman

57. Sallie Hanna-Rhyne

58. Elea Bernou

59. Michael Frantz

60. Craig Upson

61. Victoria Leonard

62. Constance Rivemale

63. M Ryce

64. Theo Gordon (2)

65. Alana Kinrich

66. Audrey Bree Tse

67. Tami Boulet & Nick Rizza

68. Oban Lopez-Bassols (2)

69. Sheryl Rose

70. Theo Posselt (2)

71. Larry and Jane Baack

72. Carla Bell and Adriana Guerra

73. John P. Anderson

74. David Anderson

75. Dr. Bruce Feingold

76. Anthony Bruce

77. Holly Scheider

78. Kathryn Hambly

79. Mara Melandry

80. Alexander Altman

81. Peter Ewell and Helga Recke

82. Alice Feller

83. V. Sommer

84. Shmuel Weissman

85. Chris Gilbert

86. Kirsten Rose

87. Scott Hambly

88. Mary Matsushita

89. Kate H

90. Victor Ichioka

91. Carla Woodsworth

92. Adriana Guerra

93. John Magruder

94. Michael Nguyen

95. Kelly Hammargren

96. Stephen Alpert (9)

Page 5 ends

Thursday, November 6, 2025 AGENDA Page 6

97. Peter Radu

98. Shoshana O’Keefe

99. 46 Similarly worded form letters “I am opposed…”
100. 10 Similarly worded form letters “We applaud the effort…”

Page 6 ends

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

WORKSESSION
November 6, 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: Corridors Zoning Update

SUMMARY
The Corridors Zoning Update is an implementation action of Berkeley’s 2023–2031 Housing Element (Program 27)1 to expand housing opportunities in three high-resource commercial and transit corridors—Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue. The project seeks to affirmatively further fair housing by addressing historic patterns of exclusionary zoning and promoting equitable distribution of housing growth, while supporting small, locally owned businesses.

The zoning update would revise existing development standards to allow additional height and density, consider updates to permitted uses, and establish objective development standards consistent with state housing law. It would not redesign streets, sidewalks, or the public right-of-way.

Since project initiation in October 2024, staff and consultants have completed a citywide virtual workshop, three corridor-specific in-person workshops, tribal consultation per AB 52 and SB 18, and multiple meetings with business associations, neighborhood organizations, and the Technical Advisory Committee. The Draft Alternatives Report (Attachment 1) presents zoning alternatives that include varying building heights relative to corridor street widths, and options for upper-floor stepbacks, massing, and ground-floor use requirements (corridor-wide retail versus targeted retail nodes).

On September 17, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the Alternatives Report and received public testimony. Commissioners emphasized the importance of active ground-floor design, protecting small businesses, and aligning affordability outcomes under the State Density Bonus Law with Berkeley’s inclusionary requirements.

Following the second series of community workshops in August, staff asked the consultant team, including Strategic Economics, to develop strategies for mitigating potential negative impacts to small businesses. These findings will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in the coming months. Staff anticipate returning 1 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_2023-2031%20Housing%20Element_02- 17-2023v2_0.pdf

Page 1 of 201 ends

Page 7 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

with draft objective development standards in early 2026, with Planning Commission recommendation by mid-2026 for City Council consideration before the 2026 summer recess.

Staff request that City Council provide feedback on the specific topics listed in Table 6, as well as provide general direction on the overall approach to the Corridors Zoning Update.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Corridors Zoning Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goals to create affordable housing and housing support services for its most vulnerable community members, and to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

The three corridors have easy access to transit, quality schools, neighborhood-serving businesses and jobs, but have produced comparatively less housing than other parts of the city. The Draft Alternatives Report outlines two building-form alternatives that raise base heights in proportion to street width, paired with optional upper-floor stepbacks and rear transitions to adjacent residential districts. The report also presents two approaches to ground-floor activity: (1) requiring retail or retail-ready space along all corridor frontages, or (2) concentrating retail in targeted nodes while allowing ground- floor residential or office in other locations to improve feasibility. A redevelopment likelihood analysis included in the Draft Alternatives Report indicated the potential for approximately 40% of the acreage across the three corridors to redevelop over time, with outcomes shaped by site conditions, market feasibility, and tenant considerations.

Public input to date has underscored two goals the project should balance: (1) expanding housing supply, including family-sized and income-restricted units in high- resource locations; and (2) sustaining the corridors’ economic vitality and character by protecting small and legacy businesses and delivering active, pedestrian-oriented ground floors. The Planning Commission echoed these priorities and requested that the project team draft objective design standards that ensure high-quality storefronts and smooth transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. Commissioners cautioned that the discussion should focus less on building heights and more on corridor vitality and active ground floors, with some noting that buildings could reach maximum heights if these design and vitality goals are achieved.

Based on direction from this City Council worksession, staff and the consultant team will refine the development standards and return with draft objective standards for Planning Commission review in early 2026, followed by Council consideration later in 2026.

Page 2 of 201 ends

Page 8 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 3 ends

Existing Conditions Report
The Existing Conditions Report (Attachment 2) analyzed land use, demographics, and housing within a 1/8-mile buffer of the three corridors. Some of its findings included:
 Solano Avenue has the highest levels of homeownership (83%) and household income of the three corridors, but with little new development.  North Shattuck has the largest percentage of renter households (74%) of the three corridors, is more economically diverse, and has seen some recent housing growth.
 College Avenue sits in between, with a mix of homeowners and renters, and has a very low level of housing production.

These corridors have strong access to transit, schools, and jobs, yet have produced less housing than other areas of the city, particularly when compared to lower-income areas. The goal of the Corridors Zoning Update is to affirmatively further fair housing by encouraging residential development in these high resource areas.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Overview The Corridors Alternatives Report outlines zoning alternatives for the Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update project. It includes a summary of existing zoning for each corridor, an analysis of how State Density Bonus applies to current zoning, an assessment of the redevelopment potential of parcels along each corridor, and a review of the financial feasibility of typical development types. The report also proposes alternatives for base zoning, building form, and ground floor uses across Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue.

A. Existing Zoning Framework
As shown in Table 1, the three corridors currently permit lower heights than other commercial areas in Berkeley:
 Solano Avenue (C-SO): 2 stories and 28 feet.
 North Shattuck (C-NS, C-C): 3–4 stories and 35–40 feet (up to 50 ft with Use Permit)
 College (C-E, C-N): 2–3 stories and 28–35 feet.

By contrast, corridors like University, Telegraph, Adeline, and San Pablo, as well as Southside and Downtown, allow significantly greater heights.

Page 3 of 201 ends

Page 9 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 4 ends

Table 1: Base height comparison along Berkeley Corridors B. State Density Bonus and Berkeley’s Inclusionary Zoning Requirements State Density Bonus Law incentivizes developers to include affordable housing by granting increased residential density, and concessions and waivers of development standards and other requirements.

Under the State Density Bonus Law, projects that include on-site affordable housing may qualify for a density bonus of up to 100 percent of the allowable density, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided and the income levels those units serve.

Because the five zoning districts in the three project areas do not currently establish maximum residential density, the allowed density under the State Density Bonus Law is determined by calculating the maximum residential floor area and number of units that fit within the largest building envelope permitted by the applicable zoning development standards. This building envelope becomes the “Base Project” for the purposes of applying the density bonus. The final project that incorporates the density bonus must generally maintain the same unit sizes, design, and amenities as the Base Project.

The City of Berkeley’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that at least 20 percent of the units in a residential project be affordable to either Very Low Income (VLI) households or Low Income (LI) households, with at least half of those required affordable units designated for VLI households. In lieu of providing some or all of the

Page 4 of 201 ends

Page 10 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 5 ends

required affordable units on-site, project applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee. By meeting the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements on-site, most projects automatically qualify for a density bonus of between 35 and 50 percent.

In recent Berkeley projects, a common approach has been to provide 15 percent of the base zoning units at the VLI level and pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 5 percent, which qualifies the project for a 50 percent density bonus. Providing 20 percent of units at the VLI level yields a 70 percent density bonus, while a project with 15 percent of units at VLI and 15 percent at Moderate Income (MI) qualifies for a 100 percent density bonus. Figure 1 provides an example of a theoretical project in the C-NS zone.

Figure 1: Example project in the C-NS zone
C. Redevelopment Potential
As shown in Table 2, of the 35 acres across the three project areas, 14.6 acres (or 40 percent of all parcels) are considered likely to redevelop. Fifty to sixty percent of parcels are unlikely to develop due to historic designations, active businesses, site constraints, or rent-controlled housing. The sites with potential to redevelop are categorized as:

1. High Potential Sites: Vacant lots, large parcels (larger than 10,000 square feet), and corner lots with parking.

2. Modest Potential Sites: Corner lots with older 1–2 story buildings, and mid- block lots with 1-2 story buildings, whose feasibility improves if combined with corner parcels.

3. Special Conditions: Some grocery stores (Andronico’s) may redevelop depending on corporate decisions.

Page 5 of 201 ends

Page 11 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 6 ends

4. Very Low/ No Redevelopment Potential: Sites with thriving businesses, construction staging challenges, historic buildings, challenging site conditions and sites with recently approved development.

Table 2: Total Parcel Area by Redevelopment Potential
Summary of Alternatives

1. Base Zoning Alternatives
The report presents two zoning alternatives. The draft zoning alternatives are designed to increase the allowable development potential along Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue in order to encourage new housing production in these high- resource areas. The alternatives balance this goal with maintaining an acceptable neighborhood scale by using a building height-to-street width ratio to guide maximum base heights, while reflecting an increase in height from the assumed use of a 50% density bonus on projects in these corridors. Summaries of these alternatives are shown in Table 3.
 Alternative 1 – Medium Density: This alternative sets the building form at a maximum height to create a 0.8:1 building height-to-street width ratio for each corridor area. This alternative is the lower of the two in scale and density. It increases the maximum base height on Solano Avenue and North Shattuck by two stories and increases the maximum base height on College Avenue by one story.

Page 6 of 201 ends

Page 12 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 7 ends

 Alternative 2 – Higher Density: This alternative sets the maximum base height one story taller than Alternative 1 and, consequently, results in a building height-to-street width ratio at 0.9:1 for each corridor area. This alternative would allow for buildings on Solano Avenue and North Shattuck of seven to eight stories with a 50% State Density Bonus, and buildings of six stories on College Avenue with the 50% State Density Bonus.

Table 3: Zoning Alternatives - Maximum Building Height

Page 7 of 201 ends

Page 13 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 8 ends

Table 4: Comparison of Allowable Height

2. Density Analysis of Zoning Alternatives
Table 4 shows the potential range of development based on the likelihood of redevelopment analysis noted above. Determining how many sites may redevelop within a certain timeframe is an inexact process based on several factors, including market analysis, past development cycles, property ownership patterns, property sizes, and developer experience. The estimated growth ranges below show the upper end of the density range and higher development numbers than are likely, considering previous market cycles in Berkeley.

For sites considered to have High Redevelopment Potential, the ranges below represent 50% to 75% of the sites redeveloping. For sites considered to have Modest Redevelopment Potential, the ranges below represent 20% to 40% of the sites redeveloping. The ranges assume that both Andronico’s locations (North Shattuck and Solano Avenue) would redevelop.

Page 8 of 201 ends

Page 14 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 9 ends

Table 5: Estimated Residential Growth Ranges of Zoning Alternatives

3. Building Form – building massing and upper floor stepbacks In addition to the building heights, the report also presents options for building massing and upper floor stepbacks as strategies to address transitions to residential neighborhoods.

Draft Building Massing Standards
Building massing standards would limit where building area can be located on a lot.

The “corridor street” refers to Solano Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, and College Avenue; the side street refers to cross streets that intersect the corridors. The standards are illustrated in Figure 2, and would include:

Page 9 of 201 ends

Page 15 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 10 ends

 Floor area above the 1st story for all lots would be restricted to the first 70 feet maximum depth measured from the corridor frontage.  For corner lots, additional floor area would be allowed up to the 3rd story for building massing within 60 feet of the building setback line along a side street.  All buildings would have a minimum 10 feet rear setback when abutting residential zoning districts (the current requirement is the lesser of 10 feet or 10% of the lot depth).

Figure 2: Draft Building Massing Standards
Draft Stepback Standards
Upper-floor stepback standards sculpt building massing by requiring the building façade to stepback above a certain height to reduce the perceived height of a building. The alternatives range from not requiring an upper-floor stepback to requiring them on both street facing facades.
 Alternative 1: This alternative would require no upper floor stepbacks on street facing facades, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Corridor
Street
Side Street

Page 10 of 201 ends

Page 16 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 11 ends

Figure 3: Stepback Alternative – no upper floor stepback  Alternative 2: This alternative would require no upper-floor stepbacks on corridor facing facades, but would require upper-floor stepbacks on side street-facing facades, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Page 11 of 201 ends

Page 17 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 12 ends

Figure 4: Stepback Alternative – upper floor stepbacks on side streets  Alternative 3: This alternative would require upper-floor stepbacks on all street-facing facades, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Stepback Alternative – upper floor stepback on all streets

Page 12 of 201 ends

Page 18 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 13 ends

4. Ground Floor Uses: Retail vs Residential
The report presents alternatives that would regulate where retail and other active commercial uses—such as personal services, entertainment, and food and beverage establishments—would be required, and where other ground floor uses, like office space or residential units, would be allowed. In this report, the term “retail” is used as shorthand to describe this broader category of active commercial uses that contribute to a lively streetscape.

The decision about whether to require retail (or other active commercial uses) or allow residential at the ground floor has implications for corridor character, economic vitality, and housing production. Requiring retail can help maintain active, pedestrian- friendly streets and support local businesses, but it may also increase development costs and risk, particularly in today’s challenging retail market, potentially delaying or preventing new projects. Allowing residential or office space on the ground floor can improve project feasibility and accelerate housing delivery but may result in fewer continuous retail frontages and reduced opportunities for neighborhood-serving businesses.
 Retail Alternative 1: This alternative would require retail or retail-ready ground floor spaces along all C-E, C-SO, and C-NS corridor frontages.  Retail Alternative 2: This alternative would target retail in certain locations along each corridor to create future nodes of retail, while allowing other areas of the corridors to have 100% residential projects or ground floor office spaces. Allowing residential-only projects and not requiring mixed-use could increase project feasibility and encourage more housing along the corridors (see Figures 6, 7, and 8).

Page 13 of 201 ends

Page 19 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 14 ends

Figure 6: Alternative Retail 2 on Solano Avenue
Figure 7: Alternative Retail 2 on North Shattuck
Figure 8: Alternative Retail 2 on College Avenue

Page 14 of 201 ends

Page 20 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 15 ends

5. Residential-Only Buildings
Under the existing zoning along each corridor, 100% residential buildings have lower maximum heights, special building setbacks, and lower allowed lot coverage when compared to mixed-use or commercial buildings. To encourage more housing, the proposed zoning alternatives would remove these special standards that reduce the building envelopes for 100% residential buildings, except for building setbacks; these buildings would be allowed to be of the same size and scale of mixed-use building

BACKGROUND
The City has engaged a consultant team led by Raimi + Associates, with support from Plan to Place, Yes Duffy Architects, Strategic Economics, Rincon Consultants, and Kittleson & Associates. The team’s work has been informed by community input gathered through meetings, workshops, and direct outreach efforts.

Outreach conducted to date has included presentations by City staff to community organizations, a citywide virtual workshop for all three corridors held on May 1, three in- person corridor-specific workshops conducted in late August, two Technical Advisory Committee meetings, and an online survey completed by approximately 1,600 respondents.

Staff sent outreach messages to 35 neighborhood groups and business associations in the vicinity of the three corridors, requesting an opportunity to meet and present. Staff have presented the project to several community organizations, including the Claremont-Elmwood Neighborhood Association, the Elmwood Merchants Association, the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District, the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, Berkeley Design Advocates, and Berkeley Neighbors for Housing and Climate Action.

Feedback from Community Organizations and Workshops 1 & 2 Community members and stakeholders consistently emphasized the importance of protecting and sustaining small, locally-owned businesses across the three corridors, including concerns that prolonged construction, rising rents, or redevelopment could displace existing shops and services. Many supported integrating retail with residential uses, pointing to examples such as a Costco project in Los Angeles that included housing above retail, and recommended smaller, more flexible storefronts to support a wider range of tenants. Commercial activity was noted to be uneven along the corridors, with active nodes near Zachary’s Pizza and Peet’s on Solano Avenue, and more inactive stretches further east. On North Shattuck, the CVS and Bank of America sites were cited as strong candidates for redevelopment, while on College Avenue,

Page 15 of 201 ends

Page 21 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 16 ends

business owners cautioned that increased height could harm the avenue’s historic character and long-standing shops. Several participants favored targeting retail to strategic “nodes” rather than requiring it uniformly, particularly where ground-floor retail is not viable, and others raised concerns that zoning changes could threaten small business livelihoods. They expressed interest in policies to support displaced businesses. They also noted a desire for new buildings to accommodate restaurants and food businesses and raised questions about high retail vacancies.

Housing variety and affordability emerged as major priorities. Participants supported providing diverse housing types, including varied sizes, income levels, household types, and senior-friendly designs, and called for deeper affordability commitments beyond state minimums. Many noted that most new housing has been rental and focused on students, raising concerns about its ability to serve families, middle-income residents, and community members seeking ownership opportunities.

Skepticism was voiced about supply-only approaches to affordability, with fears that new market-rate units could raise surrounding rents. Other participants expressed support for limiting any zoning constraints to the greatest extent feasible, in order to maximize new housing production at all affordability levels. On College Avenue, some recommended focusing higher-density housing on wider, nearby corridors such as Claremont Avenue rather than on the College Avenue corridor itself. In Workshop 2, participants emphasized strong interest in affordable housing but skepticism about actual production levels.

Participants placed strong emphasis on preserving each corridor’s unique “flavor,” charm, and scale. They asked that new development be compatible with existing urban fabric, avoid blanket zoning changes that could erode local identity, and incorporate sensitive massing and height transitions. Many urged the City to consider shadow studies and detailed massing analysis to protect light, air, and the pedestrian experience. Participants reiterated concerns about design and scale, including ground- floor transitions to adjacent residential areas, and called for objective design standards.

They requested human-scale design, while also noting that controls should not be so limited that they allow unattractive design. Safety was also raised, with participants noting unsafe crossings for children and asking for streetscape and right-of-way improvements, as well as corridor-specific comprehensive planning.

Parking, access, and infrastructure were also recurring concerns. Stakeholders reported limited parking for customers, residents, and workers, particularly in the Elmwood and along Solano Avenue, and suggested exploring structured or shared parking solutions, including decks over existing sites. Additional EV charging stations and better loading/unloading areas were requested. Some supported reducing on-street parking to widen sidewalks and improve the pedestrian realm, while others stressed the importance of maintaining adequate parking to sustain retail activity. Several participants also questioned open space and park standards, noting that increased housing would increase demand for public space.

Page 16 of 201 ends

Page 22 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 17 ends

Mobility, public realm, and environmental quality were cited as areas for improvement. Suggestions included expanding public transit, increasing walkability and bikeability, and investing in wider sidewalks, bulb-outs, and parklets to activate streets and support local businesses. Traffic congestion, particularly at intersections such as Ashby and College, was a common concern. Many asked for environmentally sensitive design in new projects, with attention to tree canopy, stormwater management, and green infrastructure.

Feedback from Planning Commission Meeting on September 17 Public Comment
Public comment reflected a wide range of perspectives, with notable divisions between those opposed to rezoning and those urging more ambitious housing production. Many speakers expressed concern about the potential displacement of legacy businesses and the loss of retail spaces. Suggestions included providing relocation assistance to extend current rent levels to displaced businesses, adopting commercial vacancy taxes, and establishing protections for grocery stores as anchor tenants. Several community members raised objections to the format of public comment at community workshops, stating that input is sometimes misrepresented or dismissed, and criticized communications around the application of the State Density Bonus Law.

Opponents emphasized that taller buildings would disrupt the small-scale character and historic identity of the corridors, particularly in the Elmwood, and raised safety concerns related to fire evacuation routes and infrastructure capacity. Others questioned whether Berkeley has already provided sufficient rental housing and argued that additional density would not lower rents or improve livability. In contrast, many younger residents and long-time renters spoke in support of upzoning, citing the need to address the housing shortage, create opportunities for multi-generational living, and revitalize businesses through increased foot traffic. Supporters argued that denser housing would make Berkeley more inclusive and sustainable, while also noting the need for more open space, tree canopy, and amenities to serve new residents.

Planning Commission Discussion
Commissioners emphasized the importance of the ground floor experience, with repeated calls to prioritize active, pedestrian-oriented storefronts and protect space for small and legacy businesses. Several Commissioners noted that ground-floor residential could be acceptable in limited cases if designed with stoops, lobbies, or amenity spaces that contribute to a lively streetscape. Commissioners also stressed the need to study commercial vacancies and understand why recently-built retail spaces remain empty.

On building form, Commissioners generally agreed that height should not be the central issue; rather, the focus should be on quality design, transitions to adjacent neighborhoods, active and economically-viable ground floor spaces, and walkable

Page 17 of 201 ends

Page 23 ends

Corridors Zoning Update WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 18 ends

streets. Views on stepbacks were mixed, with some supporting step-downs on the neighborhood side and others cautioning against rigid requirements that limit flexibility in building design. Commissioners further emphasized the importance of including a variety of unit types, serving households of different sizes and incomes.

Several Commissioners raised concerns about confining new housing to only three corridors, suggesting that the scope of rezoning may be too narrow. They encouraged consideration of adjacent street redesigns and public realm improvements, particularly along North Shattuck. Overall, Commissioners expressed broad support for significantly expanding housing opportunities, if design standards are objective, retail vitality is preserved, and small businesses are meaningfully protected.

The table below lists questions presented by staff to the Planning Commission, and a summary of their responses.

Page 18 of 201 ends

Page 24 ends

Alternative 1 or
Alternative 2
Of the two approaches
(Alternative 1- Medium Density
or Alternative 2- Higher
Density), which option do you
believe best meets Berkeley’s
goals of increasing housing in
high-resource areas while
maintaining each of the
corridors’ unique character?
Commissioners emphasized the importance of being more
ambitious with building heights. They noted that the discussion should center less on height itself and more on ensuring a high- quality pedestrian experience.

Upper floor Stepbacks:

Alternative 1, or
Alternative 2, or
Alternative 3
Of the three approaches, which
option do you believe helps
reduce the perceived height of
the building?
Commissioners highlighted the need for appropriate rear setbacks when buildings abut residential lots.

Retail and Ground Floor
Uses: Alternative 1 or
Alternative 2
Where should retail be
requi
red? What design
strategies support small
businesses?
Commissioners agreed that active ground floor uses are critical. If ground-floor residential is permitted, it should contribute to an attractive and walkable pedestrian environment.

Residential on Ground
Floors
Where, and under what
conditions, should ground-floor
residential be permitted?
Commissioners reiterated that ground-floor residential should be carefully designed to ensure an active, pedestrian-friendly experience.

Page 19 of 201 ends

Page 25 ends

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/ Support for Existing
Businesses During
Redevelopment
What strategies could mitigate
business disruption or
displacement during
redevelopment?
Commissioners reiterated support for staff’s next steps, including having Strategic Economics study the impacts of redevelopment on existing businesses and potential
strategies to mitigate disruption and displacement.

Design Standards
In addition to updating the
zoning's development
standards, should the project
team advance
recommendations for additional,
more detailed objective design
standards to be included in the
new zoning?
Commissioners supported advancing objective design
standards, particularly those that reinforce the quality of the pedestrian environment.

Additional Feedback
Are there other standards or
community benefits that should
be included?
-
Community Engagement
What additional community
engagement activities should be
conducted?
-

Page 20 of 201 ends

Page 26 ends

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this informational report. Possible future actions will be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA).

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
City Council feedback and direction will guide staff and the consultant team in refining zoning standards and preparing draft zoning amendments for Planning Commission and Council consideration in 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Staff resources and consultant support for drafting zoning standards and conducting the associated environmental review are already funded through the adopted budget. Any additional fiscal impacts will be identified in future staff reports.

CONTACT PERSON
Uttara Ramakrishnan, Associate Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510- 981-7483
Attachments:
1: Draft Alternatives Report (Attached)
2: Existing Conditions Report (Attached)
3: Summary of Community Workshop 2 (Attached)
4: Summary of Community Workshop 1 (Link:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley%20Corridors%20Zoning% 20Update_Workshop%20%231%20Summary_0.pdf)

Page 21 of 201 ends

Page 27 ends

Internal

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update
Alternatives Report
August 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 22 of 201 ends

Page 28 ends

Raimi + Associates 2 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................3 Purpose of the Report ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Community Engagement ............................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Zoning Framework ........................................................................................................... 4 Existing Zoning .................................................................................................................................................. 4 State Density Bonus Law Interpretation ................................................................................................. 6 Redevelopment Potential .............................................................................................................................. 8 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 14 Building Form Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 15 Density Analysis of Zoning Alternatives............................................................................................... 28 Retail/Commercial Location Alternatives ........................................................................................... 29

Table of Figures
Figure 1 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Project Areas and Other Recent Rezoning Projects ............................. 4 Figure 2 Example Project in the C-NS zone ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Redevelopment Potential on Solano Avenue .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Redevelopment Potential on North Shattuck ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5 Redevelopment Potential on College Avenue ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 Draft Building Massing Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7 Alternative Retail 2 on Solano ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 8 Alternative Retail 2 on North Shattuck ............................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 9 Alternative Retail 2 on College ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Table of Tables
Table 1 Total Parcel Area by Redevelopment Potential ............................................................................................................. 11 Table 2 Typical Building Typologies by Construction Type and Cost .................................................................................. 13 Table 3 Base Zoning Comparison Across Berkeley Corridors ................................................................................................. 14 Table 4 Zoning Alternatives: Maximum Building Height .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 5 Upper Floor Step Back Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6 Estimated Residential Growth Ranges of Zoning Alternatives ............................................................................... 28

Page 23 of 201 ends

Page 29 ends

Raimi + Associates 3 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Introduction
Purpose of the Report
This document provides context and outlines zoning and development standard alternatives for the Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update project. The rezoning project includes three Berkeley corridors: upper Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and the commercial portions of College Avenue. The zoning and development standard alternatives will be presented to the community in August 2025 and will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in October/November 2025. At that time, the Planning Commission will send a recommendation to City Council and City Council will select a preferred alternative. Upon selecting the preferred alternative, the consultant team and City staff will work together on draft zoning and G eneral Plan changes that will implement the selected alternative. In the Spring of 2026, staff will bring the potential zoning and potential General Plan changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption.

Community Engagement
The community will have multiple opportunities to provide input to the City and consultant team on the draft alternatives and proposed zoning changes. Upcoming meetings and opportunities include the following:

May 1, 2025 – Virtual Community Meeting
(visit the project website to view the first community meeting presentation) Community Survey (Estimated Date Range: September/October 2025) August 20, 2025 – North Shattuck Community Meeting
August 26, 2025 – College Avenue Community Meeting
August 27, 2025 – Solano Avenue Community Meeting
September 17, 2025 – Planning Commission Study Session
November 18 or December 2, 2025 – City Council Study Session February-April 2026 – Planning Commission/City Council Hearings Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update is to study and implement zoning changes to increase housing opportunities in the city’s highest-resource areas, specifically along Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue. These areas have been identified as priority corridors by Berkeley City Council and Program 27 of the City’s Housing Element 2023-2031 to address housing scarcity, promote fair housing, and overcome barriers to development.

Project Description
The Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update will change the development standards of existing zoning districts that apply to the three project areas to increase the allowable height, density, and massing to allow for mixed-use and residential development. The zoning update may also change allowed land uses within each district. The Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update will not redesign streets, sidewalks, or the public right -of-way along the three corridors nor propose new parks and public open spaces in those areas.

Page 24 of 201 ends

Page 30 ends

Raimi + Associates 4 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Existing Zoning Framework
Existing Zoning
This section summarizes current development standards in the zoning districts that apply to the three project areas and other key Berkeley corridors and rezoning projects (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Project Areas and Other Recent Rezoning Projects Berkeley Corridors Project Areas
Building form and massing are generally regulated by height, building setbacks, lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the three corridors. FAR maximums only apply to non -residential development or non- residential portions of mixed-use developments. For non-residential and mixed-use developments, the maximum lot coverage is 100% across the three corridors. Where properties abut residential districts, which occurs along rear property lines on most parcels within each corridor, minimum rear and side street setbacks limit lot coverage. Additional ground floor and upper floor building setbacks are required for residential-only projects.

Solano Avenue
The existing commercial zone that applies to the Solano Avenue project area is Solano Commercial (C -SO).

The C-SO zone allows for a maximum height of 28 feet and 2 stories. The maximum allowable FAR in the C-SO zone for non-residential and mixed-use development is 2.0. There is no maximum FAR for residential-only projects.

Page 25 of 201 ends

Page 31 ends

Raimi + Associates 5 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report North Shattuck
The existing commercial zones that apply to the North Shattuck project area are North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) and Corridor Commercial (C-C).

The C-NS zone allows for a maximum height of 35 feet and 3 stories for non-residential and mixed-use development and 28 feet and 2 stories for residential-only development. The maximum allowable FAR in the C-NS zone for non-residential and mixed-use development is 1.0. There is no maximum FAR for residential- only projects.

The C-C zone allows for a maximum height of 40 feet and 2 stories for non-residential development, 40 feet and 3 stories for mixed-use development and 35 feet and 3 stories for residential-only development. The maximum height of mixed-use developments can be increased to 50 feet and 4 stories with the issuance of a Use Permit. The maximum allowable FAR in the C-C zone for non-residential and mixed-use development is

3.0. There is no maximum FAR for residential-only projects.

College Avenue
The existing commercial zones that apply to the College Avenue project area are Elmwood Commercial (C -E) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N).

The C-E zone allows for a maximum height of 28 feet and 2 stories for non-residential and mixed-use development and 35 feet and 3 stories for residential-only development. The maximum allowable FAR in the C-E zone for non-residential and mixed-use development is 1.0 on corner lots and 0.8 on all other lots. There is no maximum FAR for residential-only projects.

The C-N zone allows for a maximum of 3 stories for mixed-use or residential development and 2 stories for non-residential-only. The maximum allowable height is 35 feet for all types of development. The maximum allowable FAR for non-residential and mixed-use development is 3.0. There is no maximum FAR for residential-only projects.

Other Berkeley Corridors and Rezoning Projects
Adeline Corridor
The existing commercial zone that applies to the Adeline Corridor area is Adeline Corridor Commercial (C- AC). The C-AC zone was rezoned in 2020 as part of the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan. The rezoning includes development standards for 4 tiers of density depending on the percentage of affordable housing provided on- site in three sub-areas: South Shattuck, North Adeline, and South Adeline.

The South Shattuck sub-area allows for base height of 45 feet and 4 stories, base FAR of 2.5 and base residential density of 120 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Mixed-use and residential projects may go up to 8 stories, 5.5 FAR, and 300 du/acre residential density, if they provide 25% affordable housing on-site.

The North and South Adeline sub-areas allow for base height of 35 feet and 3 stories, base FAR of 2.0 and base residential density of 100 du/acre. Mixed-use and residential projects may go up to 7 stories, 5.0 FAR, and 250 du/acre residential density, if they provide 25% affordable housing on-site.

University Avenue
The existing commercial zone that applies to the University Avenue corridor is University Commercial (C-U).

The C-U zone includes different development standards depending on location (inside or outside of designated Node Areas, North side or South side of the corridor) and use (non-residential, mixed-use, or residential-only). FAR maximums only apply to non-residential development or non-residential portions of mixed-use developments.

For Node Areas, the C -U zone allows for a maximum height of 48 feet and 4 stories for mixed-use development and 40 feet and 3 stories for non-residential development. The maximum allowable FAR for Node Areas is 3.0 for development on the South side of University Avenue and 2.5 for development on the North side of the corridor. Residential-only development is not allowed in Node Areas.

Page 26 of 201 ends

Page 32 ends

Raimi + Associates 6 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Outside Node Areas, the C-U zone allows for a maximum height of 36 feet and 3 stories for all types of development. The maximum allowable FAR outside Node Areas is 2.5 for development on the South side of University Avenue and 2.2 for development on the North side of the corridor.

San Pablo Avenue
The existing commercial zone that applies to the San Pablo Avenue corridor is West Berkeley Commercial (C- W). This area is going through a Specific Plan process and will likely increase the maximum height and density throughout the corridor.

The C-W zone currently allows for a maximum height of 40 feet and 3 stories for all types of development.

The maximum allowable FAR in the C-W zone is 3.0. The FAR maximum only applies to non-residential development or non-residential portions of mixed-use developments.

Middle Housing
Middle Housing zoning changes allow for duplexes, triplexes/fourplexes, courtyard apartments, and other small-scale multi-family housing types in all Single-Family Residential (R-1), Restricted Two-Family Residential (R-2), Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A), and Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) districts to increase the supply of housing in a range of sizes. These changes allow for more mixed housing types and sizes, particularly infill housing in high-resource neighborhoods close to jobs, public transit, quality schools, parks, and neighborhood commercial activity.

These zoning changes will permit multi-unit housing in low-density residential districts by changing rules related to building height, setbacks (the distance a building must be from a neighbor’s property line), lot coverage (the total amount of a lot that can be occupied by buildings), density (how many units are allowed on a single lot), and residential additions.

City Council adopted the Middle Housing Zoning Amendments ordinance on July 8, 2025. The zoning changes will be effective November 1, 2025.

State Density Bonus Law Interpretation
Under the State Density Bonus Law (density bonus), projects that include on-site affordable housing qualify for a density bonus of up to 100% of the allowable density depending on the percentage of affordable units and the level of affordability.

Since the three corridors don’t include density standards, to calculate the allowed density under the State Density Bonus Law, projects must calculate the maximum allowable residential floor area and number of units based on the maximum allowable building envelope that meets the development standards in the zoning. This building envelope becomes the “Base Project” for the purpose of calculating the proposed density. Characteristics of the final proposed project that includes the density bonus --such as unit size, design and amenities--must generally be consistent with the Base Project.

The City of Berkeley’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires at least 20% of the residential units in a project to be affordable to Very Low Income (VLI)1 or Lower-Income (LI) Households2. At least 50% of the required Affordable Units in the project must be affordable to VLI Households. In lieu of providing some or all required Affordable Units, project applicants may choose to pay an in-lieu fee.

By meeting the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on-site, most projects automatically qualify for a 35-50% density bonus. Most recent multi-family projects in Berkeley have included 15% of the base zoning at VLI and paid an in-lieu fee for the remaining 5% which gives the project a 50% density bonus. A project with 20% of units at VLI would receive a 70% density bonus. A project with 15% VLI units and 15% Moderate-Income3 (MI) units would receive a 100% density bonus.

1 "Very Low Income Household" is defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50105. 2 “Lower-Income Household" is defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. 3 Moderate-Income Household” is defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50093.

Page 27 of 201 ends

Page 33 ends

Raimi + Associates 7 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Figure 2 outlines the affordable housing and density outcomes of an example project on a 10,450 square-foot lot in the C-NS district. The “Base” column describes a potential project under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and existing zoning with a maximum allowable height of 3 stories. The two columns on the right of the “Base” column describe a potential project using a 50% and a 100% State Density Bonus.

Figure 2 Example Project in the C-NS zone

Page 28 of 201 ends

Page 34 ends

Raimi + Associates 8 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Redevelopment Potential
Sites Most Likely to Redevelop
The total parcel area across the three corridors is 35 acres. The team analyzed each parcel to determine the likelihood for redevelopment. About 50-60 percent of the total project area was determined unlikely to redevelop or very difficult to redevelop. These parcels include historic sites, residential buildings, office buildings, sites with challenging dimensions (narrow or shallow), sites with existing successful businesses, and small sites with rent-controlled units. While it is always possible for a site to redevelop, for the purposes of this study, these parcels were assumed to not redevelop.

Only 14.6 acres or about 40% of the total parcel acreage within the three corridors is considered likely to be redeveloped. The team categorized these sites into three groups:

A. High Redevelopment Potential
• Vacant lots.
• Large lots, larger than 10,000 sf (e.g., the bank sites and CVS Pharmacy sites). These lots have high potential to redevelop as they are large enough to accommodate financially feasible building types .

These sites also include business uses that have diminishing demand, have seen market consolidation, and/or may no longer be the highest value and best use of the land. • Medium to large corner lots with surface parking (e.g., 7-Eleven on College, Post Office on College, old Virginia Bakery site on Shattuck). These lots have higher potential for redeveloping, as they are large enough to accommodate more financially feasible building types and the current amount of development or current use may no longer be the highest value use of the land.

B. Modest Redevelopment Potential
• Corner lots with one- to two-story older structures on them. These lots have modest potential to redevelop, as they currently have low-scale existing development on them, and they have the ability to provide on-site parking with access from side streets. • Mid-block lots with one- to two-story older structures on them. These lots have modest potential to redevelop, as they currently have low-scale existing development on them but are less likely to redevelop than corner lots due to their inability to provide on-site parking because of a lack of access from side streets. Mid-block lots may have a greater redevelopment potential if adjoining lots are assembled into larger parcels, particularly with corner lots.

C. Special Conditions
• Grocery store sites. These are large sites that are physically ideal for redevelopment, but their redevelopment potential depends on the corporate decision to close one or more of the stores.

Redevelopment into a mixed-use building replacing the same grocery store is unlikely. Due to these special conditions, only the Andronico’s sites on Solano Avenue and North Shattuck are considered potentially likely to redevelop. The Safeway site on North Shattuck is not considered likely to redevelop because it recently went through a major architectural upgrade. • City-owned sites. These include the surface parking lot and the Fire Station along College Avenue.

These lots have very low redevelopment potential. The city parking lot is very tight physically and redevelopment is difficult because of site dimensions and required service access to the buildings fronting College Avenue.

Page 29 of 201 ends

Page 35 ends

Raimi + Associates 9 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Figure 3 Redevelopment Potential on Solano Avenue
(Total Redevelopment Potential Area: 63% of Total Project Area)

Page 30 of 201 ends

Page 36 ends

Raimi + Associates 10 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Figure 4 Redevelopment Potential on North Shattuck
(Total Redevelopment Potential Area: 37% of Total Project Area) N

Page 31 of 201 ends

Page 37 ends

Raimi + Associates 11 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Figure 5 Redevelopment Potential on College Avenue
(Total Redevelopment Potential Area: 22% of Total Project Area) N

Page 32 of 201 ends

Page 38 ends

Raimi + Associates 12 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Table 1 Total Parcel Area by Redevelopment Potential

Total Potential
Redevelopment
Area (A+B+C)
Very Low / No
Redevelopment
Potential
A. High
Redevelopment
Potential
B. Modest
Redevelopment
Potential
C. Special
Conditions
Solano
Parcel Area 6.4 acres 3.7 acres 0.9 acres 4.1 acres 1.3 acres % Total Area 63% 37% 10% 40% 13%
North
Shattuck
Parcel Area 6.7 acres 11.4 acres 3.4 acres 1.3 acres 2.0 acres % Total Area 37% 63% 19% 7% 11%
College
Parcel Area 1.5 acres 5.4 acres 1.0 acres 0.5 acres 0 acres % Total Area 22% 66% 16% 7% 0%
Total
Parcel Area 14.6 acres 20.4 acres 5.4 acres 5.9 acres 3.3 acres % Total Area 42% 58% 16% 17% 9%

Page 33 of 201 ends

Page 39 ends

Raimi + Associates 13 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Financially Feasible Building Types
Financial feasibility is based on market rental rates, cost of construction, and soft costs like design and other professional services, real estate taxes, insurance, municipal fees, and construction financing, as well as broader economic factors that determine the financial returns required to attract investment. Stakeholders interviewed for this study mentioned that few rental projects in Berkeley are feasible in the current market, citing currently high interest rates and construction costs, together with the large number of new apartments added to the housing supply in Berkeley and Oakland in the last decade. Consequently, higher density rental developments generally are not feasible under current conditions.

There are two major factors in determining the economic “sweet spot” for the density of a new development.

The first is economies of scale – higher density projects are able to distribute the costs of land acquisition, predevelopment, design, engineering, and other services over more units and floor area. The second, and countervailing, factor is the type of building. Higher density buildings are more expensive to build when elevated standards of construction are required with increases in building height. Table 2 b elow shows typical building types and the different construction types used for each prototype. A Type V building is constructed from all wood framing, which is the least expensive to build but limits building height to four stories. Taller buildings, which require a higher standard of fireproofing, must utilize Type 3A or Type IV construction at a cost premium, and/or Type I fire resistive concrete or steel, which is the most expensive construction type. Type I concrete construction is also appropriate for the initial floor(s) of a mid- rise structure, which may include a parking garage or retail spaces with high ceilings.

All of the building prototypes analyzed for this study are considered mid- rise building types (between 4 and 7 or 8 stories, depending on site conditions). Nine-story buildings and taller are classified as high-rises that must use all Type I construction. For this reason, nine-story high-rises are generally the least feasible building height, because they use the most expensive construction type without benefiting from the economies of scale of taller high-rises. The optimal height of a mid-rise, however, will depend on how construction costs balance against the less variable costs mentioned above.

Table 2 Typical Building Typologies by Construction Type and Cost Number of Stories Construction Type Construction Cost
4-Story (mid-rise) Type V $
5-Story (mid-rise) 4 over 1; Type V over Type 1
5 stories of Type 3A or Type IV $$
6-Story (mid-rise) 5 over 1; Type 3A or Type IV over
Type 1 $$
7/8-Story (mid-rise) 5 over 2/3; Type 3A or Type IV
over Type 1 $$$
9 or More Stories (high-rise) Highrise; Type I, Type II, or Type IV Mass Timber $$$$$

Page 34 of 201 ends

Page 40 ends

Raimi + Associates 14 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Summary of Alternatives
This section summarizes proposed building forms and zoning alternatives for the Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue corridors. The building form alternatives set the maximum height and massing which regulates project density. In addition to the building form alternatives, this section of the report outlines a few other potential development standards and design concepts such as whether to require ground floor commercial, upper floor step backs, or other design issues like location of utilities and refuse infrastructure. The City of Berkeley does not have parking minimums, so parking is not addressed in the alternatives.

The three corridors are within Berkeley’s highest resource and highest-income neighborhoods, characterized by access to essential amenities and opportunities that promote well -being and economic advancement for residents. The proposed zoning alternatives increase the maximum allowable height along the three corridors to match or exceed the maximum allowable height along other, lower-resourced or lower-income Berkeley neighborhoods, such as Adeline Street, Telegraph Avenue, University Avenue, Downtown and San Pablo (currently undergoing a Specific Plan and likely upzoning). The proposed zoning alternatives will allow the three corridors to provide their fair share of housing in proximity to transit, jobs, quality schools, open spaces, and public services. Table 3 compares the existing and proposed base zoning alternative maximum allowable number of stories along the three corridors to the existing maximum allowable number of stories along other Berkeley corridors.

Table 3 Base Zoning Comparison Across Berkeley Corridors Base Zoning: Maximum
Allowable Number of Stories Corridors
2 stories Solano Avenue (C-SO ) (Existing)
College Avenue (C-E) (Existing)
3 stories
College Avenue in Rockridge (C-N) (Existing/No Proposed Change) North Shattuck (C-NS) (Existing)
Adeline Corridor (C-AC), North and South Adeline
San Pablo Existing (C-W)* (Existing)
College Avenue (C-E) (Proposed Alt 1)
4 stories
Adeline Corridor (C-AC), South Shattuck
North Shattuck south of Virginia (C-C) (Existing/No Proposed Change) Telegraph Avenue (C-C)
University Avenue (C-U)
College Avenue (C-E) (Proposed Alt 2)
Solano Avenue (C-SO) (Proposed Alt 1)
5 Stories
San Pablo Draft Specific Plan (C-W) (Proposed)*
Downtown Buffer (C-DMU)**
Solano Avenue (C-SO) (Proposed Alt 2)
North Shattuck (C-NS) (Proposed Alt 1)
6 Stories North Shattuck (C-NS) (Proposed Alt 2)
7/8 Stories Downtown Core/C orridor (C-DMU)**
Telegraph Avenue, Southside Spec ific Plan (C-T)**
* San Pablo (C-W) is undergoing a Specific Plan and likely to be upzoned. The draft document includes a base zoning of 5 stories with a higher base zoning at specific nodes.
** Downtown (C-D MU) and Telegraph Avenue (C-T) zoning have height standards in feet. For this table, the height maximum was translated into maximum stories.

Page 35 of 201 ends

Page 41 ends

Raimi + Associates 15 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Building Form Alternatives
This section outlines two zoning alternatives that would govern building form in each of the project areas.

These alternatives are proposed to apply to the C-SO, C-NS, and C-E zones.4 The two alternatives include proposed maximum heights in the base zoning and the estimated maximum height that would be allowed for projects eligible to receive a 50% density bonus. Additional standards for building setbacks, lot coverage, and maximum FAR per floor would be developed after a preferred alternative is selected.

Detailed sections and renderings of the alternatives are shown below the additional draft standards.

Maximum Height
Alternative Form 1 – Medium Density. This alternative sets the building form at a maximum height to create a 0.8:1 building height-to-street width ratio for each corridor area. This alternative is the lowest in scale and density. It increases the maximum base height on Solano Avenue and North Shattuck by two stories and increases the maximum base height on College Avenue by one story.

Alternative Form 2 – Higher Density . This alternative sets the maximum base height one story taller than Alternative 1. This alternative would allow for buildings on Solano Avenue and North Shattuck to maximize the mid-rise building type with a 50% density bonus. College Avenue would have a maximum of 6 stories with the 50% density bonus.

Table 4 Zoning Alternatives: Maximum Building Height

Existing Zoning Alternative Form 1
Medium Density
Alternative Form 2
Higher Density
Solano Avenue (C-SO)
(85 ft wide)
2 stories
28 ft
4 stories
48 ft
5 stories
58 ft
With 50% Density Bonus 3-4 stories 5-6 stories 7-8 stories Building-to-Street Ratio (0.33:1) @ 2 stories (0.8:1) (0.9:1) Estimated Density* 35-85 du/acre 150 du/acre 175 du/acre North Shattuck (C-NS)
(94 ft wide)
3 stories
35 ft
5 stories
58 ft
6 stories
68 ft
With 50% Density Bonus 5-6 stories 7-8 stories 8-9 stories Building-to-Street Ratio (0.37:1) @ 2 stories (0.83:1) (0.94:1) Estimated Density* 70-170 du/acre 175 du/acre 200 du/acre College Avenue (C-E)
(60 ft wide)
2 stories
28 ft
3 stories
38 ft
4 stories
48 ft
With 50% Density Bonus 3-4 stories 4-5 stories 5-6 stories Building-to-Street Ratio (0.5:1) @ 2 stories (0.8:1) (1.13:1) Estimated Density* 35-85 du/acre 85 du/acre 130 du/acre * Estimated average density based on a mixed-use building with an average unit size of 1,000 sf

4 After analysis of the impact of the State Density Bonus Law and specific redevelopment potential of the corridor areas within the C -C and C-N zones, these areas of the North Shattuck (South of Virginia Street) and College Avenue (Rockridge) corridors will retain their existing zoning.

Page 36 of 201 ends

Page 42 ends

Raimi + Associates 16 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Additional Building Form Standards
Building Massing
Building massing standards would limit where building area can be located on the site. The draft standards below show that the zoning could, for example, limit floor area above the ground floor at the rear of the lot, concentrating the building’s mass along the corridor. This would create a transition to properties behind the corridor. Along side streets, the building mass could be allowed to continue along the street frontage up to 3 stories in height.

Draft Building Massing Standards:
• Floor area above the 1st story for all lots would be restricted to the first 70 feet of building area measured from the corridor frontage.
• For corner lots, additional floor area would be allowed up to the 3rd story for building massing within 60 feet of the building setback line along a side street.
• All buildings would have a minimum 10 feet rear setback when abutting residential zoning districts.

Figure 6 Draft Building Massing Standards

Page 37 of 201 ends

Page 43 ends

Raimi + Associates 17 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Upper Floor Step Backs
Upper floor step back standards may further sculpt a building’s massing. The below alternatives for upper floor step backs would require the building façade to step back above a certain height to reduce the perceived height of a building. The alternatives range from not requiring an upper floor step back to requiring step backs on both street facing facades. Table 5 outlines upper floor step back alternatives by corridor. The diagrams below show diagrams of massing scenarios. The corridor street refers to Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue. The side street refers to cross streets that intersect the corridor streets.

Alternative Upper Floor Step Backs 1
This alternative would require no upper floor step backs on street-facing facades.

Alternative Upper Floor Step Backs 2
This alternative would require no upper floor step backs on corridor-facing facades but would require upper floor step backs on side street-facing facades to step down building massing.

Page 38 of 201 ends

Page 44 ends

Raimi + Associates 18 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Alternative Upper Floor Step Backs 3
This alternative would require upper floor step backs on all street-facing facades to step down building massing.

Table 5 Upper Floor Step Back Alternatives

Alternative 1
No Upper Floor Step Back
Alternative 2
Upper Floor Step Back
on Side Streets
Alternative 3
Upper Floor Step Back
on All Streets
Corridor
Street
Side
Street
Corridor
Street
Side
Street
Corridor
Street
Side
Street
Solano
Avenue
None None None 6 feet above
4th story
6 feet
above 4th
story
6 feet above
4th story
North
Shattuck
None None None 6 feet above
5th story
6 feet
above 5th
story
6 feet above
5th story
College
Avenue
None None None 10 feet above
3rd story
10 feet
above 3rd
story
10 feet above
3rd story

Residential-only Buildings
The existing zoning has lower maximum heights, special building setbacks, and lower allowed lot coverage for residential-only buildings. To encourage more housing, the proposed zoning alternatives do not have special form standards for residential-only buildings except for building setbacks. Residential buildings would be allowed to be of the same size and scale as mixed-use buildings.

Page 39 of 201 ends

Page 45 ends

Raimi + Associates 19 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Solano Avenue
Existing Zoning
Solano
Avenue
(C-SO)
Existing
Zoning
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
2 stories
28 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
3-4 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
5-6 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Solano
Avenue
(C-SO)
Alternative 1
Medium
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
4 stories
48 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
5-6 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
7-8 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 2
Solano
Avenue
(C-SO)
Alternative 2
Higher
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
5 stories
58 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
7-8 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
10-11 stories

Page 40 of 201 ends

Page 46 ends

Raimi + Associates 20 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Solano Avenue
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 41 of 201 ends

Page 47 ends

Raimi + Associates 21 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Solano Avenue
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 42 of 201 ends

Page 48 ends

Raimi + Associates 22 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report North Shattuck
Existing Zoning
North
Shattuck
(C-NS)
Existing
Zoning
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
3 stories
35 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
5-6 stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
7-8 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 1
North
Shattuck
(C-NS)
Alternative 1
Medium
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
5 stories
58 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
7-8 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
10-11 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 2
North
Shattuck
(C-NS)
Alternative 2
Higher
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
6 stories
68 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
8-9 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
11-12 stories

Page 43 of 201 ends

Page 49 ends

Raimi + Associates 23 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report North Shattuck
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 44 of 201 ends

Page 50 ends

Raimi + Associates 24 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report North Shattuck
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 45 of 201 ends

Page 51 ends

Raimi + Associates 25 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report College Avenue/Elmwood
Existing Zoning
College
Avenue
(C-E)
Existing
Zoning
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
2 stories
28 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
3-4 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
5-6 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 1
College
Avenue
(C-E)
Alternative 1
Medium
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
3 stories
38 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
4-5 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
5-6 stories
Base Zoning Alternative 2
College
Avenue
(C-E)
Alternative 2
Higher
Density
Base Zoning
Maximum
Height
4 stories
48 ft
With 50%
Density
Bonus
5-6 Stories
With 100%
Density
Bonus
7-8 stories

Page 46 of 201 ends

Page 52 ends

Raimi + Associates 26 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report College Avenue/Elmwood
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 47 of 201 ends

Page 53 ends

Raimi + Associates 27 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report College Avenue/Elmwood
Existing Zoning
Base Zoning Alternative 1
Base Zoning Alternative 2

Page 48 of 201 ends

Page 54 ends

Raimi + Associates 28 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Density Analysis of Zoning Alternatives
The following analysis shows the potential range of development based on the likelihood of redevelopment analysis noted above. Determining how many sites may redevelop within a certain timeframe is an inexact process that is based on several factors, including market analysis, past development cycles, property ownership patterns, property sizes, and professional experience. The estimated growth ranges below show the upper end of the density range, and higher development numbers, than what has occurred in previous market cycles in Berkeley. For sites considered to have High Redevelopment Potential, the ranges below represent 50% to 75% of the sites redeveloping. For sites considered to have Modest Redevelopment Potential, the ranges below represent 20% to 40% of the sites redeveloping. The ranges assume both Andronico’s locations will redevelop. For all cases, the build-out assumption meets the Building Form Alternatives which roughly matches the proposed Base Zoning Alternatives plus a 50% density bonus.

Table 6 Estimated Residential Growth Ranges of Zoning Alternatives

Alternative 1
Medium Density
+ 50% Density Bonus
Alternative 2
Higher Density
+ 50% Density Bonus
Solano
Estimated growth*
6 stories
400 - 550 units
7 stories
450 - 650 units
Estimated Density** 150 du/acre 175 du/acre
North Shattuck
Estimated growth*
7 stories
650 - 850 units
8 stories
750 - 1,000 units
Estimated Density** 175 du/acre 200 du/acre
College
Estimated growth*
4 stories
50 - 80 units
6 stories
80 - 130 units
Estimated Density** 85 du/acre 130 du/acre
Totals 1,100 - 1,600 units 1,300 - 1,780 units
* Estimated growth numbers rounded to nearest 10 or 50 units **Estimated average density based on a mixed-u se building with an average unit size of 1,000 sf

Page 49 of 201 ends

Page 55 ends

Raimi + Associates 29 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Alternatives Report Retail/Commercial Location Alternatives
The following retail alternatives outline where retail may be required and where other ground floor uses like office space or residential units may be allowed. The retail market has gone through seismic changes over the last decade and it is unlikely that each of these corridors will be able to support ground floor retail across all properties.

Alternative Retail 1
This alternative requires retail or retail-ready ground floor spaces along all areas of the C-E, C-SO, and C-NS corridor frontages.

Alternative Retail 2
This alternative targets retail in certain locations along each corridor to create future nodes of retail while allowing other areas of the corridors to have 100% residential projects or ground floor office spaces.

Allowing for residential-only projects and not requiring mixed-use would increase project feasibility and encourage more housing along the corridors (see Figures 7, 8, and 9).

Figure 7 Alternative Retail 2 on Solano
Figure 8 Alternative Retail 2 on North Shattuck
Figure 9 Alternative Retail 2 on College

N
N
N

Page 50 of 201 ends

Page 56 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update
Existing Conditions Report
March 5, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 51 of 201 ends

Page 57 ends

Raimi + Associates 2 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Contents
Overall Context ..................................................................................................................................3 Socioeconomic Context ................................................................................................................. 15 Policy Framework ............................................................................................................................ 18 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Housing Element Policy Framework .................................................................. 34 Appendix B: Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts ............................................................... 37 Appendix C: Allowed Uses in Residential Districts ................................................................ 43 Appendix D: Precedent Project Summary................................................................................ 46 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Typical Section of Shattuck Avenue in North Shattuck ................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Aerial View of the North Shattuck project area ............................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Typical Section of College Avenue .................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Aerial View of the College Avenue project area ............................................................................ 7 Figure 5: Typical Sections of Solano Avenue .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Aerial View of the Solano Avenue project area .............................................................................. 9 Figure 7: Project areas on HOLC Map of Alameda County Cities............................................................... 11 Figure 8: RCAAs in Berkeley ................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 9: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 10: Recent and Pipeline Development Heat Map ..............................................................................14 Figure 11: Age Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 12: Income Distribution ............................................................................................................................ 17 Table of Tables
Table 1: Berkeley Housing Element AFFH Policies .......................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Race and Ethnicity Distribution ........................................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Tenancy Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 17 Table 4: Zoning Districts by Project Area ........................................................................................................ 22 Table 5: Development Standards for Residential Zones .............................................................................. 24 Table 6: Development Standards for Commercial Zones ............................................................................ 25 Table 7: High-Level Uses ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 8: Historic Buildings .................................................................................................................................... 31

Page 52 of 201 ends

Page 58 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 3 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Overall Context
Purpose
The purpose of the Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update is to explore zoning changes to increase housing development in the city’s high-resource areas, specifically along Solano, North Shattuck, and College Avenues.

These areas have been identified as priorities by Berkeley City Council to address housing scarcity, promote fair housing, and overcome barriers to development. A key component of the project will be a detailed analysis of current land use and potential opportunities for residential growth along these corridors. Each area presents unique challenges, including existing development, land ownership, and community concerns.

The project will focus on understanding these dynamics and proposing strategies for effective zoning implementation, aligned with the City's goals of fostering environmental justice and social equity.

Project Area
The following section outlines a high-level overview of each of the project corridors. In addition to the summary information below, a project Mapbook includes visual representations of the following within the City of Berkeley and the project area boundaries:
• Public Transportation
• Existing Zoning
• General Plan Land Use
• Population by Race/Ethnicity
• Population by Age
• Median Income
• Renter-Occupied Housing
• Rent-Controlled Properties
• Recent Development (last 10 years)
• Pipeline Development
• Parcel Ownership (parcels that allow for aggregation) • Existing Land Use
• FAR
• Building Age
• Historic Buildings
• Parcel Size
• TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
• RCAA Map
To view the Mapbook, please follow this link.

Page 53 of 201 ends

Page 59 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 4 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report North Shattuck
Character and Use
Located just north of Downtown Berkeley, the North Shattuck area runs between Rose Street and Hearst Avenue. This half-mile stretch of Shattuck Avenue in the project area covers 78 parcels over approximately

19.3 acres. North Shattuck serves as the main corridor in the North Shattuck neighborhood and hosts a variety of commercial and residential uses, including two grocery stores and a national chain pharmacy.

Common uses include housing, restaurants, hair and beauty salons, clothing and accessory stores, co- working spaces, financial services, and realty services. North Shattuck features a total of 155 businesses, including approximately 298.181 square feet of commercial space. Food and beverage businesses make up 26.4% o f total businesses in the area. The North Shattuck area has a history of being key in the development of California Cuisine and the farm-to-table movement.

A typical section through Shattuck Avenue in the project area (Figure 1) features a right-of-way of about 95 feet, flanked by 1 and 2 story buildings on 120-foot-deep parcels. The current height standards allow new non-residential and mixed-use projects to be built up to 35 feet and three stories, while new residential-only projects can go up to 28 feet and two stories. A couple of pipeline developments currently underway are taking advantage of California’s density bonus law to add taller structures up to 7 and 8 stories, changing the character of this portion of Shattuck Avenue. Abutting properties feature a range of building types including single-family and larger scale multi-family projects up to 4 stories in height. New projects in these neighboring areas can be built up to 35 feet and up to 65 feet in certain areas on the east side of the corridor with an Administrative Use Permit.

Figure 1: Typical Section of Shattuck Avenue in North Shattuck

History of Development
Both residential and commercial development in the North Shattuck area began in the late 1870s when the Berkeley Branch Railroad was extended north from its original terminus at Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue to Shattuck Avenue and Vine Street. From the late 1800’s to 1948, Southern Pacific and Key System trains and streetcars provided transit services along many major corridors in the city and spurred the development of streetcar suburbs, including North Shattuck. The North Shattuck area has seen the most change in the last 20 years of the three corridors, including two sites that have 7-story mixed-use projects approved or under construction.

Page 54 of 201 ends

Page 60 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 5 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Figure 2: Aerial View of the North Shattuck project area

Page 55 of 201 ends

Page 61 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 6 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report College Avenue
Character and Use
Located just south of University of California Berkeley, the College Avenue area runs between Dwight Way to the north and Alcatraz Ave to the south. The one-mile stretch of College Avenue that makes up the project area covers 208 parcels over approximately 30.7 acres and serves as the main commercial corridor of the Elmwood neighborhood. College hosts a variety of residential and commercial uses, including medium to high-density residential and neighborhood-serving and small- to medium-scale commercial uses. About three quarters of the total parcels in the College Avenue project area are residentially zoned (155 parcels over 23.6 acres). The residentially zoned parcels are a mix of R-3 and R-2A zoned properties. Those in the R2-A zone are currently going through a zoning update as part of the Middle Housing project and will not be considered as part of this project. The College Avenue area features a total of 102 businesses, including approximately 132,500 square feet of commercial space. Food and beverage businesses make up 27.5% of total businesses in the area.

A typical section through College Avenue in the project area (Figure 3) features a right -of-way and building- to-building dimension of about 60 feet, flanked by 1 and 2 story buildings on parcels ranging in depth from 80 to 120 feet. The current height standards allow new non- residential and mixed-use projects to be built up to 28 feet and two stories and new residential-only projects to go up to 35 feet and three stories. Abutting properties on either side of the College Avenue corridor feature low- scale residential structures. New projects in these neighboring areas can be built up to 35 feet with an Administrative Use Permit.

Figure 3: Typical Section of College Avenue

History of Development
The residential properties of College Avenue developed as a streetcar suburb as residential development in the area boomed in the early 1900s. The residential subdivisions adjacent to College Avenue were the first areas of the city to be designated as single-family residential zones. College Avenue and the adjacent Elmwood neighborhood saw major development in the first quarter of the 20 th century as well as in the post-
war 1960s. The major decline in new development from the 1930s to the 1950s can be attributed to depression-era economic hardship and World War II. Since the post-war boom, there has been a lack of new development.

Page 56 of 201 ends

Page 62 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 7 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Figure 4: Aerial View of the College Avenue project area

Page 57 of 201 ends

Page 63 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 8 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Solano Avenue
Character and Use
Located in both the Thousand Oaks and Northbrae neighborhoods, the Solano Avenue area runs along Solano Avenue between The Alameda to the east and slightly west of Neilson Street to City limits. This half- mile stretch of Solano Avenue in the project area covers 74 parcels over approximately 10.8 acres and serves as the main commercial corridor for the adjacent Thousand Oaks and Northbrae neighborhoods. The majority of uses along this portion of Solano Avenue are neighborhood-serving commercial uses; common businesses include hair and beauty salons, restaurants, clothing stores, home furnishings stores, and realty services. The Solano Avenue area features a total of 138 businesses, including approximately 188.278 square feet of commercial space. Food and beverage businesses make up 23.2% of total businesses in the area.

A typical section through Solano Avenue in the project area (Figure 5) features a right-of-way and building- to-building dimension of about 90 feet, flanked by 1 and 2 story buildings on 1 15- to 120-foot-deep parcels.

The current height standards allow new projects to be built up to 28 feet and two stories. Abutting properties on either side of the Solano Avenue corridor feature low-scale residential structures. New projects in these neighboring areas can be built up to 35 feet with an Administrative Use Permit.

Figure 5: Typical Sections of Solano Avenue

History of Development
The Northbrae and Thousand Oaks communities abutting Solano Avenue first began developing in the early 20 th century as commuter suburbs, especially spurred by the relocation of thousands of San Francisco residents following the 1906 earthquake that shook the region. Three of Southern Pacific’s East Bay Electric Lines met at the intersections of Solano and Colusa Avenue—formerly referred to as Colusa Wye—offering access from the East Bay to San Francisco. Development along Solano Avenue in the Thousand Oaks/Northbrae area saw steady and minimal growth from the 1910s to the late 1990s. Since the turn of the century, there has been little to no development in the area. Additionally, the area has seen very little ownership parcel aggregation, as each individual storefront building is generally owned individually.

Page 58 of 201 ends

Page 64 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 9 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Figure 6: Aerial View of the Solano Avenue project area

Page 59 of 201 ends

Page 65 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 10 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) mandate was established by the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act) in 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination in housing—on the basis of age, race, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability —but requires federal agencies to combat the lingering effects of segregation and create real housing choice by implementing programs that further fair housing.

To further its commitment to protecting California residents’ right to fair housing, the California Legislature passed AB 686 in 2019 to expand fair housing requirements outlined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and AB 1304 to require cities to identify racial integration and segregation patterns locally and regionally in the development of their Housing Elements. These updated regulations require all state and local public agencies in California to address inequities resulting from prior patterns of segregation, as well as create new requirements for Housing Elements adopted after 2021.

AFFH in Berkeley
The City establishes its commitment to AFFH in Goal E (Table 1) of its recently adopted 6 th Cycle Housing Element.

Table 1: Berkeley Housing Element AFFH Policies
Goal E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley.

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

H-30 Accessible Ho using. Promote housing mobility by exceeding the accessibility requirements of the ADA and California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and by encouraging incorporation into new construction and rehabilitation the use of technologies and design features that cr eate universal accessibility.

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

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

In order to implement Goal E, the City has used state resources like the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity maps to identify the areas chosen for this project. Rezoning areas along the three project areas ensures that high resourced—and in many cases more affluent —areas accommodate their fair share of affordable housing, rather than concentrating new development in historically marginalized areas of the city.

Page 60 of 201 ends

Page 66 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 11 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Segregation and Redlining
Many neighborhoods in the city were shaped by segregation and exclusionary practices like redlining and racially restrictive covenants. Redlining, initiated by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) in the 1930s, categorized neighborhoods by desirability, often downgrading areas with Black and immigrant populations. The HOLC maps were primarily used by banks, real estate agents, and government agencies to assess the risk of offering home loans in different neighborhoods. The maps labeled certain parts of Berkeley as “hazardous” or “declining,” limiting homeownership opportunities and reinforcing segregation. These practices—alongside local housing covenants —reinforced racial inequalities, the effects of which persist today.

The Solano Avenue and College Avenue study areas were located in the A “Best” and B “Still Desirable” categories. North Shattuck was located adjacent to the B category but mostly within the C “Definitely Declining.” None of the project areas are located within or near the D “Hazardous” category. These classifications are likely to have impacted the project areas positively in maintaining a high level of resources and investment over time.

Figure 7: Project areas on HOLC Map of Alameda County Cities

Downzoning and Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
In the post-war era, several downzoning efforts occurred in Berkeley, reducing allowable densities, and limiting the construction of housing in many areas of the city. In 1951, the first downzoning action reclassified several areas of the City from R-3 and R-4 to a new, lower-density R-2A district. The new R-2A district was prevalent in the North Shattuck neighborhood and along the College Avenue corridor. In 1962, another downzoning action reduced the allowable densities in approximately 30% of the city.

Page 61 of 201 ends

Page 67 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 12 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report In addition to downzoning actions, the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance of 1973, a citizen -led initiative, further limited the production of housing in Berkeley by requiring use permits and public hearings for any new housing units in any zone and mandating public hearings for any demolition of a housing unit.

Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence
As a direct result of redlining and other exclusionary practices such as racial restrictive covenants, downzoning actions, and the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, the three project areas have historically seen a concentration of wealthy, predominantly white populations.

State law (Gov. Code §65583(c)(10)) requires that all jurisdictions analyze racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) in the development of the Housing Element of their General Plan. An RCAA describes an area where the populations are disproportionally white and affluent, highlighting the lasting impacts that segregation and other exclusionary policies had on community makeup.

As illustrated in Figure 8, Berkeley neighborhoods that are fully or partially* a RCAA are:
• Berkeley Hills
• Claremont
• Cragmont
• Elmwood
• Le Conte
• Live Oak
• Northbrae
• South Hampton
• Terrance View
• Thousand Oaks
• Westbrae
In order to equitably distribute the stock of affordable housing across the city, the City must actively incentivize housing development in these areas. HCD has identified Solano Avenue and College Avenue south of Ashby Avenue as RCAAs, so rezoning efforts along these portions of the project area would help the City undo the lasting effects of racial and economic segregation still impacting some communities.

Figure 8: RCAAs in Berkeley

Page 62 of 201 ends

Page 68 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 13 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
In 2017, the State Treasurer’s’ Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) established the California Fair Housing Task Force— a group of independent organizations and researched centers—to create an opportunity map that identifies areas across the state whose characteristics have been proved to support the educational, economic, and health well- being of low- income families.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map (Figure 9) is used to inform statewide policy for funding affordable housing as a part of the 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, as well as other state programs (e.g., 4% Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and HCD's Multifamily Housing Program).

Figure 9: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map

The three project areas fall in either a High or Highest Resource community . Ensuring that affordable housing options are equitably distributed across the city, especially in areas with h igh-quality transit, jobs, high- performing schools, and low exposure to environmental hazards and pollutants is a high priority to the City.

Rezoning the three project areas for housing will encourage new residential construction and increase access to affordable housing in these amenity-rich areas through the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires any new housing development to provide at least 20 percent affordable units.

Page 63 of 201 ends

Page 69 ends

Overall Context

Raimi + Associates 14 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Recent Housing Developments
The Recent Housing Development Heat Map (Figure 10) shows projects built within the last 10 years and approved multifamily housing projects, labeled as pipeline projects. The heat map shows that the majority of new housing is being built in the lower resourced areas and no new multifamily housing is being built in the RCAA areas mapped in Figure 8. The highest concentration of new housing has been along San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, Downtown, along Shattuck Avenue, and the Southside area along Telegraph. There are only 3 projects within the study areas; two 7-story projects in North Shattuck that are approved or under construction and one 11-unit project on College Avenue that is under construction.

Figure 10: Recent and Pipeline Development Heat Map

Page 64 of 201 ends

Page 70 ends

Socioeconomic Context

Raimi + Associates 15 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Socioeconomic Context
The below socioeconomic data represents the project areas and a small buffer; the addition of a 1⁄8-mile buffer around each project area provides insight on the communities surrounding the corridors. The below sections summarize four main socioeconomic categories: age, race/ethnicity, tenancy, and income.

Age
Age distribution provides insights into the community's life stage trends. A younger population may suggest a growing community with young families and schools, while an older demographic may indicate a retirement- friendly area with healthcare needs. Mixed age groups reflect intergenerational diversity, affecting community services, housing, and recreational activities.

The following are some insights drawn from the summary in Figure 11:
• Students and Young Professionals: North Shattuck and College have a notably higher proportion of young adults (18-34), at 49% and 42% respectively, compared to Solano (11%), hinting at dominant student and early career populations. College has a much higher percentage in the age group of 18-24, reflecting the student population while North Shattuck has a much higher percentage in the age group of 25-34, reflecting a larger percentage of graduate students and young professionals. • Families and Seniors: Solano has a higher proportion of seniors (25%) and the highest proportion of children (22%). It also has the lowest percentage of young adults. These statistic s imply it is an area of families with young school age children and retirees.

This suggests Solano is more family and retirement-friendly, while North Shattuck and College are more student or working-professional-focused areas.

Figure 11: Age Distribution

Race and Ethnicity
The racial and ethnic makeup of a community shapes its cultural and social landscape. A diverse population can bring a range of traditions, languages, and practices, enriching the community’s social fabric. However, it may also highlight challenges in terms of equity and access to resources. A less racially and ethnically diverse population in a neighborhood also signals the lasting impacts of segregation and other exclusionary policies at the local level.

The following are some insights drawn from the summary in Table 2:
• White is the majority group across all areas, with Solano (69%) and College (64%) having the highest percentages. North Shattuck is more racially diverse, with only 51% identifying as White, indicating greater variation in ethnic backgrounds compared to the other two areas. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Over 65
North Shattuck
College
Solano

Page 65 of 201 ends

Page 71 ends

Socioeconomic Context

Raimi + Associates 16 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report • Asian populations are notably higher in North Shattuck (35%) compared to College (20%) and Solano (16%), making North Shattuck the most significant Asian demographic area, possibly reflecting more cultural or community connections.
• The Black/African American population is small across all areas, with North Shattuck at 4%, slightly higher than the others.
• Hispanic/Latino populations are relatively small but higher in College (13%) and North Shattuck (11%) compared to Solano (7%).

North Shattuck appears to be the most ethnically diverse, particularly with a larger Asian presence and lower percentage of White residents, while Solano is less diverse, with a higher concentration of White residents. College strikes a middle ground between the two. North Shattuck is also the most densely populated of the three corridors and the closest to the university and downtown.

Table 2: Race and Ethnicity Distribution
Race/Ethnicity North Shattuck College Solano
White (alone) 51% 64% 69 %
Black / African American 4% 3% 2%
American Indian / Alaskan Native <1% <1% <1 %
Asian (alone) 35% 20% 16 %
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander <1% <1% 0%
Other (alone) 3% 4% 2%
Hispanic / Latino 11% 13% 7%
Not Hispanic / Latino 89% 87% 93 %
Owners and Renters
Communities with a high rate of homeownership often signal stability and long-term investment but may be more averse to change. Areas with a larger renter population may offer more affordable housing options but may suggest a younger or transient population. Renter communities are often in denser, more urban settings where mobility and flexibility of renting is valued or where there may be economic barriers to homeownership.

The following are some insights drawn from the summary in Table 3:
• Solano has the highest homeownership rate (83%), indicating a more stable and possibly older population. Its low renter percentage (17%) supports the idea of a more settled, owner -occupied community. This follows the age demographic spread with the very high percentage of residents that are younger than 18 and older than 65.
• College has a more balanced distribution, with 44% owners and 56% renters. This mix suggests a blend of long-term residents and transient populations, potentially younger people or students, making the area somewhat more dynamic and flexible. This area is close to the college but also includes a large percentage of single-family homes.
• North Shattuck has the lowest homeownership rate (26%) and a high renter population (74%), implying a more transient population, potentially younger people or students, possibly due to affordability issues or a higher demand for rental housing in a denser, urban setting.

Page 66 of 201 ends

Page 72 ends

Socioeconomic Context

Raimi + Associates 17 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report In summary, Solano represents a homeowner-dominated area, while North Shattuck leans more toward a renter-heavy, potentially more mobile community. College falls in between, with a fairly even mix of owners and renters.

Table 3: Tenancy Distribution
Tenancy North Shattuck College Solano
Owner 26% 44% 83 %
Renter 74% 56% 17 %
Income
Income distribution in a community reveals economic diversity. A broad range of income levels points to a mixed-class environment with varied housing, schooling, and service needs. High concentrations of wealth or poverty highlight inequality, influencing everything from education quality to job opportunities. Communities with middle-income stability may reflect more balanced access to services and economic opportunity.

The following are insights drawn from the summary in Figure 12:
• Solano has the highest proportion of residents earning over $200,000 (43%), compared to North Shattuck (21%), College (30%), and Berkeley as a whole (28%), indicating it is a relatively affluent area of the city. It also has the smallest percentage of residents earning under $ 60,000 (21%), suggesting fewer lower-income households compared to the city’s percentage (34%). This, combined with high homeownership rates, points to Solano being a wealthier community. • College has a significant portion of high-income earners as well, with 30% of residents earning over $200,000, but it also has a broader distribution of incomes, including 36% of households earning under $60,000. This reflects a more mixed-income area, balancing wealthier residents with those at lower income levels. College has an income distribution that is closest to the City’s overall income distribution, compared to the two other areas.
• North Shattuck has a higher percentage of residents earning less than $60,000 (44%), compared to Berkeley (34%), signaling a more economically diverse or lower-income area of the city. However, it also has 21% of residents earning over $200,000, showing a wide range of economic backgrounds, possibly indicating gentrification or a split between wealthy and lower-income residents.

In summary, Solano is clearly the wealthiest and most stable area, while North Shattuck appears more economically diverse, with a mix of high and low incomes. College sits in the middle, featuring some economic diversity but with a stronger representation of high-income households.

Figure 12: Income Distribution
0%
5%
10%
1 5%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under $60,000 $60,000 -
$100,000
$100,000 -
$150,000
$150,000 -
$200,000
Over $200,000
North Shattuck
College
Solano
Berkeley

Page 67 of 201 ends

Page 73 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 18 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Policy Framework
General Plan
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan outlines the long-term vision for development in the City of Berkeley, addressing how land should be used to balance housing, employment, recreation, and environmental needs. It sets the foundation for zoning regulations by guiding land use decisions and ensuring that future growth aligns with community goals. This section includes excerpts of key sections and policies from the Land Use element related to the project areas. Some things have changed since the last update to the land use element, specifically, the City has since removed land use quotas throughout the city .

Downtown and Other Commercial Mixed-Use Areas
The third objective of the Land Use Element is to maintain and enhance Berkeley’s commercial areas and the Downtown. Commercial activity is primarily distributed between Downtown, West Berkeley, the neighborhood and avenue commercial districts of North Shattuck, Elmwood, Solano, Shattuck/Adeline, and Telegraph Avenue, and the commercial strips along San Pablo and University Avenues.

Berkeley’s neighborhood commercial and avenue commercial areas include a large number of specialty stores and services that attract customers from outside the surrounding neighborhoods. The types of businesses that attract customers from outside the immediate neighborhood include popular restaurants, specialty furniture stores, and unique book, music, and specialty food stores which are not found in regional malls or neighboring communities.

Commercial quotas have been adopted since 1977, as part of the Zoning Ordinance, to regulate new uses occurring in the Telegraph, Elmwood, North Shattuck, and Solano Avenue commercial zoning districts.

In the late 1970s, rising lease rates in some of these districts were beginning to drive out the familiar neighborhood-serving shops and services in favor of a multiplicity of new restaurants and boutique shops. In response, commercial rent control was an early method used by the City to protect merchants.

However, when that was overturned by the California courts, the present quota system was enacted to regulate specific categories of use. Quotas for various uses, such as gift/novelty shops, beauty shops, or certain food services, are now codified through the Zoning Ordinance for several neighborhood and avenue commercial areas. In most cases, these numerical quotas were set at or below the existing number of establishments in any one particular category. The goal was to limit the number of certain types of businesses while allowing a diverse range of other, neighborhood -serving businesses to remain and find space in the districts.

For the neighborhood and avenue commercial corridors shown on the Land Use Diagram, the Land Use Element respects the existing development standards and height limits and provides guidance for future City decision-making to ensure that these areas continue to be vital, thriving, pedestrian-oriented commercial centers that serve area residents and provide necessary goods and services.

Policy LU-26 Neighborhood Commercial Areas
Maintain and improve Neighborhood Commercial areas, such as Elmwood, Solano, and North Shattuck, as pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive areas and ensure that Neighborhood Commercial areas fully serve neighborhood needs. (See Land Use Diagram for locations of Neighborhood Commercial areas.

Also see Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-4 and Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-28.)
Actions:

A. Require ground-floor commercial uses to be oriented to the street and sidewalks to encourage a vital and appealing pedestrian experience.

Page 68 of 201 ends

Page 74 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 19 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report B. Ensure safe, well-lighted, wide walkways that are appropriately shaded for compatibility with upper story residential units and adequate traffic signals for pedestrian street- crossings in commercial areas.

C. Provide street trees, bus shelters, and benches for pedestrians in commercial areas.

D. Provide bicycle facilities and ample and secure bicycle parking wherever appropriate and feasible.

E. Maintain and encourage a wide range of community and commercial services, including basic goods and services.

F. Encourage sensitive infill development of vacant or underutilized property that is compatible with existing development patterns.

G. Control the design and operation of commercial establishments to ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential areas.

H. Use design review and careful land use decisions to preserve the historic character of Neighborhood Commercial areas.

Land Use Classifications
Neighborhood Commercial
These areas of the city are generally characterized by pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving commercial development, and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on two-lane streets with on-street parking and transit. Appropriate uses for these areas include:
local-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to a FAR of 3. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre.

For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are shown below with accompanying development standards.

Zoning District Maximum FAR Maximum Height
Neighborhood Commercial 3 35 ft.

Elmwood Commercial 0.8 to 1 28 ft.

North Shattuck Commercial 1 (non-residential) 35 ft.

Solano Avenue Commercial 2 28 ft.

South Area Commercial 4 24 – 36 ft.

Housing Element
The City of Berkeley’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted by City Council in January 2023. The goal of the Housing Element is to ensure that the City of Berkeley adequately plan s to meet the housing needs of their communities, with a focus on affordability, inclusivity, and accessibility. Below are programs that are relevant to the project areas.

For a full table of Housing Element goals and policies, see Appendix A: Housing Element Policy Framework .

Program 27: Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors
San Pablo Avenue PDA Specific Plan
The City will be developing a San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA Specific Plan, which will increase allowed densities and/or development capacity, and study design standards, public improvements, and mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing. The Housing Element sites inventory identifies 64 sites completely or partially within the San Pablo Avenue PDA, accounting for a total of 3,429 anticipated units (665 very low income, 599 low income, 353 moderate income, and 1,812 above moderate income units). As part of the San Pablo Specific Plan, the team will also study live/work or other innovative “all- use building” strategies. The specific plan process kicks-off in December 2022.

Page 69 of 201 ends

Page 75 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 20 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Southside Plan Area
The City will also be pursuing zoning map and development standard amendments in the Southside Plan Area, which comprises a portion of the Telegraph PDA. These proposed zoning modifications are intended to increase housing capacity and production in the Southside through changes in a targeted number of zoning parameters: building heights, building footprints (including setbacks and lot coverage), parking, ground-floor residential use, and adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries. Under existing zoning, the Housing Element identifies 21 sites in the Southside Plan area, accounting for a total of 752 anticipated units (44 very low income, 38 low income, 150 moderate income, and 520 above moderate income units. This Southside zoning modification p rogram proposes amendments that could facilitate an additional 1,000 units compared to existing zoning and sites inventory capacity.

Land Use, Safety, and Environmental Justice Element Update The City will update zoning map and development standards to accommodate housing capacity and growth on transit and commercial corridors, particularly in the highest resource and higher income neighborhoods pursuant to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirement. These updates will increase allowed densities and/or development capacity with the goal of achieving consistency among all transit and commercial corridors, especially between formerly red-lined areas and higher-resource areas of Solano Avenue, north Shattuck Avenue, and College Avenue. An update to the City’s Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element will be conducted in tandem with this effort.

Specific Actions and Timeline.

By December 2024, complete Telegraph PDA/Southside Plan Area zoning map amendments and up-zoning.

By December 2025, develop and adopt the San Pablo PDA Specific Plan. Conduct analysis, public and stakeholder engagement, and policy options, including zoning and General Plan amendments.

By December 2026, update Land Use, Safety, and Environmental Justice Elements of the General Plan to increase new housing opportunities by at least 2000 units on commercial and transit corridors, particularly in the highest resource and higher income neighborhoods, to achieve consistency among all transit and commercial corridors, and revise the City’s zoning map and development standards to be consistent. The City commits to initiate this work within one year of certification of the Housing Element.

Lead Department(s)/Agency Planning
Funding Source(s) General Fund, ABAG/MTC PDA Planning Grant AFFH
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Targeted outreach to Southside Area residents and UC students Policies Implemented
H-16 Medium and High-Density Zoning
H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H
-22 Inter-Jurisdictional and Regional Coordination
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
H-35 Incentivize Affordable Housing
Program 33: Zoning Code Amendment: Residential
The City will study and establish residential objective standards to provide clarity and predictability and reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings by replacing them with new objective standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would create or modify objective standards to increase residential development potential, including increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the

Page 70 of 201 ends

Page 76 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 21 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report calculation and configuration of open space. In addition, the Berkeley zoning code currently does not contain a minimum or maximum density standard expressed in “units per acre” for the majority of its residential and mixed-use zoning districts. While the zones have no density caps, a minimum density threshold can ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance. The City will also evaluate and modify the standards for ground floor uses to address commercial living situations, such as live/work artist space, in order to add vibrancy along commercial corridors and incentivize vacant space conversion for residential use.

Specific Actions and Timeline.

By June 2024, as part of the Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards project, minimum densities will be applied to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units.

By December 2025, develop and amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed use developments in order to reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings for larger (e.g. 10+ units) housing projects in higher density districts (e.g. R-3, R-4, and commercial districts), and commercial living situations, such as live/work units.

Lead Department(s)/Agency Planning
Funding Source(s) General Fund
AFFH
Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Policies Implemented
H-19 Regional Housing Needs
H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints
H-34 Streamlined Review Process

Page 71 of 201 ends

Page 77 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 22 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Current Zoning
Zoning Districts
The eight zoning districts that make up the three project areas are summarized in Table 4. The following sections provide additional detail on each district.

Table 4: Zoning Districts by Project Area
Zone North Shattuck College Solano
Corridor Commercial (C-C) X
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) X
North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) X
Elmwood Commercial (C-E) X
Solano Commercial (C-SO) X
Restricted Multiple-family Residential (R-2A) X X
Multiple-family Residential (R-3) X X
Multi-family Residential (R-4) X X
Corridor Commercial (C-C)
The Corridor Commercial (C-C) district is intended to accommodate a wide variety of commercial activities, from retail to services, that can thrive along major corridors. A key aspect of th e C-C zone is its emphasis on underutilized neighborhood and community shopping areas, encouraging development in locations that may have been previously overlooked or underserved.

Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
The Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) district serves the immediate needs of local residents and focuses on creating convenient access to goods and services that cater to everyday necessities for those living nearby, like grocery stores, pharmacies, or other essential services.

North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS)
The North Shattuck Commercial (C-NS) district serves as a community-oriented hub, focusing on providing retail and services that cater to residents of both adjacent and outlying neighborhoods. The C-NS district supports a diverse mix of uses, including retail, services, and appropriate residential integration. The zoning also restricts certain commercial uses, particularly offices, from occupying excessive space, as they are seen as more suitable for the downtown area.

Elmwood Commercial (C-E)
The Elmwood Commercial (C-E) district emphasizes a community-oriented approach to commercial development that serves nearby residential neighborhoods and maintains an appropriate scale and balance of retail goods and services aligned with the everyday needs of residents.

Page 72 of 201 ends

Page 78 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 23 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Solano Commercial (C-SO)
The Solano Commercial (C-SO) district emphasizes maintaining a balance of commercial activities that enhances the surrounding Thousand Oaks and Northbrae neighborhoods. The C-SO district encourages neighborhood-serving businesses rather than those catering to a broader regional clientele.

Restricted Multiple-family Residential (R2-A)
The Restricted Multiple-family Residential (R-2A) district supports medium-density residential areas and is geared toward the development of small multi-family residences and garden-style apartment buildings, emphasizing a layout that maximizes open space while maintaining a residential feel. R2 -A allows for up to one unit per 1,650 sf of lot area, for a maximum density of approximately 26 du/a.

The R-2A zone is the primary non-commercial or mixed-use zone located along the College Ave corridor outside of the Elmwood C-E Zone and located adjacent to the North Shattuck corridor. Adjacent to the R -2A and C-E zoning along the College Avenue corridor, the dominant zone is R -2 with some R-1 zoned parcels.

The Solano Avenue corridor is bordered by R-1 Single Family Residential.

As part of the Middle Housing project, the City is proposing to change the density of R -1, R-2, and R2-A zones to encourage a range of middle housing types, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, and other small-scale multi-family housing.

Multiple-family Residential (R-3)
The Multiple-family Residential (R-3) district supports higher density residential developments that offer a balance between urban convenience and accessible open space. T his district supports the construction of a wide range of housing types, including dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, and boarding or rooming houses. This provides flexibility for different housing needs, including student accommodations and shared living spaces.

Multi-family Residential (R-4)
The Multi-family Residential (R-4) district encourages the development of high-density residential areas, to increase housing availability in convenient, urban locations. The district also allows for the construction of institutional and office uses, provided that these developments do not negatively affect the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Uses
A full table of allowed uses for zones in the project areas is provided in Appendix B: Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts and Appendix C: Allowed Uses in Residential Districts.

Page 73 of 201 ends

Page 79 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 24 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Development Standards
The below sections are high-level development standards—minimum lot area, residential density, FAR, and height—for both residential and commercial zones in the project area.

Residential Zones
Table 5: Development Standards for Residential Zones

R-2A R-3 R-4

Restricted
Multiple-family
Residential
Multiple-family
Residential
Multi-family
Residential
Min Lot Area
(square feet)
New Lots 5000 5000 5000
Per Dwelling
Unit
1650 No min No min
2 Units No min No min No min
Per Group
Living
Accommodation
- 350 350
Density
(dwelling
units/acre)
26 No max No max
Max Floor
Area Ratio No max No max No max
Max Average
Height (feet) 28 35 35
Max Height
(feet) 35 (with an AUP) - 65 (with Use Permit)
Max Stories 3 3 3, 6 (with Use Permit)

Page 74 of 201 ends

Page 80 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 25 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Commercial Zones
Table 6: Development Standards for Commercial Zones

C-C C-N
Corridor Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial
Non-
Residential Mixed-Use R esidential
Only
Non-
Residential Mixed-Use Residential
Only
Min Lot Area
(square feet)
New Lots No min No min 5000 No min No min 5000
Per Group
Living
Accommodation
- 350 350 - 350 350
Density
(dwelling
units/acre)
- - - - - -
Max Floor
Area Ratio
Corner Lots 3.0 3.0 No max 3.0 3.0 No max
All Other Lots 3.0 3.0 No max 3.0 3.0 No max
Max Height
(feet) 40 40 35 35 35 35
Max Stories 2 3 3 2 3 3

C-E C-NS C-SO
Elmwood Commercial North Shattuck
Commercial
Solano Avenue
Commercial
Non-
Residential Mixed-Use R esidential
Only
Non-
Residential Mixed-Use Residential
Only
Non-
Residential Mixed-Use Residential
Only
Min Lot Area
(square feet)
New Lots No min No min 5000 4000 4000 5000 No min No min 5000 Per Group
Living
Accommodati
on
- 350 350 - 350 350 - 350 350
Density
(dwelling
units/acre)
- - - - - - - - -
Max Floor Area
Ratio
Corner Lots 1.0 1.0 No max 1.0 1.0 No max 2.0 2.0 No max All Other Lots 0.8 0.8 No max 1.0 1.0 No max 2.0 2.0 No max Max Height
(feet) 28 28 35 35 35 28 28 28 28
Max Stories 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Page 75 of 201 ends

Page 81 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 26 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Other Policies and Plans
The City of Berkeley has recently undertaken planning efforts for two major commercial corridors in the city; the ongoing San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, adopted in 2020. These plans are relevant to this project as examples of recent rezoning efforts along corridors to help achieve the Berkeley’s housing goals set forth in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan covers the 2.35-mile stretch of San Pablo Avenue in West Berkeley, running from the Berkeley-Oakland border to the Berkeley-Albany boundary. This plan aims to guide future development through land use policies and economic strategies that support a diverse mix of housing, commercial ventures, and public amenities.

In addition to addressing development standards and employment trends, the plan will assess transportation needs, such as improving public and active transportation. It will also examine parking and loading demands, coordinating these efforts with ongoing public improvement initiatives.

The project began in June 2023 and is expected to span approximately two years. A draft of the Specific Plan, along with an addendum to the Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), is scheduled for completion by early 2025. Following staff review, the Planning Commission will evaluate it by mid- 2025, with final adoption by the City Council anticipated by the end of that year.

For more information on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan project, visit the project page here .

Adeline Corridor Plan
The Adeline Corridor Specific Plan focuses on a 1.3-mile area in South Berkeley, stretching north from the Berkeley-Oakland border along Adeline Street and part of Shattuck Avenue. Serving as a key gateway between Downtown Berkeley and Oakland, this corridor plays a vital role in connecting the two cities.

The plan provides a framework for guiding future development and public initiatives within the area. It aims to shape the corridor’s evolution by aligning public and private actions with the community’s goals. In addition to proposing new land use regulations and development standards, the plan emphasizes public improvements that foster inclusive, vibrant, and socially and economically healthy neighborhoods.

The Adeline Corridor Specific Plan establishes development standards allowing for varying densities in three plan subareas: South Shattuck (near Downtown), North Adeline, and South Adeline. The greatest density is focused in the South Shattuck area, with a maximum allowable height of 4 stories, 2.5 FAR, and residential density of 120 du/acre. The base density for the North and South Adeline subareas is slightly less intense with a maximum height of 3 stories, 2.0 FAR, and 100 du/acre residential density.

In addition to the base density, the plan offers a density bonus to incentivize the provision of on -site affordable housing units. The development standards for the affordable housing incentive allow for maximum heights ranging from 6 to 8 stories, maximum FAR of 3.5 to 5, and residential density of 150 to 300 du/acre, depending on the subarea and the level of affordability provided.

Work on the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan began in 2015, and it was formally adopted in 2020. The plan continues to serve as a roadmap for securing resources and partnerships to implement its vision.

Transit and Mobility
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Although no BART stations are located within the project areas, the Downtown Berkeley BART station is roughly ¼ mile from the southern end of the North Shattuck project area. This station is served by the Orange (Berryessa/North San Jose to Richmond) and Red (Richmond to SFO/Millbrae) Lines. Solano Avenue and the Elmwood area of College Avenue are approximately one mile from BART stations.

Page 76 of 201 ends

Page 82 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 27 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Alameda County (AC) Transit
AC Transit operates bus routes along North Shattuck, College, and Solano Avenues. Below is a list of bus routes that operate within the project areas:
• Line FS: University Transbay
• Line G: Colusa – Solano Transbay
• Line 7: Arlington – Shattuck – Ashby
• Line 18: Solano – Shattuck – MLK Jr.
• Line 79: Colusa – The Alameda – Claremont
• Line 51B: University – College – Rockridge
• Line 604: Head Royce – OHDS – Berk.
• Line 605: Head Royce – Montclair – College
• Line 688: St. Mary’s College – Montclair
• Line 851: College – Broadway All Nighter
AC Transit Realign
AC Transit Realign is a comprehensive evaluation of all AC Transit bus routes, prompted by significant changes in ridership and commuting habits since the COVID-19 pandemic. Through data collection and public input, the goal of Realign is to create a revamped, equity-driven bus network that enhances both ridership and service reliability. The following lines in the project areas have been changed in the draft Realign plan but are yet to be approved by the AC Transit Board:
• Line 7: This route currently runs through North Shattuck and College, connecting El Cerrito to Emeryville. Service may be rerouted so that the route travels along Shattuck Ave and down Adeline rather than to College and down Ashby.
• Line 18: This route currently runs through Solano and North Shattuck, stretching from Albany to Downtown Oakland. Service may be extended west along Park Boulevard from Downtown Oakland to Piedmont.
• Line 29: This route currently connects Emeryville and Oakland but may be extended along Ashby and College into Downtown Berkeley.

Active Transportation Plans (ATP)
Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan (2016)
The Complete Streets Corridors program outlined in the Strategic Transportation Plan includes both College and Shattuck Avenues:
• College Avenue: This project spans from the intersection of College Avenue at Bancroft Street on the north to the Oakland border on the south and includes elements of the Berkeley Bike and Pedestrian Plans designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety and circulation. As a corridor project, it includes elements of other projects in the Individual/Citywide and Area Programs, such as Residential Bike Boulevard Enhancements on the Bowditch/Hillegass Bicycle Boulevard; 1 of the Bikeway Intersection projects; and 6 of the High Priority Pedestrian Plan Projects. • Shattuck Avenue: This project spans from Rose Street in North Berkeley to the Oakland border in South Berkeley and includes elements of the Berkeley Bike and Pedestrian Plans, the Downtown Area Plan and Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP), and the South Shattuck Strategic Plan, designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety and circulation. The improvements are within and provide access to the University, Downtown, Adeline, and South Shattuck PDAs. As a corridor project, it includes elements of other projects in the Individual/Citywide and Area Programs, such as 5 of the Bikeway intersection improvements; segments of the Residential Bike Boulevard Enhancements on the Milvia Street Bicycle Boulevard; an upgraded bikeway on both Adeline and Oxford/Fulton Streets, with an extension of the recently completed Fulton bikeway from

Page 77 of 201 ends

Page 83 ends

Policy Framework

Raimi + Associates 28 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Channing Way to Dwight Way; 11 of the High Priority Pedestrian Plan Projects; the Shattuck Square/University Avenue, Center Street Plaza & Greenway, and Shattuck Park Blocks projects from the SOSIP; and improvements to pedestrian access, parking, and neigh borhood cut-through traffic discouragement from the South Shattuck Strategic Plan.

Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017)
The Berkeley Bicycle Plan recommends Complete Street Corridors studies for both the Solano and North Shattuck project areas since the implementation of Class IV Cycle Tracks to these corridors may impact transit operations.

Berkeley Pedestrian Plan (2020)
The Berkeley Pedestrian Plan did not identify any portions of the project area as Priority Streets.

Page 78 of 201 ends

Page 84 ends

Land Use

Raimi + Associates 29 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Land Use
Existing Uses
Table 7 summarizes the number of high-level uses for each project area.

Table 7: High-Level Uses
Use Category North Shattuck College Solano
Single Family Residential 11 70 39
Multiple Residential (2-4 units) 24 106 2
Multiple Residential (5+ units) 84 210 15
Commercial* 40 59 58
Improved Commercial** 13 16 15
Institutional 3 4 0
* Commercial uses include: retail stores, department stores, chain retailers, restaurants, bars, shopping center, supermarkets **Improved commercial uses include: Motels, mobile home parks, banks, medical/dental buildings, veterinarian offices, office buildings, bowling alleys, movie theaters, wineries, fitness centers/gyms, museums, historical societies/clubs Ground-floor Retail Spaces
North Shattuck
Below are the most common ground-floor retail uses in the North Shattuck area, food and beverage uses make up 26.4 percent of total businesses, bolded below. (number of establishments) • Full-Service Restaurant (19)
• Limited-Service Restaurant (12)
• Hair & Beauty Salons (11)
• Clothing / Accessories (9)
• Co-Working Space (8)
• Banks and Financial Services (7)
• Realtor (7)
• Dry Cleaners / Laundry (5)
• Bakery w/ Retail (5)
• Gifts & Souvenirs (5)
• Fitness / Gyms (5)
• Medical Services (5)
• Café (5)
College Avenue
Below are the most common ground-floor retail uses in the College area, food and beverage uses make up

27.5 percent of total businesses, bolded below. (number of establishments) • Full-Service Restaurant (13)
• Grocery Stores & Markets (4)
• Café (6)
• Hair & Beauty Salons (9)

Page 79 of 201 ends

Page 85 ends

Land Use

Raimi + Associates 30 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report • Clothing / Accessories (13)
• Gifts & Souvenirs (6)
• Limited-Service Restaurant (4)
• Bakery w/ Retail (2)
• Fitness / Gyms (5)
• Vacant (5)
Solano Avenue
Below are the most common ground-floor retail uses in the Solano area, food and beverage uses make up 23 .2 percent of total businesses, bolded below. (number of establishments) • Hair & Beauty Salons (20)
• Full-Service Restaurant (18)
• Clothing / Accessories (10)
• Home Furnishings (9)
• Realtor (7)
• Limited-Service Restaurant (7)
• Gifts & Souvenirs (6)
• Fitness / Gyms (4)
• Café (4)
• Bakery w/ Retail (3)
Rent Control
North Shattuck
North Shattuck has the highest number and density of rent-controlled units among the three areas, with 414 units over 5.4 acres of land. A total of 25 parcels in the project area have rent-controlled units, and 16 of these parcels are 100% residential.

College Avenue
The College Avenue project area includes 654 rent-controlled units distributed across 113 parcels of 15.4 acres in total. Most of these units are located within residentially zoned areas. Only 28 rent-controlled units are located within the commercial areas. A total of 8 parcels in these commercially zoned areas have rent- controlled units, 3 of which are 100% residential.

Solano Avenue
The Solano Avenue project area has 98 rent-controlled units over 2.3 acres of land. A total of 15 parcels in the project area have rent-controlled units, and 7 of these are 100% residential.

Page 80 of 201 ends

Page 86 ends

Land Use

Raimi + Associates 31 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Historic Buildings
Table 8 summarizes historic buildings in the project areas. A map of historic buildings is available in the Mapbook.

Table 8: Historic Buildings
Building Address Corridor Year Built
Whittlemore/Woodworth House 2043 Lincoln St North Shattuck 1903 EBMUD Vine Street Pumping Plant 2113 Vine St No rth Shattuck 1930 Swink House, Cottage, and Garden 1525 Shattuck Ave No rth Shattuck 1900 and 1903 Squires Block 2100 Vine St North Shattuck 1892
Capitol Market Building 2044 Vine St No rth Shattuck 1898 Strand Theater Elmwood Theater 2966 College Ave Co llege Ave 1920 Bolfing's Elmwood Hardware 2947 College Ave Co llege Ave 1923 Mercantile Trust Co. 2959 College Ave College Ave 1926
St. Johns Presbyterian Church 2640 College Ave Co llege Ave 1910 Oaks Theatre 1861 Solano Ave Solano Ave 1925

Page 81 of 201 ends

Page 87 ends

Land Use

Raimi + Associates 32 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Precedent Projects
A review of approximately 25 recent multifamily and mixed-use development projects and applications, ranging in size and scale, resulted in the selection of 13 projects to include in a precedent study. The precedent study included four projects in the study area, three of which are active projects with two currently under construction. Project summaries of the selected projects are located in Appendix D .

Notably, the projects reviewed included not only projects on larger lot sizes greater than 10,000 s quare feet but also projects on lots ranging from 4,000 to 6,500 square feet. These projects on smaller parcels ranged from 11 to 36 units and a height and density from 4 stories and 95 du/a to 8 stories and 232 du/a.

These precedent projects help us understand the mixed-use and multifamily housing market in Berkeley and the type of projects possible within the study area. The team will use the precedent list in conjunction with building prototype analysis of other sites to understand the redevelopment potential and develop design standards for the zoning district updates.
2942 College Ave (Not Approved)

2555 College Ave (Under Construction)

Page 82 of 201 ends

Page 88 ends

Land Use

Raimi + Associates 33 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report 1752 Shattuck Ave (Under Construction)

1685 Shattuck Ave (Approved)

Page 83 of 201 ends

Page 89 ends

Raimi + Associates 34 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Appendix A: Housing Element Policy
Framework

6th Cycle Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal A Housing Affordability. Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 84 of 201 ends

Page 90 ends

Raimi + Associates 35 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Goal C Housing Production: Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs, including coordinating with the UC and other agencies. New housing should be developed to expand opportunities and choices to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient.

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

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

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

H-18 Accessory Dw elling Units. En courage and facilitate addition of accessory dwelling units on properties with single-family and multi-unit homes.

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

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

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

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

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

H-23 Homelessness an d Crisis Prevention. Support programs and actions that pr event homelessness and other housing crises by making appropriate services available.

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

H-25 Family Housing. S upport and encourage housing projects that include units aff ordable and suitable for households with children and large families.

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

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

H-28
Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing. Provide emergency shelter and transitional and supportive housing to homeless individuals and families, including people with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities, victims of domestic violence, youth, and seniors, as needed. The City’s ultimate priority for new homeless housing opportunities is permanent housing.

Page 85 of 201 ends

Page 91 ends

Raimi + Associates 36 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Goal E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley.

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

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

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

H-33 Reduce Governmental C onstraints. Periodically review City fees and regulations to ensure that they do not u
nduly constrain housing development.

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

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

Page 86 of 201 ends

Page 92 ends

Raimi + Associates 37 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Appendix B: Allowed Uses in Commercial
Districts

ZC = Zoning
Certificate

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS
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-N C-E C-NS C-SO
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling
Unit See 23.306--Accessory Dwelling Units

Dwellings
Single-Family UP(H) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.060.B.3; 23.302.070.H
Two-Family UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.060.B.3; 23.302.070.H
Multi-Family UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.060.B.3; 23.302.070.H
Group Living
Accommodation UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.060.B.3; 23.302.070.H
Hotel, Residential UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.060.B.3; 23.302.070.H
Mixed-Use
Residential UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

23.204.060.B.3; 23.204.100.B.2; 23.
204.110.B.5; 23.302.070.H
Senior Congregate
Housing See 23.302.070.I

Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Child Care Center UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Cemetery/Cremato
ry/Mausoleum NP NP NP NP NP
Club/Lodge UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(

PH) NP NP
Columbaria See 23.302.070.C

Community Care
Facility AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Community Center UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Emergency Shelter,
25 beds or fewer ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC See 23.308--Emergency Shelters

Page 87 of 201 ends

Page 93 ends

Raimi + Associates 38 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Emergency Shelter,
26 to 60 beds UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)
Emergency Shelter,
more than 60 beds UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)
Hospital UP(PH) NP NP NP NP
Library UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Low Barrier
Navigation Center ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Mortuaries and
Crematories UP(PH) NP NP NP NP
Municipal Animal
Shelter – – – – –
Nursing Home UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Park/Playground ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Public Safety and
Emergency Service UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Public Utility
Substation/Tank UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Religious Assembly UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

School UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

School, Vocational AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Supportive Housing ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.302.070. J--Supportive Housing Retail Uses
Alcoholic Beverage
Retail Sale UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(
PH)*
UP(P
H)*
UP(
PH)* 23.31
Cannabis Retailer ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.320; 12.21; and 12.22 Cannabis Retailer,
Delivery Only ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.320; 12.21; and 12.22 Firearm/Munitions
Business UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(
PH)*
UP(P
H)*
UP(
PH)* 23.302.070.D
Industrial and
Mining Products – – – – –
Pawn Shop/Auction
House UP(PH) NP NP NP NP
Pet Store AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Retail, General ZC ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.204.040(C)

23.204.040(D)
Smoke Shop UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(
PH)*
UP(P
H)*
UP(
PH)* 23.302.070.K
Personal and Household Service Uses
Personal and
Household Services,
General

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Kennels and Pet
Boarding NP NP NP NP NP
Laundromats and
Cleaners AUP UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Veterinary Clinic UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Video Tape/Disk
Rental ZC ZC AUP ZC ZC
Office Uses

Page 88 of 201 ends

Page 94 ends

Raimi + Associates 39 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Business Support
Services ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC 23.204.110(B)(4)
Banks and Financial
Services, Retail AUP UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

23.204.110(B)(4); 23.204.130(B)(3)
; 23.204.130(D)(3)
Insurance Agents,
Title Companies,
Real Estate Agents,
Travel Agents
ZC ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.204.040(B); 23.204.110(B)(4); 2

3.204.130(D)(3)
Medical
Practitioners ZC AUP NP UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

23.204.040(B); 23.204.110(B)(4); 2

3.204.130.D.3
Non-Chartered
Financial
Institutions
UP(PH)* NP NP NP NP 23.302.070.F 23.204.110(B)(4)
Office, Business and
Professional ZC AUP* AUP
* ZC* AUP
*

23.204.040(B); 23.204.110.(B)4; 23.
204.130(D)(3)
Food and Alcohol Service, Lodging, Entertainment, and Assembly Uses Adult-oriented
Business UP(PH)* NP NP NP NP 23.302.070.A
Amusement Device
Arcade See 23.204.040.A 23.302.070.B
Bar/Cocktail
Lounge/Tavern/Ta
p Room/Wine
Tasting
AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.31
Commercial
Recreation Center See 23.204.040.A

Entertainment
Establishment UP(PH) UP(PH) NP UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Food Service
Establishment,
under 3,000 sq. ft.

ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.302.070(E)
Food Service
Establishment,
3,000 sq. ft. or
larger
AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.302.070(E)
Group Instruction,
Under 3,000 sq. ft. ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Group Instruction,
3,000 sq. ft. or
larger

ZC AUP AUP ZC AUP

Health and Fitness
Facility, Under
7,500 sq. ft.

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Health and Fitness
Facility, 7,500 sq. ft.
or larger

ZC AUP AUP ZC AUP

Hotels, Tourist UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Motels, Tourist UP(PH) NP NP NP NP
Theater UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(

PH) NP NP
Vehicle Service and Sales Uses
Alternative Fuel
Station UP(PH) UP(PH) NP UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.110(B)(2); 23.204.110(B)(3)
Electric Vehicle
Charging Station AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Gasoline Fuel
Stations UP(PH) UP(PH) NP UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.140.B.3

Page 89 of 201 ends

Page 95 ends

Raimi + Associates 40 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Large Vehicle Sales
and Rental AUP NP NP NP NP 23.204.110(B)(3)
Small Vehicle Sales
and Service AUP NP NP NP NP 23.204.100(B)(3); 23.204.110(B)(3) Tire Sales and
Service UP(PH) NP NP NP NP 23.204.140.B.3
Vehicle Parts Store ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Vehicle Rentals AUP NP NP NP NP 23.204.140(B)(3)
Vehicle Repair and
Service AUP NP NP NP NP
Vehicle Sales, New AUP NP NP NP NP 23.204.140(B)(3)
Vehicle Sales, Used AUP NP NP NP NP 23.204.100(B)(3); 23.204.140(B)(3) ; 23.204.140(D)(4)
Vehicle Wash UP(PH) NP NP NP NP 23.204.140.B.3
Vehicle Wrecking NP NP NP NP NP
Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
Bus/Cab/Truck/Pu
blic Utility Depot – – – – –
Commercial
Excavation UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Contractors Yard – – – – –
Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Plant UP(PH) NP – UP(P
H) NP
Laboratory
Commercial
Physical or
Biological

AUP NP NP NP NP

Cannabis Testing AUP NP NP NP NP
Manufacturing
Construction
Products – – – –
Light
Manufacturing – – – –
Pesticides/Herbicid
es/Fertilizers – – – –
Petroleum Refining
and Products – – – –
Pharmaceuticals – – – –
Primary Production
Manufacturing – – – NP –
Semiconductors – – – NP –
Material Recovery
Enterprise – – – – –
Media Production UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH) 23.204.130.B.4
Mini-storage UP(PH) NP NP NP –
Recycled Materials
Processing – – – – –
Recycling
Redemption Center AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Repair Service,
Non-Vehicle – – – – –
Research and
Development – – – – –
Services to
Buildings and
Dwellings
– – – – –

Page 90 of 201 ends

Page 96 ends

Raimi + Associates 41 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Warehouse UP(PH) NP NP NP –
Warehouse-Based
Non-Store Retailer – – – –
Wholesale Trade – – – -- –
Incidental Uses
Amusement
Devices AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.302.070.B
Alcoholic Beverage
Service See 23.310

Cafeteria, On-Site UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Columbaria See 23.302.070.C

Food and Beverage
for Immediate
Consumption

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Food Service
Establishment,
under 3,000 sq. ft.

ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.310.030
Food Service
Establishment,
3,000 sq. ft. or
larger
AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.310.030
Live Entertainment,
Unamplified ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Live Entertainment,
Amplified AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Manufacturing AUP UP(PH) UP(

PH) NP AUP
Retail Sale of Goods
Manufactured On-
Site

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Storage of Goods
(>25% gross floor
area)
AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.302.020.C
Wholesale
Activities AUP* UP(PH)* UP(
PH)* NP AUP
* 23.204.080.B.3
Other Miscellaneous Uses
Art/Craft Studio ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
ATM, Exterior and
Attached to Bank AUP AUP UP(

PH) AUP AUP
* 23.204.120.B.2
ATM, Interior or
Exterior and Not
With Bank

UP(PH) UP(PH) NP UP(P
H) NP 23.204.130.B.2
Circus/Carnival UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(
PH)
UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Drive-in Uses UP(PH) NP NP UP(P
H)
UP(
PH)

Home Occupations See 23.302.040

Live/Work See 23.312

Parking
Lot/Structure See 23.302.070.G

Public Market,
Open Air AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Public Market,
Enclosed AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Short-Term Rental See 23.314 NP NP See 2

3.314
NP

Page 91 of 201 ends

Page 97 ends

Raimi + Associates 42 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Urban Agriculture,
Low-Impact ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.318
Urban Agriculture,
High-Impact AUP* AUP* AUP
* AUP* AUP
* 23.318
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facility
See 23.332--Wireless Communication Facilities

Notes:

[1] Require a Use
Permit if either
5,000 sq. ft. or more
of floor area or
10,000 square feet
or more of lot area.
[2] Requires a Use Permit if
more than 10,000 sq. ft.

Page 92 of 201 ends

Page 98 ends

Raimi + Associates 43 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Appendix C: Allowed Uses in Residential
Districts

ZC = Zoning Certificate

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS
AUP = ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT APPLIES TO USES WITH

AN ASTERISK

FOLLOWING THE PERMIT
REQUIREMENT (E.G., ZC*)
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
R-2A R-3 R-4

Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit See 23.306--Accessory Dwelling
Units

Dwellings
Single-Family UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) 23.302.070.H
Two-Family
UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) 23.302.070.H

Multi-Family UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH)* 23.302.070.H

Group Living Accommodation NP UP(PH)* UP(PH)* 23.302.070.H

Senior Congregate Housing See 23.302.070.I--Use-Specific Regulations

Mixed-Use Residential UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH)* 23.302.070.H

Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Child Care Center UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Club/Lodge UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Columbaria AUP* AUP* AUP* 23.302.070.C--Use-Specific
Regulations

Community Care Facility See 23.202.040.A--Use-Specific
Regulations

Community Center UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Emergency Shelter, 15 beds or fewer NP NP ZC 23.308--Emergency Shelters

Emergency Shelter, more than 15 beds NP NP UP(PH)
Hospital NP UP(PH) UP(PH)
Library UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Low Barrier Navigation Center ZC ZC ZC
Nursing Home UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)

Page 93 of 201 ends

Page 99 ends

Raimi + Associates 44 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Park/Playground ZC ZC ZC
Public Safety and Emergency Service UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) Public Utility Substation/Tank UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Religious Assembly UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
School UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Supportive Housing ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.302.070. J--Supportive Housing

Commercial Uses
Alcoholic Beverage Service

NP NP NP

23.310--Alcoholic
Beverage Sales and
Service

Food Products Store

NP NP NP

23.202.140.B.3--R-SMU
Residential Southside
District

Food Service Establishment, Under 3000 sq. ft. NP NP NP 23.302.070(E) – Use- Specific Regulations

Food Service Establishment, 3,000 sq. ft. or larger NP NP NP 23.302.070(E) – Use- Specific Regulations

Group Instruction

NP NP NP

23.202.150(C)--R-BMU
Residential BART Mixed
Use District

Health and Fitness Facility

NP NP NP

23.202.150(C)--R-BMU
Residential BART Mixed
Use District

Hotel, Tourist NP NP UP(PH)
Laundromat and Cleaner NP NP NP
Office

NP NP UP(PH)

23.202.150.C--R-BMU
Residential BART Mixed
Use District

Parking Lot/Structure
UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(PH)*

23.302.070.G--Unenclosed
Accessory Structures in
Residential Districts

23.322.100--On-site
Loading Spaces

Personal and Household Service, General

NP NP NP

23.202.140.B.2--R-SMU
Residential Southside
District

Retail, General NP NP UP(PH)* 23.202.040.B--Use-Specific Regulations

Veterinary Clinic NP NP NP
Theater NP NP NP
Video Tape/Disk Rental NP NP NP
Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
Commercial Excavation UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Other Uses
Accessory Uses See 23.302.020.A--General Use
Regulations

Art/Craft Studio NP NP NP
ATM: Exterior and Attached to Bank or Interior
or Exterior and Not With Bank NP NP NP

Page 94 of 201 ends

Page 100 ends

Raimi + Associates 45 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Home Occupations See 23.302.040--Home
Occupations

Live/Work NP NP NP 23.312--Live/Work

Public Market, Open Air NP NP NP
Public Market, Enclosed NP NP NP
Short-Term Rental ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.314--Short-Term
Rentals

Temporary Uses See 23.302.030--Temporary Uses
and Structures

Urban Agriculture, Low-Impact ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.318--Urban Agriculture

Urban Agriculture, High-Impact AUP* AUP* AUP* 23.318--Urban Agriculture

Wireless Telecommunication Facility See 23.332--Wireless Communication Facilities

Incidental Uses
Live Entertainment, Unamplified NP NP NP
Live Entertainment, Amplified NP NP NP

Page 95 of 201 ends

Page 101 ends

Raimi + Associates 46 Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update Existing Conditions Report Appendix D: Precedent Project Summary
A review of approximately 25 recent multifamily and mixed-use development projects and applications, ranging in size and scale, resulted in the selection of 13 projects to include in a precedent study. These precedent projects help us understand the mixed-use and multifamily housing market in Berkeley and the type of projects possible within the study area.

Page 96 of 201 ends

Page 102 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 1
2942 College Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 6346 sf
Lot Width 39'-5"
Lot Depth 162'
Density 41 du/a
Number of Units 6 units
FAR 0.99
Height (feet) 28'-0"
Height (stories) 2 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 1481 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 97 of 201 ends

Page 103 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 2
2555 College Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 4000 sf
Lot Width 80'
Lot Depth 50'
Density 120 du/a
Number of Units 11 units
FAR 2.5
Height (feet) 46’-6"
Height (stories) 4 stories
Mixed-Use No
Commercial Area N/A

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 98 of 201 ends

Page 104 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 3
1650 Shattuck Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 4600 sf
Lot Width 39'-6"
Lot Depth 103'
Density 95 du/a
Number of Units 10 units
FAR 2.49
Height (feet) 48'-0"
Height (stories) 4 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 2559 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 99 of 201 ends

Page 105 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 4
1600 Solano Ave
Albany, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 5127 sf
Lot Width 113'-8"
Lot Depth 45'-8"
Density 102 du/a
Number of Units 12 units
FAR 3.75
Height (feet) 49'-0"
Height (stories) 4 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 2753 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 100 of 201 ends

Page 106 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 5
2317 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 6507 sf
Lot Width 50'
Lot Depth 130’
Density 147 du/a
Number of Units 11 units
FAR 2.62
Height (feet) 50’
Height (stories) 5 stories
Mixed-Use No
Commercial Area N/A

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 101 of 201 ends

Page 107 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 6
2018 Blake St
Berkeley, CA

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 5189 sf
Lot Width 40'
Lot Depth 130'
Density 101 du/a
Number of Units 12 units
FAR 2.55
Height (feet) 61'
Height (stories) 6 stories
Mixed-Use No
Commercial Area N/A

Page 102 of 201 ends

Page 108 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 7
1752 Shattuck Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 10522
Lot Width 114’-10"
Lot Depth 88’
Density 282 du/a
Number of Units 68 units
FAR 4.5
Height (feet) 78’-9”
Height (stories) 7 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 1210 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 103 of 201 ends

Page 109 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 8
1201 San Pablo Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 13000 sf
Lot Width 130’
Lot Depth 100'
Density 221 du/a
Number of Units 66 units
FAR 3.6
Height (feet) 68’-3”
Height (stories) 6 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 1720 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 104 of 201 ends

Page 110 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 9
1685 Shattuck Ave/
2109 Virginia St
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 19788 sf
Lot Width 198'
Lot Depth 115'
Density 288 du/a
Number of Units 131 units
FAR 5.17
Height (feet) 88'-4"
Height (stories) 8 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 1200 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 105 of 201 ends

Page 111 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 10
1899 Oxford St
Berkeley, CA

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 22304 sf
Lot Width 222'-6"
Lot Depth 112'-6"
Density 418 du/a
Number of Units 214 units
FAR 4.36
Height (feet) 78'-9"
Height (stories) 7 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 3873 sf

Page 106 of 201 ends

Page 112 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 11
2136-2154 San Pablo Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 23301 sf
Lot Width 175'
Lot Depth 133'-2"
Density 236 du/a
Number of Units 126 units
FAR 3.48
Height (feet) 69'-6"
Height (stories) 6 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 1245 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 107 of 201 ends

Page 113 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 12
2442 Haste St
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 6750 sf
Lot Width 50'
Lot Depth 135'
Density 232 du/a
Number of Units 36 units
FAR 5.7
Height (feet) 85'-6"
Height (stories) 8 stories
Mixed-Use No
Commercial Area N/A

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 108 of 201 ends

Page 114 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update | 13
2847 Shattuck Ave
Berkeley, CA

PROJECT DATA
Lot Area 11036 sf
Lot Width 89'-8"
Lot Depth 120-4"
Density 537 du/a
Number of Units 136 units
FAR 5.34
Height (feet) 100'-6"
Height (stories) 9 stories
Mixed-Use Yes
Commercial Area 2530 sf

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 109 of 201 ends

Page 115 ends

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update
Community Workshop #2 Summary
N. Shattuck Workshop: August 20, 2025 | 6:00-8:00pm | In Person College Ave Workshop: August 26, 2025 | 6:00-8:00pm | In Person Solano A
ve Workshop: August 27, 2025 | 6:30-8:30pm | In Person
Overview
In late August 2025, the City hosted a series of three corridor-specific workshops on North Shattuck, College Ave, and Solano A
ve. The purpose of these workshops was to:
● Provide an overview of the project background and objectives, and engagement plan/timeline ● Share general information about zoning and housing element to set foundation and reduce concerns and misinformation about the project
● Provide a summary of feedback and key takeaways from Workshop #1 ● Provide an overview of the Alternatives analysis and development potential along the three corridors and how Alternatives were derived
● Provide forum for community members to share their desires and concerns related to design and land use considerations along each of the corridors through an open house format In Attendance
North Shattuck Workshop:

Memb
ers of the public: approximately 60 m
eeting participants
City of Berkeley: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, Councilmember Igor Tregub, Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, Jordan Klein, Justin Horner, Uttara Ramakrishnan, Caroline Johnson, Singeh Saliki Raimi + Associates: Chris Sensenig, Foteini Bouliari
Plan to Place: Dave Javid, Quentin Freeman, Dasha Ortenberg Yes Community Architects: Yes Duffy, Joseph Ongaco
College Avenue Workshop:

Members of the public: approximately 130 m
eeting participants
City of Berkeley: Councilmember Mark Humbert, Jordan Klein, Justin Horner, Uttara Ramakrishnan, Anne Hersch, Faye Messner, Branka Tatarevic
Raimi + Associates: Chris Sensenig, Foteini Bouliari
Plan to Place: Dave Javid, Quentin Freeman, Dasha Ortenberg Yes Community Architects: Yes Duffy, Joseph Ongaco, Magen Siu Lau Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025 ATTACHMENT 3

Page 110 of 201 ends

Page 116 ends

Solano Avenue Workshop:

Members of the public: approximately 120 meeting participants City of Berkeley: Jordan Klein, Uttara Ramakrishnan, Alene Pearson, Caroline Johnson, Sarah Price, Robert Rivera
Raimi + Associates: Chris Sensenig, Foteini Bouliari
Plan to Place: Dave Javid, Quentin Freeman, Dasha Ortenberg Yes Community Architects: Yes Duffy, Magen Siu Lau

Meeting Summary
Each of the workshops began with a welcome from City representatives and the project team, followed by introductions and a brief live participant poll (summarized in each workshop section, see Appendix for full results) to get a sense of who was joining the workshop. Raimi + Associates, the consulting firm leading the effort alongside city staff, gave a presentation on the project background, overview, and intent, and shared an overview of the proposed zoning alternatives for each corridor. A summary of feedback received from the first Workshop was also shared. Plan to Place and Raimi + Associates then wrapped up the presentation by sharing next steps and ways to stay involved in the Zoning Update project.

Next, participants were invited to visit three different stations set up as an open house, with opportunities to learn more about the project and existing zoning (Station 1), the proposed alternatives and design standards (Station 2), and to share their feedback and priorities for the corridors (Station 3).

Each station was staffed by members of the project team to answer questions and record participant feedback.

At Station 3, participants were invited to respond to the following questions:
● How important are the following design and land use considerations for the future of the corridor? Please rank from Extremely Important to Not Important At All. ○ Maximize new housing at all affordability levels
○ Maximize affordable housing
○ Maintain ground floor retail opportunities along the entire corridor ○ Allow ground floor residential in some locations
○ Support existing businesses
○ Create transitions between taller buildings on N Shattuck and adjacent lower scale residential neighborhoods
○ Reduce the perceived height of taller buildings by stepping back the upper floors of buildings along N Shattuck and side streets
○ Create additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining and residential stoops ○ Minimize curb cuts along N Shattuck for pedestrian and bike safety ○ Provide private open space for building occupants (balconies / courtyards) ● Choose your top two priorities for the corridor.
○ Maximize housing at all affordability levels
○ Maximize affordable housing
○ Support existing businesses
○ Maintain corridor retail vibrancy
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 111 of 201 ends

Page 117 ends

○ Create transitions between taller buildings on N Shattuck and adjacent lower-scale residential neighborhoods
○ Reduce the perceived height of taller buildings along N Shattuck and side streets ● Which zoning alternative is most appropriate for the corridor? ○ Alt 1
○ Alt 2
○ Keep existing zoning
○ Allow even taller buildings

Above: Snapshots of the feedback boards from the College Ave workshop, filled out by participants

The feedback received for each corridor from the three workshops is summarized below, beginning with responses to the questions above and including key takeaways from other written feedback. A transcript of all the written comments received is included in the Appendix.

There is also an Online Survey currently available with the same questions asked at Station 3 at the in-person workshops, for those that did not get a chance to share their input. A full summary of the online survey
will be posted to the project website after it closes on October 10, 2025.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 112 of 201 ends

Page 118 ends

North Shattuck Workshop - August 20, 2025

Above: workshop participants during the open house and presentation

Participant Demographics
Before the presentation, participants were invited to complete a brief demographic survey. While not all participants answered every question, below is a brief summary of the demographics of workshop attendees (the full participant poll from each workshop is included in the Appendix).

What's your connection to Berkeley?
● Live in Berkeley - 31%
● Work in Berkeley - 20%
● Visit Berkeley for fun - 5%
● Shop in Berkeley - 28%
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 113 of 201 ends

Page 119 ends

● I go to school in Berkeley / my kids go to school in Berkeley - 11% ● I live near Berkeley - 4%

What's your connection to the three corridors?
● I live near Solano Ave - 22%
● I live near N Shattuck - 52%
● I live near College Ave - 4%
● I don't live near any of the corridors - 13%
● Other - 8%

Which of the following best describes your housing situation? ● Own - 70%
● Rent - 25%
● Live with family/friends - 5%
● Unhoused - 0%

How old are you?
● <18 - 0%
● 18-24 - 11%
● 25-34 - 11%
● 35-44 - 5%
● 45-54 - 16%
● 55-64 - 52%
● 65 or older - 26%

Which best describes your background?
● Asian or Asian American - 5%
● Black or African American - 0%
● Hispanic of Latino/a/x - 5%
● Middle Eastern or North African - 0%
● Native American or Alaska Native - 0%
● Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - 0%
● White - 71%
● Two or more races - 5%
● Other - 19%

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 114 of 201 ends

Page 120 ends

How important are the following design and land use considerations for the future of North Shattuck?

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking design and land use considerations for North Shattuck

Participants ranked each design and land use consideration on a scale from Extremely Important to Not Important At All. The following is the number of times a design consideration was marked Extremely Important:

● Create additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining and residential stoops - 19 ● Support existing businesses - 18
● Create transitions between taller buildings on N Shattuck and adjacent lower scale residential neighborhoods - 16
● Maximize affordable housing - 14
● Reduce the perceived height of taller buildings by stepping back the upper floors of buildings along N Shattuck and side streets - 12
● Maintain ground floor retail opportunities along the entire corridor - 12 ● Minimize curb cuts along N Shattuck for pedestrian and bike safety - 4 ● Allow ground floor residential in some locations - 3
● Maximize new housing at all affordability levels - 3
● Provide private open space for building occupants (balconies / courtyards) - 2

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 115 of 201 ends

Page 121 ends

Key Concept Priorities

Participants chose their top two priorities for the future of North Shattuck. The following shows the order of priorities from most to least important:

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking key concept priorities for North Shattuck

The top priority of participants was to maximize new housing at all affordability levels, followed by maximizing affordable housing and supporting existing businesses.

Which zoning alternative is most appropriate for North Shattuck?

Participants were asked to choose between Alternative 1, Alternative 2, keeping the existing zoning, and allowing even taller buildings on North Shattuck.

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking zoning alternatives for North Shattuck Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 116 of 201 ends

Page 122 ends

Most workshop participants want to keep the existing zoning in North Shattuck.

Key Takeaways

Participants shared extensive feedback throughout the workshop. A full transcript is included in the Appendix, and the following is a summary of key takeaways from conversations and written feedback from participants, roughly ordered by how frequently the themes were mentioned.

● Design Standards and Neighborhood Character - 35 comments ○ Support for beautiful design that is cohesive with the existing architectural styles of the neighborhood and maintains historical properties and character ○ Concern over shadows, boxy development, and development that isn’t people-scaled ○ Support for flexibility with ground floor uses: ground floor residential, community centers, maker spaces
○ Support for requirements for green space or street trees in new development ● Affordability - 20 comments
○ Prioritize the development of more affordable units, including extremely low income, very low income, and low income housing, as well as service centers for unhoused people ○ Concern that developers won’t provide adequate affordable housing and use in-lieu fees to only build market-rate housing
○ Concern that new development will raise rents for surrounding family businesses and lead to displacement and changing community character
○ Support for housing that will serve families, young people, and people who work in Berkeley who are at risk of being pushed out by rising rents ○ Support for non-profit developers to provide affordable housing ● Density, Height, and Redevelopment - 16 comments
○ Support for higher density development to give renters more options ○ Support for 3-5 story development, but concern over proposed 8 story development ○ Interest in multiple types of housing, including condos, co-housing, apartments ○ Sentiment that other corridors might be better suited for upzoning ○ Support for developing empty lots and finishing existing redevelopment projects in Berkeley before beginning more redevelopment
○ Concern over half-finished projects, sustainability of funding ● Streets and Sidewalks - 15 comments
○ Concern that added density will impact accessibility and mobility for seniors and disabled people
○ Support for traffic calming, wider sidewalks, more greenery, and increased walkability ● Local Business - 10 comments
○ Concern that neighborhood is already losing local business, and adding new housing could support local business
○ Support for small family businesses and services
○ Concern that redevelopment will drive retail away, and that ground floor retail spaces will sit empty or result in endless turnover
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 117 of 201 ends

Page 123 ends

● Process - 6 comments
○ Request for open forum workshops so all participants can hear from each other ○ Concern that feedback won’t be integrated, and that only options serve developers rather than authentically reflect community wishes

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 118 of 201 ends

Page 124 ends

College Avenue Workshop - August 26, 2025

Above: workshop participants watching the presentation and visiting open house stations, snapshot of feedback

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 119 of 201 ends

Page 125 ends

What's your connection to Berkeley?
● Live in Berkeley - 39%
● Work in Berkeley - 18%
● Visit Berkeley for fun - 3%
● Shop in Berkeley - 32%
● I go to school in Berkeley / my kids go to school in Berkeley - 7% ● I live near Berkeley - 1%

What's your connection to the three corridors?
● I live near Solano Ave - 2%
● I live near N Shattuck - 4%
● I live near College Ave - 89%
● I don't live near any of the corridors - 2%
● Other - 2%

Which of the following best describes your housing situation? ● Own - 84%
● Rent - 10%
● Live with family/friends - 6%
● Unhoused - 0%

How old are you?
● <18 - 1%
● 18-24 - 1%
● 25-34 - 4%
● 35-44 - 8%
● 45-54 - 5%
● 55-64 - 14%
● 65 or older - 64%

Which best describes your background?
● Asian or Asian American - 8%
● Black or African American - 2%
● Hispanic of Latino/a/x - 3%
● Middle Eastern or North African - 2%
● Native American or Alaska Native - 0%
● Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - 0%
● White - 77%
● Two or more races - 5%
● Other - 3%
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 120 of 201 ends

Page 126 ends

How important are the following design and land use considerations for the future of College Avenue?

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking design and land use considerations for College Ave

Participants ranked each design consideration and land use from Extremely Important to Not Important At All. The following shows the number of times a design consideration was ranked Extremely Important:
● Support existing businesses - 35
● Maximize new housing at all affordability levels - 28 ● Maintain ground floor retail opportunities along the entire corridor - 24 ● Create additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining and residential stoops - 16 ● Create transitions between taller buildings on N Shattuck and adjacent lower scale residential neighborhoods - 13
● Maximize affordable housing - 11
● Reduce the perceived height of taller buildings by stepping back the upper floors of buildings along College and side streets - 10
● Allow ground floor residential in some locations - 9
● Minimize curb cuts along College for pedestrian and bike safety - 9 ● Provide private open space for building occupants (balconies / courtyards) - 5

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 121 of 201 ends

Page 127 ends

Key Concept Priorities

Participants chose their top two priorities for the future of College Ave. The following shows the order of priorities from most to least important:

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking key concept priorities for College Ave

The top priority of participants was to maintain corridor retail vibrancy, followed by maximizing new housing at all affordability levels.

Which zoning alternative is most appropriate for College Ave?

Participants were asked to choose between Alternative 1, Alternative 2, keeping the existing zoning, and allowing even taller buildings on College Ave.

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking zoning alternatives for College Ave.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 122 of 201 ends

Page 128 ends

The top choice among workshop participants was to keep the existing zoning on College Ave. More than half of the respondents supported some form of upzoning.

Key Takeaways
Participants shared extensive feedback throughout the workshop. A full transcript is included in the Appendix, and the following is a summary of key takeaways from conversations and written feedback from participants, roughly ordered by how frequently the themes were mentioned.

● Streets, Congestion, and Parking - 37 comments
○ Concern over increased congestion in the neighborhood ○ Concern over accessibility of streets for seniors, children, disabled people with increased congestion from new development
○ Concern over increasing congestion on an evacuation route ○ Support for increased public transit and protected bike lanes ● Design Standards and Neighborhood Character - 35 comments ○ Support for stepbacks between sidewalk and building to retain pedestrian appeal ○ Support for design standards that maintain the architectural style, detail, and scale of the neighborhood
○ Concern that proposed design standards don’t match neighborhood style and are generic and boxy
○ Support for retail on the ground floor
○ Concern that Elmwood is a small village that doesn’t have carrying capacity for increased density at this scale
○ Concern that redevelopment would fundamentally change neighborhood character ● Redevelopment - 32 comments
○ Opposition to upzoning the Elmwood and proposal to focus redevelopment in other neighborhoods (Telegraph Ave, University Ave, Downtown Berkeley,. Sacramento Street, Ashby Ave) (16 comments)
○ Support for upzoning the neighborhood to foster vibrancy and affordability (16 comments)
○ Need more clarity around state mandate and how close Berkeley is to meeting its goals ○ Sentiment that redevelopment and investment should happen in Berkeley’s “dead zones” and where there are already ongoing or stalled developments ● Density and Heights - 25 comments
○ Support for some increased density and height, but sentiment that 6 stories is too high ○ Some support for increased heights over 6 stories
○ Concern that increased density would impact infrastructure and accessibility of the area ○ Sentiment that Berkeley is dense enough already
● Local Business - 20 comments
○ 7/11, laundromat, and post office are all anchor sites serving the Elmwood community ○ Support for existing local business and concern that redevelopment would lead to displacement and vacancies

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 123 of 201 ends

Page 129 ends

● Process - 14 comments
○ Concerns over transparency and support for all comments being shared on the project website
○ Concern that community feedback will not impact City decisions ○ Support for an open forum format so all participants can hear from each other ○ Concern over poor communication with neighborhoods
● Affordability - 10 comments
○ Concern that this plan doesn’t authentically contribute to affordable housing and prioritizes developer profit over neighborhood need
○ Support for creating more affordable housing for everyone

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 124 of 201 ends

Page 130 ends

Solano Avenue Workshop - August 27, 2025

Above: workshop participants watching the project presentation, sharing feedback

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 125 of 201 ends

Page 131 ends

What's your connection to Berkeley?
● Live in Berkeley - 37%
● Work in Berkeley - 13%
● Visit Berkeley for fun - 7%
● Shop in Berkeley - 29%
● I go to school in Berkeley / my kids go to school in Berkeley - 9% ● I live near Berkeley - 4%

What's your connection to the three corridors?
● I live near Solano Ave - 60%
● I live near N Shattuck - 23%
● I live near College Ave - 0%
● I don't live near any of the corridors - 12%
● Other - 5%

Which of the following best describes your housing situation? ● Own - 89%
● Rent - 9%
● Live with family/friends - 2%
● Unhoused - 0%

How old are you?
● <18 - 0%
● 18-24 - 2%
● 25-34 - 2%
● 35-44 - 20%
● 45-54 - 11%
● 55-64 - 22%
● 65 or older - 43%

Which best describes your background?
● Asian or Asian American - 7%
● Black or African American - 1%
● Hispanic of Latino/a/x - 5%
● Middle Eastern or North African - 0%
● Native American or Alaska Native - 0%
● Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - 0%
● White - 70%
● Two or more races - 5%
● Other - 9%

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 126 of 201 ends

Page 132 ends

How important are the following design and land use considerations for the future of Solano Avenue?

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking design and land use considerations for Solano Ave

Participants ranked each design consideration and land use from Extremely Important to Not Important At All. The following shows the number of times a design consideration was ranked Extremely Important:
● Support existing businesses - 34
● Maintain ground floor retail opportunities along the entire corridor - 31 ● Maximize affordable housing - 26
● Create additional sidewalk space for outdoor dining and residential stoops - 25 ● Maximize new housing at all affordability levels - 21 ● Reduce the perceived height of taller buildings by stepping back the upper floors of buildings along N Shattuck and side streets - 18
● Minimize curb cuts along N Shattuck for pedestrian and bike safety - 17 ● Create transitions between taller buildings on N Shattuck and adjacent lower scale residential neighborhoods - 10
● Allow ground floor residential in some locations - 8
● Provide private open space for building occupants (balconies / courtyards) - 1

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 127 of 201 ends

Page 133 ends

Key Concept Priorities

Participants chose their top two priorities for the future of Solano Ave. The following shows the order of priorities from most to least important:

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking key concept priorities for Solano Ave

The top priority of participants was to maintain corridor retail vibrancy, followed by maximizing new housing at all affordability levels.

Which zoning alternative is most appropriate for Solano Ave?

Participants were asked to choose between Alternative 1, Alternative 2, keeping the existing zoning, and allowing even taller buildings on Solano Ave.

Above: Chart showing participant responses ranking zoning alternatives for Solano Ave.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 128 of 201 ends

Page 134 ends

The top choice among workshop participants was to proceed with Alternative 2. Most workshop participants supported some form of upzoning.

● Streets, Congestion, and Parking - 45 comments
○ Concern over increased congestion in the neighborhood ○ Support for increased walkability, street trees, and public realm improvements ○ Support for increased public transit and protected bike lanes ○ Significant concern over parking impacts on Solano Ave and subsequent accessibility challenges for seniors, disabled people
● Design Standards and Neighborhood Character - 28 comments ○ Support for stepbacks
○ Support for design standards that maintain the architectural style, detail, and scale of the neighborhood, as well as build the diversity of styles in Berkeley ○ Concern that proposed design standards don’t match neighborhood style and are generic and boxy
○ Sentiment that the plan should focus on upzoning and provide flexibility in design standards for more choice by the community and developers ○ Mixed support for ground-floor residential
○ Support for preservation of historical buildings
● Density, Heights, and Redevelopment - 25 comments
○ Support for more housing in general (12 comments)
○ Support for Alternative 2 and increased density to increase opportunities for all (3 comments)
○ Concern that 6 stories is too tall for Solano and inconsistent with the neighborhood character (3 comments)
○ Questions about possibility of 100% density bonus
○ Support for Impact Fees and EIR for new development
○ Concern over feasibility of the plan
○ Concern over potential for dead zones
● Local Business - 25 comments
○ Concern over losing Andronico’s
○ Support for existing local business and concern that redevelopment would lead to displacement, dead zones, and vacancies
● Affordability - 20 comments
○ Concern that this plan doesn’t authentically contribute to affordable housing and prioritizes developer profit over neighborhood need
○ Support for creating more affordable housing for everyone, including missing middle, teachers, librarians, seniors, and those who work in Berkeley ○ Support for affordable housing that can be bought, not just rented Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 129 of 201 ends

Page 135 ends

○ Concern over in-lieu fees replacing affordable housing ○ Support for non-profit developers to provide affordable housing ● Process - 11 comments
○ Concern that community feedback will not impact City decisions ○ Support for an open forum format so all participants can hear from each other ○ Concern over poor communication with neighborhoods

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 130 of 201 ends

Page 136 ends

Appendix

Full Transcript of Written Feedback - North Shattuck Workshop ● Row redesign for ADA
● Zoning increase leads to people increase - think about ADA accessibility ● Create more opportunities for entry level home ownership, not only rental (but both are good) ● Need extremely low income / very low income / low income housing ● Ensure more affordable units
● Need to gather the funds to support non-profit developers that will actually provide affordable housing ● Ensure rents in surrounding neighborhood / family business rents don't get raised as a result of new development ● What income range is affordable and how is LI/VLI defined? Need truly affordable housing ● Why allow in-lieu fees if the point is to bring lower income folks in? Totally contradictory ● What is affordable?
● Son can't afford to live here
● People that work here should be able to afford to live here ● Outside developers making a profit off of ruining our city's character - this project just serves to make developers big profits, not for the neighborhood
● Low income and middle income housing! These are the people being pushed out ● City needs to use its resources to support non profit community based developers who will provide majority low income/very low income housing, smaller projects, not large majority market rate with a smidge of affordable. VLI residents are being pushed out and these alts won't change that ● upzoning / redeveloping Solano will ruin it - raise rents for family businesses, destroy quaint neighborhoods ● Low income & unhoused need bigger units to serve that population. Ie, Pacific Steel Area can be a service center with housing, outreach to get this population served
● Concerns: losing local business - adding housing could be a solution to bring more business ● Safeway has posh business. Have some small groceries & pharmacy ● Movie theater - PFAC Elmwood doing well
● BofA sold recently, how can residents stay in the loop on what's happening with that? ● Want people who contribute to the community to be able to live here - young people, workers ● How to promote development? Need more community support ● Community centers on the ground floor - energize the neighborhood ● Concerns: Geotechnical and soil stability
● We will meet our RHNA goals with the existing pipeline. Why ruin neighborhoods? ● Support the higher density alt. I'm a renter, minimal difference between alts, need more height / be more aspirational ● Are objective design standards part of this project?
● What can be done to ensure existing solar panels are minimally shadowed? ● Leave step backs to the developer
● Allow ground floor residential
● Concern about sidewalk widths- can buildings be set back? ● More design standards for style
● Context responsive design
● Figure out a way to have good design
● Make our neighborhoods really beautiful, in the legacy of Julia Morgan. Create beautiful green spaces ● Please adopt objective design standards for historic properties (landmarks) so that CPC has leverage under HAA, even in the context of an upzoning
● Make Berkeley, especially N Shattuck a beautiful neighborhood with community shared spaces, gardens, fountains, peaceful space also lower levels more community serving: ie Elephant Pharmacy had health oriented products and services. Alternative medicine, yoga classes, performance spaces for the community to enjoy in the large scale development proposal. Housing, but community needs should be included. ● Architecturally: buildings that can be a model for the community and world, ie Singapore developments with green spaces
● Not just boxy glass
● Design important: aesthetics keep places vibrant and inviting Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 131 of 201 ends

Page 137 ends

● Concerns over shadows and development that's not people-scale ● How can we allow 2nd floor restaurants?
● How do we provide enough housing for people that have to leave high risk fire areas? ● Don't want it to cook like walnut creek
● Require developers to include trees and plantings in their plans - heat dome ● What happens when or if the money runs out before the completion of the large buildings? ● How to ensure that it's financially feasible to build the new housing? ● Weaving in new is a challenge, but it's essential
● University a better corridor for redevelopment
● Trails to ties up all the communities
● Restaurants need vent systems
● Service: real estate, medical
● Retail include light manufacturing, maker spaces
● Retail - 1000 sqft?
● North Shattuck businesses association, highest and best use ● Keep the flavor 'heat island'
● I like it! Shops and biking and step backs
● Height is not as important as getting more people into the neighborhood ● When Cheeseboard isn't open, much less foot traffic
● Bring people from Vine to the other end
● Empty lot on Allston: dead! Center & Oxford: 8 stories isn't happening. Take care of these first! ● Why increase zoning? District 4 already added a lot of density ● Concerns regarding 2109 Virginia Development Proposal of an 8 Story Building (110 units, 108 parking) adjacent to 2 story Single-Multi-Family Homes - Use permit for a project at 2109 Virginia - ZAB App # ZP 2024-0066 - Melinda E Lopez, North Shattuck Alliance of concerned neighbors on Walnut St, Berkeley, CA 94709 ● Cont: We are writing to express our significant concerns regarding the proposed 8 story, 110 unit development at 2109 Virginia St, which also includes 109 parking spaces. We understand that our submission is past the formal deadline, but we respectfully request that this letter and any accompanying documentation be entered into the record for the July 24th ZAB meeting
● Take a pause with development
● Work on the empty lots first
● doesn't feel great to be limited by this small increase ● APSI Systems are not working - need this
● Please include footage as well as stories in plans presented to the community ● High density is a good vision for the future
● Art studios, maker spaces, offices
● Cont: Primary concerns: geotechnical and soil stability: The area surrounding 2109 Virginia, including adjacent streets of Cedar, Walnut, and Shattuck, has not been thoroughly evaluated in recent public geotechnical studies. We are concerned about the potential risks of soil instability, settlement, or lateral movement affecting neighboring historic and residential properties, particularly those on Walnut St ● Virginia St - preserve 3-4 story max
● Buildings near single family homes shouldn't go high
● Monster building next to single family homes
● 8 stories too tall for Virginia. New dorms: a lot of people ● 4-5 stories is fine, 8 feels too high
● Please fund a corridor historic resource survey as a part of the corridor rezoning ● we want development to blend with historic buildings
● Mix of houses, condos
● Is there anything that can be done to make it easier to build condos? What about co-housing? ● Cont: Infrastructure strain: increased density can strain existing infrastructure like water, sewer, and electrical systems. Traffic congestion and parking availability may also worsen. ● What about infrastructure? Electrical and water may be impacted ● Concern over increased density without sewer infrastructure to support Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 132 of 201 ends

Page 138 ends

● Concerns: scale and massing incompatibility, traffic and parking impact, environmental and CEQA review (Virginia Cleaners has toxic substance on proposed space), community process and transparency ● Do not allow CVS / Andronicos to rezone unless there is a plan that there will be a grocery and pharmacy at these locations - if you don't do that you will kill seniors and kill walkability ● Change that keeps the magic of Berkeley
● Old B of A property - activate parking lot in interim ● Love Walnut development
● Cont: Neighborhood character: a 7 or 8 story building can significantly alter the visual landscape and character of a neighborhood, potentially clashing with the existing scale and aesthetic of smaller buildings ● You are ruining character
● Many people moved to Berkeley for the low density and hope that their children could safely be free range walking and biking independently. We must not destroy that hope ● Buildings are out of character for north Berkeley. The 4 stories across the street are dense and aesthetic ● Character matters
● How do you make it a special place
● Want to see charm and flavor integrated into any change ● Proposed 8 story apartments in Berkeley's Gourmet Ghetto: is this the future we want for our neighborhood? What the community asks for: let's build a future that fits! The gourmet ghetto is more than a place - it's a cultural icon.

From Chez Panisse to the first Peet's store to Cheeseboard, and new additions like Agrodolce and Roast & Toast.

Let's ensure new developments enrich, not erase, this unique neighborhood's character. ● What integration looks like: street level retail or cafes, vertical greenery, sustainable features, and art. Public spaces like pocket parks, plazas, or seating. Context-sensitive design that respects neighborhood scale ● Cont: We know this new building will benefit from being in the attractive Gourmet Ghetto, but what will they contribute? Nothing! It will detract! It's a take, take situation. Let's not allow that to happen! Instead, lets wait for a developer with plans for a beautiful 2-3 story building, adding shops, restaurants, and beautiful architecture like the historic Peets building. The developers boast a coffee shop for their residents. That's it! No shops, restaurants, nothing to add. Who benefits from that? We already have two fabulous coffee shops on the block, the Frencha cafe and the Guerilla Cafe and one block away is a big new coffee shop. What makes us bent on building these inappropriate complexes? The cities which have held out are now so happy they did. We should avoid any money transfer schemes at the expense of current residents. Living in the Gourmet Ghetto area is highly valued. Don't take away the beauty and specialness of the community. A seven or eight story is too high for any residential area and it's a travesty if it is right next to your home. It will reduce property values. Remember that often the initially presented plan is much different from the finalized project as the developers will continually take any advantage possible. There is potential for increased noise and shadows. Temperatures (global warming) will rise with more cement and a huge ugly high block of cement.
● Current design is out of sync with the community. Lacks meaningful community spaces, very small retail space with the rest of the Shattuck street frontage closed off to the public, very limited public interaction space at street level, modern behemoth style facade and cold materials don't reflect historic charm of N Berkeley. Fails to reflect the human scale and character of Gourmet Ghetto's mixed use vibrancy. Real concerns about traffic flow on Walnut, Virginia, Shattuck - with parking access from Virginia, traffic flow on all streets will be significantly impacted, with no corresponding plan from city to address
● Cont: Noise pollution: construction and occupancy of a larger building can lead to increased noise levels. ● We will need more parking with more people (visitors, caregivers, etc). Almost all the people in the hills drive down to shop.
● Open forum vs breakouts? Ask the public for their opinion on format ● Need more authentic engagement - only options serve developers, not community ● Please allow the community to hear each other w/ public comment (we are onto your scheme to keep us from organizing)
● Show a before and after of similar neighborhood zoning impact in other cities. How did high resources of the neighborhood change? Benchmarks
● Concern about feedback not being integrated
● Glad to do this format
● Cont: Property values: While some properties may benefit from increased demand, others, particularly those with views obstructed by the taller building, may see a decrease in value.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 133 of 201 ends

Page 139 ends

● Cont: Scale and massing incompatibility: an 8 story building is significantly out of scale with the immediate neighborhood, which primarily consists of 1-3 story buildings. The visual impact and shadowing effects on nearby residences and community spaces must be more carefully reviewed ● The scope of this should be expanded to include street redesign at least narrower streets, outdoor dining, plaza ● Cont: Shadows and light: the taller building could cast long shadows, impacting sunlight access for surrounding properties and potentially affecting landscaping or solar panel efficiency. ● Alston Way empty lot? Starbucks redevelop
● Shattuck Ave: traffic calming, more walkable
● Increase walkability
● Crossing mid block for Cheeseboard not good
● outdoor dining
● Make sidewalks for pedestrians! Control scooters and wayfinding, weird electronic signage allowed by the city ● Redesign area at/between Shattuck/Rose to reduce the amount of asphalt there. Extremely hostile to pedestrians.

That area is horrible but could add to the community
● Reduce width of Shattuck from 4 lanes to 2 and eliminate the median from Hearst to Sutter. Add sidewalks and outdoor dining that whole length!
● Set backs please!
● How do we make Shattuck smaller? Less asphalt, one lane ● How can we link this to street redesign & plaza redesign? ● Cont: Traffic and parking impact: the proposed 109 parking spaces raise concerns about increased vehicular traffic and congestion on nearby narrow streets. We request a thorough and publicly accessible traffic impact analysis ● Include housing homeless and services in North Shattuck ● This will do nothing to address the homeless crisis in Berkeley ● How to ensure ground floor retail doesn't sit empty?
● How to ensure there won't be endless turnover in retail? ● Worried about vacancies
● Afraid you'll drive retail away
● Re: 2109 Virginia St, Elizabeth Scherer, Resident for 46 yrs in this neighborhood. Many single-family homes in this area will be impacted. We are not downtown. We have mostly two to three story buildings. The blocking of the view will not only impact the residents close by with homes, but all homes on the north side. Many will see a large unattractive cement building sticking out like a tooth cutting out their views. Those looking up from the flats or from the city will now have their views of the hills blocked as well. ● Views are lost from single family home
● Have you thought about expanding the commercial portion of College? ● The scope of this should be expanded to include 1 block to either side of Shattuck

Full Transcript of Written Feedback - College Ave Workshop ● Support density (+2)
● Support density, this is underwhelmingThis does not contribute to affordable housing, this is a give away to developers (+1)
● Lots of older people depend on accessibility of the neighborhood ● This is not about housing affordability if only 6 out of 26 units of a building are required to be affordable ● Density that allows for deeper affordable that fits w/in neighborhood character ● Current College ave looks like a street w/ shops, would love 4 stories but not 6 ● College needs taller buildings, but 6 stories too much for width ● College is a narrow street (not an actual avenue), 5 stories is really high ● Support highest density option
● Support higher density alternative
● In favor of highest density alt, need more housing
● Support development, agree with maximizing housing, allowing residential ground floors ● Higher alt, no need for stepbacks
● This is great - could be more ambitious - would shoot for 5-10 stories. Disregard non representative public meeting ● More housing in an already densely populated area doesn't make sense Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 134 of 201 ends

Page 140 ends

● UC students impact density - we have more students than ever before ● Medium maybe high density unlikely
● More density - more traffic: we have all day jams now ● Stepbacks to retain pedestrian appeal
● Require stepdowns
● Setbacks between sidewalk and building
● Corner lot set back on both
● Step downs to adjacent R-LA lots
● Want ground floor setbacks, space for people
● Better objective design standards, more detailed
● Buildings need setbacks along corridors
● Renders: show that it belongs there (architecture)
● Style' to be maintained in new development
● Respect architectural style for new buildings in College Ave ● Architecture matters! Don't build ugly & cheap buildings ● How can we represent Berkeley architectural style in taller buildings? Eg, wood shingles, craftsman, etc ● Minimize shading
● Where are the guidelines for what might be built? Any restrictions? ● So far so ugly
● The current new buildings on Shattuck are mostly plain to ugly and there's no effort to increase green spaces ● Yes to upper set back - landscaping at street level is crucial - alt #1 medium is best for College ● Let's be creative in designing these buildings - no flat boxes - integrate w/ neighborhood character ● Both and! Beautiful neighborhood character, & developed. Not YIMBY or NIMBY - labels aren't helpful, create community!
● One way to create community - courtyards invite into buildings - spaces invite people to stop ● Setbacks don't help aesthetically - historical context no setbacks, & they take away density ● Articulated facades all the way up
● Character at ground floor - need more room at sidewalk ● Bays, step facade in and out, interrupt ground floor with doorways ● Balconies, keep ground floor, detail, character
● Minimize stepbacks, particularly on commercial streets ● No stepbacks, whatever increases density the most!
● Historical character doesn't include stepbacks, neighborhood character is about who can live here ● Maintain human scale, greenery, light, accessibility
● "The Architectural Design(s) and scale of the Elmwood Business District” Absolutely need to be preserved. Integrity and History Matter!
● Consider impacts with shadows, streets
● Construction noise and loss of customers
● Is the post office a superfund site? Previous gas station ● Home owners: we all agree we would downsize if incentivized ● We need to fix prop 13
● Turnover in housing is important
● We need playgrounds for kids
● redevelop = be destroyed
● What is the cumulative effect of all the zoning?
● Need to know the min state requirement, be clear about policy, how many projects have been approved fact sheet ● City did not bad job w/ middle housing
● Reduce bureaucracy
● Look SB 79 & towards Alcatraz
● Are we within or beyond the state mandate? Please use plain english ● Why not finish your 17 projects downtown first?
● Prop 13 is behind expensive housing! Berkeley can't fix it! ● Legalize housing
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 135 of 201 ends

Page 141 ends

● SF just broke ground on an 'affordable' housing project near Potrero Hill. The newspaper & the mayor are all excited about 187 new "units". They are 300sqft and 400sqft! Is that housing? ● The city gets in its own way. Don't homogenize
● Berkeley is for everyone not just old white people
● Place for people to express their fears, fear of the unknown ● Adding housing frees market rate housing 70% of the time. It opens affordable units 30% per unit added! Build as much as transit allows!
● Nobody asked about our boundaries, our guardrails
● Dead zones in Berkeley already, why not there!
● Soviet style social engineering
● Please review all zoning & planning decisions in Berkeley for the last 75 years. What were the long term results? ● Berkeley is already dense, seems to want to solve the entire housing crisis right here ● Howard Roark lives
● Berkeley is already one of the most dense cities in CA ● What does 'access to resources' mean? Berkeley is small ● Berkeley can't fix Prop 13! That's what makes the Elmwood so expensive. Nobody moves! ● Share Berkeley & Elmwood with all people and values
● Are we planning for residents 30, 50 years from now?
● reduce complexity of housing bureaucracy - too many carve out ● Berkeley has exceeded the state market rate housing allotment. Why change zoning for more market rate housing? ● This is a give away to developers. Where are the requirements for the building? ● Reuse existing buildings wherever possible, add to existing structures - lower carbon footprint ● Don't believe that redevelopment would be so minimal
● # of residents in Berkeley? How many units are built already/under construction? How do we compare with other cities re: infill?
● What tells us that someone will not acquire the sites? ● Why is the former dry cleaners site (a small site) considered likely to redevelop? ● Rent board, relax rent laws
● What happens if property owners decide to sell adjacent properties? ● There are better sites for housing, do not rezone College Ave ● Where are all the supporting elements for more housing - Cal should take responsibility ● All commercial on ground floor
● Maximize retail on ground floor
● Maximize retail on ground floor
● Preserve historical facade
● 7/11 Laundromat is vital to renters (ground floor retail) ● 7-11 lot - Russell/College needs ground floor retail. Laundry serves everyone. Don't take it away!!! ● 7-11, laundry, post office - all elmwood services
● Protect neighborhood commercial over residential
● Protect local business
● Would like to see more small businesses
● Support existing businesses & maintain retail! Not exclusive of the other ● Don't mind a little taller but concerned about small business displacement ● Make sure current business does not die
● concern about business going away
● Concern about displacement of business
● we are doing this for very little development, concern about commercial going away ● Concern about spaces for restaurants
● Concerns about traffic mitigation, businesses during construction ● Good plan, just maintain existing vendors if possible & keep it vibrant w/ more housing ● The financial equilibrium of the Elmwood is now stable, after many months of challenges due to covid and the repercussions. To Impose destabilizing changes would be totally unfair and totally unacceptable. Whose interests are being served by the strategically incoherent land use planning policy/proposals? Catering to the developers and putting the business stability at risk is an unethical modus operandi: a travesty. The current set of upzoning proposals Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 136 of 201 ends

Page 142 ends

threatens the integrity and security and viability of the business district. Catering to the developers is detrimental to the well-being and viability of the businesses. The disruption caused by any upzoning projects will be untenable.

Those businesses who survived the covid era absolutely need to remain viable. ● 7/11 and laundry is a real anchor to neighborhood
● Corridors seem targeted - this is a little village, when you have something valuable and precious, don't step on it! Too unique
● The Elmwood area is a community center - noise, etc of construction may impact business ● Neighborhood character is about architecture - not supportive of proposed designs, no dark colored buildings ● Concern about the character of the neighborhood changing ● Concerns:1.Stability, integrity, and the general well-being of the Elmwood business district are all at risk if upzoning is to be permitted.
● We need family friendly spaces open to community
● Spaces to create connection - make cities for people
● What if Berkeley says no to upzoning the Elmwood?
● No upzoning, save the Elmwood! If you change it, developers will come! ● This is a really terrible idea - no!!
● People moved here for low density! You are destroying this neighborhood ● no need for more housing! residential or otherwise, population declining business gone ● Against building on Elmwood historic district
● Why don't you focus on University Ave?
● Why not develop Sacramento Street into a livable commercial corridor? ● Why Elmwood? Should focus on Telegraph / Ashby by wider street, good transportation options ● Finish existing buildings in Downtown Berkeley first
● Why isn't Telegraph taken care of first?
● Finish your downtown projects, then we'll talk
● Why pushing to upzone this area? Pls consider Claremont ● Build housing on empty lots, not high traffic corridors ● Fix downtown
● Look at expanding housing on Ashby Ave
● Parking is important for locals and shoppers
● Parking for people who come to shop
● Families may need cars and parking
● Ensure comments can be captured on the website
● Prove that all comments are recorded and represented on project website ● All of the post its get posted for others to see what's good ● Would like to see the mailing list
● City council does not seem to respond in a meaningful way ● Question sincerity of this impacting the process
● The city ignored arguments about middle housing and never addressed the issues which were raised ● Stop managing us - Stop bulldozing the council agenda - let people speak ● Council person Humbert needs to have a town hall so he represents the neighborhood ● Berkeley values = everyone participates, now only wealthy relevant voices ● Need diff format, people want to hear from each other ● Alternatives being forced on community
● Communication should go through City Council - lots of neighbors didn't know this process was happening ● 4. Berkeley’s Mayor, City Council, and land-use planning department are not autonomous ‘self-driving’ governmental vehicles. Each entity is duty bound to listen to and respect the interests/will of the business wonders and residents who support those businesses. The well-being of the businesses is the backbone of a healthy economy. Elected officials and public servants are dutybound to respect the will of the citizens, taxpayers, and community at large. ● Senior housing
● College & Ashby intersection is already deadly
● College ave already congested, more housing will make it unbearable ● Fire evacuation! Civil engineering and modern tools
● Too much traffic will endanger our children
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 137 of 201 ends

Page 143 ends

● Too much traffic, need parking
● Already overcrowded, this will push it further. The street is too narrow. ● Increased density takes away existing parking for business is inappropriate/crazy ● Reduce traffic
● Our streets are already horribly congested and we haven't yet seen the impact of existing upzoning. Please slow down the development
● This will make parking and traffic terrible
● College crowded already, sidewalks not wide enough - no space for more people ● Already too congested, no more! (+2)
● fixing sidewalks important
● Wider sidewalks if more housing
● Need wider sidewalks
● Separate ped from bike issues
● Underground utilities now!
● Be sure to include wider sidewalks for pedestrians in elmwood ● Make commercial sections of College completely pedestrian, like in Seville Spain ● make pedestrian sides wider, eliminate parking on College, make people walk or bike ● Ashby evacuation route: hills to the Bay. Earthquake risk. Smart to put high density on evac route? Traffic impacts, staging areas?
● Please consider needs of the disabled. Congested sidewalks are a problem ● Consider carrying capacity - transit, streets, mobility, streets ● Make bike lanes completely separated from road like in Seville, Spain ● I own a house in Berkeley and have two young children and am in favor of building more housing. A lot of my friends with young kids are pro housing, but it is difficult to attend these meetings with childcare/bedtime ● We need more housing, I support more housing development here ● I live on Rosewood and Benvenue and support the upzoning ● Love density
● Maximize housing to allow more people to build lives in this amazing city ● We need more housing in Berkeley for people fleeing MAGA ● Step in the right direction but we need more than baby steps ● More housing
● Increase development probability
● We need more dense housing and more units so that I can raise my family in Elmwood ● We need more housing near transit - where I want to raise a family ● Upzone substantially more - 5-10 stories for vibrancy and affordability ● In favor of more density
● Hope for thinking to be both/and and not either/or - expansion okay, and tasteful design integrated into existing building design
● Elmwood's unique aspect is the bespoke architecture. Build as many units as possible but require (transit limited) architectural facades
● Not ambitious enough. 10 story!
● Increase public transit
● Protected bike lanes
● Protected bike lanes
● How do we protect kids who want to bike on College
● Everyone needs a car in Berkeley
● Bike lane! We need to connect to BART
● Please put your time and money into public transportation. Talk to the other cities. Most of this zoning is a fantasy of the council, not the state
● Why is UC Berkeley allowed to increase size and not contribute to City streets enough? ● Why is UCB allowed to continue expanding?
● inadequate consideration for urban greening
● Micro parks & street trees
● More trees, micro parks
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 138 of 201 ends

Page 144 ends

● Need more urban forest canopy
● Tree canopies along corridor, parklets
● Data on vacancy rates?
● Shattuck is bad - too much vacancy
● Until the City has data on current vacancy rates, no more upzoning (+1)

Full Transcript of Written Feedback - Solano Ave Workshop ● Think of affordability for missing middle as well
● Consider LI in addition to VLI
● Priority: maximize affordable housing that can be BOUGHT vs rented ● I don't want to have to be a millionaire to have a home or condo in Berkeley ● Create housing for teachers! Consider 30% LMI developments ● More affordable housing is always needed (yay)
● Provide housing for teachers & librarians
● Not enough affordable, VLI units
● Estimates on how many units will result from middle housing ● Why does Berkeley's IHO only include VLI, not LI as well? ● Affordable housing! Create beautiful architecture
● Berkeley has an existing list of of apt rentals - we don't need more. We need condos and town houses so seniors can relocate from large single family homes & stay in their neighborhood. And young people can buy affordable first home & build on their investment
● If you do add new housing it should be afffordable & reduce the ability to do the in lieu of payments ● NO in lieu of more affordable housing
● Developers use 'in lieu' to cut low income housing to 10% cost? $600/sqft. Discuss this! ● Alt #2 or even taller creates more options / opportunities for everyone! Our elders can age in the neighborhood. New families can move here. Lower income families face less competition with higher income families ● 6 is too big on Solano
● Support for Alt 2, plan w/ Albany
● Please prohibit / strongly discourage driveways / curb cuts on Solano Ave to preserve the safety of the sidewalk! How about encouraging "bundling" car access to the backs/basements of multiple/large properties in a given block into single shared driveways that feed into a shared rear/below grade alleyway/access aisle? ● You speak about developing likely 50% density bonus, but they are most likely to go for 100% to make $ ● Would there be a 100% density bonus ever?
● Make permitting easier. Create positive objective design standards ● Don't make it like NYC with tall, ugly buildings next to each other. ● There needs to be a requirement for landscaping in front of new buildings as well as street trees ● Design should be consistent with the area
● Step back not just for 4-6 stories
● Keep ODS as loose as possible to allow designers more flexibility to make beautiful buildings ● Setbacks and sun and trees and design standards are needed ● No blank walls
● What happens in the setbacks?
● Sidewalks wider
● Taking away our views
● Buildings need to take movement of sun/shade into account ● Architecture to diminish heaviness on the street
● Provide more flexibility in design standards for unique, interesting architecture ● Cosmetic elements of the plan like massing and step-backs add complexity/cost but don't fundamentally change the neighborhood feel. Upzone as much as possible and let people decide for themselves what they like ● Keep non profit developers financing, not private
● Developers can cut % of low income housing by paying approx $650/sqft. Cost of construction is $600/sqft. Reality is we end up w/ only 0% low income housing
● Mandate extreme environmental requirements if destroying an existing one Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 139 of 201 ends

Page 145 ends

● Do EIR of the Solano area. Is any of Solano RIH (hill)? Will this impact height? ● Impact fees? EIR for water, utilities, etc
● Revitalize the Sophie Hahn Solano Study
● New housing is too vague, say condos or town homes - missing middle! ● How about a car parking fee 'Benefits District' for Solano Ave, to fund needed streetscape maintenance and improvement? Solano could be even more inviting and humane if it had wider sidewalks, trees planted closer to the center line, better defined bike lanes/paths, & better furnished bus stops ● Impact fees! By # of units and not waived
● Some congestion actually supports retail
● Berkeley population decreased, why more housing?
● This sounds great but where are the developers, designers, and workers to build? ● % of yellow commercials?
● If density bonus already exists, why upzoning?
● In general, is it more cost effective to build taller, bigger buildings? ● think Haussman Paris on San Pablo & University
● Make Berkeley all high resources!
● Show the potential of small lot development, not just big projects ● How many units will result from both Middle Housing and Corridors combined? ● topographical visual: elevation contours
● make clear how much is needed for goal, and how much has been added so far ● UCB expansion having outsize impact on housing
● More owner-occupied housing
● No protection from corporate or foreign ownership?
● Keep our upper Solano anchor store Andronico's market. #1 priority ● We need grocery stores
● Keep anchor store for Solano - grocery
● Losing Andronicos / parking. What will parking be?
● We have over promised and under delivered on retail. Ground floor res can be great ● no dead zones = no street level housing
● What about historic buildings? Will they be impacted? How do we protect them? ● Will the new bill override historic designations?
● Break out historic from other 'unlikely'
● Preserve historic buildings! Lowest priority for development ● Respect historic treasures
● No protection for historic structures
● Separate historic and recent developments
● Greater than 2 or 3 bedroom units (families)
● Build condos - we want residents
● Incentivize development of senior housing
● Hoping for more options for housing in these areas
● Make clear what the in lieu $/sq foot would be
● I heard $65/sqft in lieu
● More bike infrastructure and public transit
● How can redevelopment and its newly increased tax revenue fund/enable a sorely needed Baywheels bike-share station at the Solano & Colusa Ave intersection? Ideally another one at the Solano & Peralta Ave intersection also ● Support new small weird mom & pop businesses
● Protect existing businesses
● Please consider limited # of chain store restrictions ● Keep all zoned for first floor retail. The whole side of the street ● Keep ground floor retail. Once we have 1st floor resi, it will be impossible to change back to commercial space ● retail support
● Albany supports businesses (startup $$), parking
● Small businesses to be fostered
● Construction impacts on business
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 140 of 201 ends

Page 146 ends

● Who can help small businesses
● Would commercial lease be protected if the current landlord wants to develop? ● Impact on local businesses - construction, noise, parking ● Need to address vacancies on Solano - let's use that space first ● Ground floor retail everywhere on corridor
● Concern about losing existing businesses
● Decrease car lanes to add more walkable areas and support outdoor dining ● Parklets and rooftop gardens
● Do not want dead zones
● Allow restaurants to stay open later to allow more foot traffic and better safety ● Impacts on SFH behind large developments
● Better public realm improvements
● Maintain walkable community with local services and shops ● Trees, landscaping to improve pedestrian experience
● Redevelopment risks losing community and connection
● Think about the identify of the city
● More important than commercial use on the ground floor (though that IS important) is the critical importance of ground stories on Solano Ave having human on the sidewalk friendly spaces, NOT solid/black walls (like the existing building at 1685 Solano, for its car parking podium)
● It is nice for the new development to fit into the architectural style of existing development! Part of Berkeley's charm is its architectural diversity & character
● building setbacks and building form will be extremely important for preserving the existing feeling of the Solano Ave corridor - which is very nice! and good for sunlight
● Broaden sidewalks by designing atriums at street level building entries ● Housing limited to 2 stories - opposed to either Alt
● It's unpopular to go this high up - concern about scale and microclimate ● Dwight to Alcatraz on Sacramento. Please do this there too! ● Other areas should be invested in with housing and business ● Less parking & traffic on Solano
● Where will all of the new residents park their cars? Developers should be required to include some parking ● Parking is not a big priority for many. Micromobility! ● Consider parking permits for residents near Solano. There are none now ● Parking issues - more public parking on Solano
● Lack of parking - I live 3 blocks from Solano & parking is already tight. I work at 1635 Solano and my clients have a hard time parking as it is - if it gets worse I won't be able to stay! ● Parking for residents, retail business, seniors who need to drive ● Concerned that mid block lot owners will buy homes behind Solano Ave to turn the lot into a driveway for parking access. This would turn residential streets into parking access / back alleys. Can this be prevented? ● Traffic flow is already slow & it will only get more congested which will drive customers away ● Parking should be a category! Show that this is a concern ● Lack of parking is a big problem. Most of our 1920s homes do not have driveways and parking of workers on Solano takes up our already limited supply. Adding units without a space per unit will exacerbate an already difficult problem ● Provide free parking for residents
● Parking on street
● More parking for new developments
● Add carshare incentives to provide access to cars for people in zero parking buildings ● Parking for residences (seniors)
● Permitted parking is needed for residents
● Permit parking in neighborhood to help commercial
● Eliminate parking meters Solano Ave
● I am very concerned about parking. It is already difficult as a resident living right next to Solano to find parking on the street. Density bonus laws could allow for 0% parking depending on the housing made available. The City needs to be prepared to issue homeowners a permit to block our own driveways because parking will be a nightmare! ● Concerned about parking - accessibility challenges
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 141 of 201 ends

Page 147 ends

● Require underground or new street parking for over 50% new units ● New development should include parking garage
● Parking for seniors
● Allow parking garage structure
● Why no parking structures
● Parking on the corridor?
● Lack of residential permit parking is an issue
● Concern about more parking, don't want more housing
● If they come, they will need to PARK! Any development requires parking ● Worried most about parking & losing grocery store
● Forum Question & Answer
● Sept 17th conflicts with another community meeting for Stoneface Park ● Presenters should explain jargon more closely and use a pointer! These are complicated charts and hard to decipher ● Publication of this event series - how did City notify people? ● Is there going to be a forum question & answer period? ● Plan w/ Albany!
● Public hearings with public responses to questions, so all hear everything ● Solano Ave Association has inventory of vacancies, etc - should be present for discussion ● Long term residents not being heard
● Changes put in place without community support, need better listening ● Why no vote?
● Priority: Public access to open spaces
● Maximize sidewalk size & areas for people to gather (parks) indoor common areas like in SF that are public ● Parks to serve community, mandate open spaces
● More parks! park at 76
● Pedestrian safety! Vehicular control
● Buildings block! Safety concerns for lack of sunshine, visibility ● Intersections - high rise would block view for drivers around corner, dangerous (especially at 76 gas station) ● Is there a way to exclude Andronico's from zoning district? ● Albany conversation
● Redraw border of district to exclude Andronicos
● Need senior housing
● Generate as much housing as possible! Increased zoning capacity improves affordability, even more lower income households
● We need more housing! Diversity = urban vibrancy = prosperity ● More / denser housing on Solano would let my dad move out of his single family home and into a nice, new, low maintenance high-rise close to me!
● Plan for the future! More housing, more business
● I support more housing
● more housing is good
● The politics of no change are too loud. Solano needs vibrancy. The area is aging and needs an influx of young people and more going on.
● Maximizing units is the most important goal
● We need options for housing
● Support density
● Support this project from the perspective of someone who wants to live in these areas ● More rental options for all
● Protect tenants who are business owners from being evicted because the landlord wants to build ● Get commitments / partner from AC Transit to provide additional bus service to BART and Transbay service ● City subsidizes public transit. Design review!
● How about addressing transportation for those coming down from the hills? ● Subsidize AC transit, more frequent busses
● Improve transit connectivity
● Older residents need to be able to drive
Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 142 of 201 ends

Page 148 ends

Workshop In-Meeting interactive Participant Poll results (see PDF Attached)

Please see the PDF attached with the results of the in-meeting Participant Polls from each workshop.

Berkeley Corridors Zoning Update - Community Workshop # 2 | August 2025

Page 143 of 201 ends

Page 149 ends

Page 144 of 201 ends

Page 150 ends

Page 145 of 201 ends

Page 151 ends

Page 146 of 201 ends

Page 152 ends

Page 147 of 201 ends

Page 153 ends

Page 148 of 201 ends

Page 154 ends

Page 149 of 201 ends

Page 155 ends

Page 150 of 201 ends

Page 156 ends

Page 151 of 201 ends

Page 157 ends

Page 152 of 201 ends

Page 158 ends

Page 153 of 201 ends

Page 159 ends

Page 154 of 201 ends

Page 160 ends

Page 155 of 201 ends

Page 161 ends

Page 156 of 201 ends

Page 162 ends

Page 157 of 201 ends

Page 163 ends

Page 158 of 201 ends

Page 164 ends

Page 159 of 201 ends

Page 165 ends

Page 160 of 201 ends

Page 166 ends

Page 161 of 201 ends

Page 167 ends

Page 162 of 201 ends

Page 168 ends

Page 163 of 201 ends

Page 169 ends

Page 164 of 201 ends

Page 170 ends

Page 165 of 201 ends

Page 171 ends

Page 166 of 201 ends

Page 172 ends

Page 167 of 201 ends

Page 173 ends

Page 168 of 201 ends

Page 174 ends

Page 169 of 201 ends

Page 175 ends

Page 170 of 201 ends

Page 176 ends

Page 171 of 201 ends

Page 177 ends

Page 172 of 201 ends

Page 178 ends

Page 173 of 201 ends

Page 179 ends

Page 174 of 201 ends

Page 180 ends

Page 175 of 201 ends

Page 181 ends

Page 176 of 201 ends

Page 182 ends

Page 177 of 201 ends

Page 183 ends

Page 178 of 201 ends

Page 184 ends

Page 179 of 201 ends

Page 185 ends

Page 180 of 201 ends

Page 186 ends

Page 181 of 201 ends

Page 187 ends

Page 182 of 201 ends

Page 188 ends

Page 183 of 201 ends

Page 189 ends

Page 184 of 201 ends

Page 190 ends

Page 185 of 201 ends

Page 191 ends

Page 186 of 201 ends

Page 192 ends

Page 187 of 201 ends

Page 193 ends

Page 188 of 201 ends

Page 194 ends

Page 189 of 201 ends

Page 195 ends

Page 190 of 201 ends

Page 196 ends

Page 191 of 201 ends

Page 197 ends

Page 192 of 201 ends

Page 198 ends

Page 193 of 201 ends

Page 199 ends

Page 194 of 201 ends

Page 200 ends

Page 195 of 201 ends

Page 201 ends

Page 196 of 201 ends

Page 202 ends

Page 197 of 201 ends

Page 203 ends

Page 198 of 201 ends

Page 204 ends

Page 199 of 201 ends

Page 205 ends

Page 200 of 201 ends

Page 206 ends

Page 201 of 201 ends

Page 207 ends

Page 208 ends

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

SUMMARY
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan) will guide the future of one of Berkeley’s most prominent corridors. The Specific Plan identifies goals, policies and programs that would address citywide and regional goals for housing production and affordability, support small businesses, offer safer multimodal streets, and encourage cultural vitality. It is intended to guide the City’s planning efforts to meet the needs of South and West Berkeley’s growing population and employment base while ensuring San Pablo Avenue remains a place where people can live, work, and connect as a community.

The Specific Plan effort began in June 2023, and this report provides an update on the overall progress of the planning process, shares key milestones for completion, and provides an overview of the Draft Specific Plan. Staff are seeking Council’s feedback and direction on the Draft Specific Plan policies related to:

1. Land Use & Housing: residential density ranges, development standards, and affordable housing strategies.

2. Economic Development: tools to retain and grow small businesses and reduce commercial vacancies.

3. Streets & Mobility: multimodal safety, parking and curbside management.

4. Public Realm: priorities for sidewalks, plazas, lighting, landscaping, and community gathering spaces.

5. Objective Design Standards: design standards for new buildings.

Staff are also seeking feedback from the City Council on the 1993 West Berkeley Plan, particularly given the overlap of the San Pablo Specific Plan area with the West Berkeley Plan area. In the thirty years since the West Berkeley Plan’s adoption, nearly all its recommended policies and programs have been implemented or explored. Staff

Page 1 of 312 ends

Page 209 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

are seeking City Council feedback on whether the West Berkeley Plan should be amended only to the extent required to enact the Specific Plan, or whether it should be retired altogether.

Page 2 of 312 ends

Page 210 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 3 ends

Chapter for Feedback Specific Questions and Considerations  Are the proposed developments standards appropriate for their respective locations?  Are there development standards that should not be included in the Specific Plan?  Should the Specific Plan include a San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program?  What development standards or objective development standards should not be waivable as part of a San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program?
Land Use
 Should the Specific Plan include the proposed MU-LI Housing Overlay? Economic Development
 Are there specific economic development policies that should not be included in the Specific Plan?
 Are there any other economic development policies or strategies that the Specific Plan should consider?
Streets, Mobility and
Public Realm
 Are the proposed street design and mobility strategies sufficient to address safety and comfort for all travel modes along San Pablo Avenue?
Objective Design
Standards
 To what extent should the proposed Specific Plan incorporate Objective Design Standards?  How can the proposed Specific Plan balance the inclusion of Objective Design Standards with flexibility to avoid being overly prescriptive?
 Should ODS be applied to all projects, or only to certain types (e.g., larger multi-family projects)?
 Should ODS replace Design Review (BMC Section 23.406.070)? Implementation  Are there any policies, standards, or approaches you feel are missing from the draft plan that staff should consider?
West Berkeley Plan  Should the West Berkeley Plan be amended specifically to enact the Specific Plan, or should it be retired altogether?

Page 3 of 312 ends

Page 211 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 4 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Specific Plan advances the following City strategic plan goals:
 Create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members.
 Foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.  Create a resilient, safe, connected and prepared city.

The project team has completed significant outreach for the Specific Plan project, including interviews, workshops, surveys, and public open houses. More than 330 community members have participated in 13 events, providing over 500 comments that have shaped the Specific Plan’s priorities.

Two documents summarize this process:

1. Community Assessment Report (Attachment 1): The Community Assessment Report examined existing conditions related to housing, businesses, mobility, and public space.

2. Policy Options and Development Framework Memo (Attachment 2): The Policy Options and Development Framework Memo provided draft land use, economic development and transportation policies in response to the findings of the Community Assessment Report and public outreach.

The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan envisions the corridor as a mixed-use district integral to surrounding neighborhoods and employment areas. The plan’s central concepts include:

1. Increase the Diversity and Supply of Housing: Encourage a variety of housing types and designs that meet the needs of a range of households.

2. Increase Business Activity to Support a Thriving Community: Create vibrant storefronts, flexible ground-floor uses, and stronger support for small businesses and community-serving retail.

3. Enhance Interaction Between Public and Private Spaces: Expand sidewalks, plazas, and community spaces, with improvements to landscaping, lighting, and safety.

4. Enhance Local and Citywide Access: Make San Pablo Avenue safer and more welcoming for people walking, biking, and riding transit, while maintaining vehicle access.

Page 4 of 312 ends

Page 212 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 5 ends

The Specific Plan will translate this vision into specific land use policies, economic development strategies, and transportation/public realm improvements. The draft is organized into six chapters:
 Introduction
 Vision & Desired Results
 Land Use
 Economic Development
 Streets, Mobility, and Public Realm
 Objective Design Standards
Land Use
The following are proposed land use policies and implementation strategies which aim to increase the diversity and supply of housing, and to support commercial vitality and reduce ground floor vacancies while promoting active, pedestrian-oriented development and public realm improvements:
 Establish the San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) Zoning District (Figures 1 and 2) The existing West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) zoning district covers San Pablo Avenue, 4th Street, parcels along University Avenue west of San Pablo Avenue, and select parcels on Ashby Avenue West of 9th Street.

As the Specific Plan includes land use policies specifically for San Pablo Avenue, the plan proposes to rezone properties within the Specific Plan area to a new San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) Zoning District. The C-SP district would include all parcels facing onto San Pablo Avenue, as well as parcels on University Avenue currently zoned C-W and C-U.
 Establish a Tiered Node Structure to Focus Growth and Commercial Uses (Figure 2)
The existing C-W zoning includes five nodes where development standards and permitted uses are specifically tailored to concentrate neighborhood- serving commercial uses in key intersections.

The Specific Plan preserves this node framework, but proposes the establishment of two different node tiers:
o Tier 1 nodes: The highest intensity areas in the Plan Area which allow for increased height (85 feet max) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR;

4.75 max) to support housing and commercial services near major

Page 5 of 312 ends

Page 213 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 6 ends

intersections. Tier 1 nodes include the intersections of San Pablo Avenue and University Ave., Ashby Ave. and Gilman Street. o Tier 2 nodes: Allow for moderate increases in height (58 feet max) and FAR (3.0 max), comparable to standards outside of the nodes.

Tier 2 nodes include the intersections of San Pablo Avenue and Cedar Street and Dwight Way.
 Allow Affordable and Family-Friendly Housing in the MU-LI While several parcels within the Mixed-Use Light Industrial (MU-LI) zoning district are in close proximity to San Pablo Avenue, the MU-LI zoning district does not currently permit residential uses.

To encourage housing in proximity to San Pablo Avenue, and to provide opportunities to encourage the development of affordable housing, the Specific Plan proposes the creation of a housing overlay district that would allow 100% affordable housing or multi-family residential projects that include family-sized housing units for ten MU-LI parcels in the Plan Area (see Figure 2). Eligible projects would be either 100% affordable projects, or projects that offer most of their residential floor area for family-size units (two or three bedrooms).
 Encourage Public Open Space
The Specific Plan would encourage high-quality, publicly accessible space as part of private development projects by incentivizing the expansion of public sidewalks into private property, the provision of Privately-Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS), and the creation of street-size plazas at select intersections. For large-scale developments (8 stories or more or 70,000 square feet or more), POPOS would be required.
 Revise Development Standards
To encourage new housing, the Specific Plan would propose new development standards (see Table 1) that would increase residential and mixed-use development intensity across the C-SP zoning district:
o In the Tier 1 nodes, maximum heights for mixed-use residential projects would be 85 feet and 8 stories, with a maximum 4.75 FAR. o In the Tier 2 nodes, maximum heights for mixed-use residential projects would be 58 feet and 5 stories, with a maximum 3.0 FAR. o Outside of the nodes, maximum heights for mixed-use residential projects would be 58 feet and 5 stories, with a maximum 3.0 FAR, while maximum heights for residential-only or commercial-only projects would be 40 feet, with a maximum 3.0 FAR.

Page 6 of 312 ends

Page 214 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 7 ends


Figure 1. Existing Zoning Map
with designated Nodes

Page 7 of 312 ends

Page 215 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 8 ends

Figure 2. Proposed Zoning Map, Tiered
Nodes and MU-LI Housing Overlay

Page 8 of 312 ends

Page 216 ends

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/ Table 1 – Development Standards
Zone/ Category Max.

FAR
Max.

Height
Max Stories Usable Open
Space per
Unit
Setbacks Max Lot
Coverage
Existing C-W
Single-Use
(100% residential or
100% commercial)

3.0 40’ 3 40 sq. ft.
100%
Mixed-Use 3.0 50’ 4 40 sq. ft.

When next to a Commercial or Manufacturing
District:

None required.

When next to a Residential District:

Front: Same as required in adjacent Residential
District
Rear: 10 feet or 10% of the lot depth, whichever is
less
Interior side: 5 ft.

Street side: Same as required in adjacent
Residential District

Page 9 of 312 ends

Page 217 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 10 ends

Proposed C-SP
Outside Nodes
Single-Use
(100% residential or
100% commercial)

3.0 40’ 3 40 sq. ft.
100%
Mixed-Use 3.0 55’ 5
40 sq. ft.

When next to a Commercial or Manufacturing
District:

Gound floor residential units shall be set back a
minimum of 6 feet and maximum of 10 feet.

When next to a Residential District:

Ground floor residential units shall be set back a
minimum of 6 feet and maximum of 10 feet
Rear: 10 feet or 10% of the lot depth, whichever is
less
Interior side: 5 ft.

Street side: Same as required in adjacent
Residential District

Within Nodes
Residential Mixed Use
100%
Tier 1 Nodes
(Ashby, 4.75 85’ 8 40 sq. ft.

When next to a Commercial or Manufacturing
District:

None required.

When next to a Residential District:

Page 10 of 312 ends

Page 218 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 11 ends

University,
Gilman)
Tier 2 Nodes
(Dwight,
Cedar)

3.75 65’ 6
40 sq. ft.

Commercial / Light-
industrial

3.0 40’ 3 None
Rear: 10 feet or 10% of the lot depth, whichever is
less
Interior side: 5 ft.

Street side: Same as required in adjacent
Residential District

Page 11 of 312 ends

Page 219 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025
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/  Establish an In-Lieu Fee for Required Ground Floor Commercial Uses The Specific Plan would establish a program to allow a developer to pay a fee in lieu of providing commercial space. Fees would be deposited in a city- administered Small Business Support or Commercial Activation Fund, which could be used for tenant improvements, façade enhancements, or incubator programs for businesses within the Plan Area.
 Establish a San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program
The Specific Plan would include a local density bonus program that would provide an alternative to the State Density Bonus. The San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program would aim to give the City greater control over the form, character, and community benefits of participating development in the Plan Area.

Projects opting into the local program would pay an in-lieu fee to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and would be granted development incentives like those included in the State Density Bonus. In exchange, projects would waive the right to certain State Density Bonus provisions, such as waivers or concessions of certain objective design standards, allowing the City to define which incentives and concessions apply while ensuring consistency with community goals for design, open space, and public realm improvements.

Economic Development
Community members shared a vision of San Pablo Avenue as a culturally vibrant, economically inclusive corridor where people can live, work, and shop locally. At the same time, they voiced concerns that allowing more intensive development could result in commercial displacement, the loss of cultural identity, and a lack of support for existing businesses.

Reflecting this input, the Specific Plan proposes policies to retain and grow local businesses, activate vacant and underutilized spaces, and strengthen the relationship between public and private spaces so that the corridor supports both economic opportunity and cultural vitality.
 Strengthen the City’s Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue generated from the Commercial In-Lieu Fee (see Establish an In- Lieu Fee for Required Ground Floor Commercial Uses, above) would be placed in the City’s Revolving Loan Fund. Funds would provide targeted financial assistance to small businesses for tenant improvements, operating stability, or expansion.

Page 12 of 312 ends

Page 220 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 13 ends

 Support Existing Business Cluster Organizations and Encourage the Formation of New Organizations
This policy would codify the City’s practice of supporting existing business “cluster” organizations and encourage the formation of new groups.  Study the Feasibility of Forming a Business Improvement District (BID) The Specific Plan proposes to initiate a city-funded study to evaluate the feasibility and scope of forming one or more Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the Plan Area. The study would assess a range of coverage, from full-corridor to targeted districts focused on high-priority nodes and explore extensions into portions of West Berkeley outside of the Plan Area.  Prioritize Initial Public Investment in Improvements in the Nodes The Specific Plan proposes prioritizing the nodes for any public investment committed to the Plan Area, when possible. The Tier 1 University Avenue Node would be the highest priority location for public improvements.

Streets and Mobility
Community feedback emphasized the importance of making San Pablo Avenue easier to cross, more comfortable to walk and bike along, and better connected to the surrounding neighborhoods and regional destinations. To support this transition, the Specific Plan includes policies and standards that focus on improving multimodal mobility, access and safety.

The following policies focus on ongoing and planned improvements to transportation infrastructure along San Pablo Avenue and establish a foundation for improving mobility and access for all users:
 Study Separate Bike and Lanes on San Pablo Avenue
The Alameda County Transportation Commission’s (Alameda CTC) Bus and Bike Lanes Project currently ends at Heinz Street and San Pablo Avenue.

The Specific Plan recommends that the City, in partnership with Alameda CTC, undertake a follow-up planning and design process to evaluate conceptual design options for San Pablo Avenue.
 Create a Parking and Loading Management Program
The availability of parking was a consistent concern throughout the outreach process. The Specific Plan recommends a systematic approach to parking and loading, including strategies such as adjusting parking meter rates and time limits, expanding metered parking locations to side streets with commercial frontage, and increased enforcement.

Page 13 of 312 ends

Page 221 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 14 ends

 Establish Mobility Hubs
A mobility hub is a welcoming environment that enables travelers to access multiple transportation options (carshare, bikeshare, transit) and supportive amenities in a single location. Mobility hubs would offer a safe, comfortable, convenient, and accessible space to seamlessly transfer across different travel modes.

The University Avenue Node would serve as the first mobility hub.  Multi-modal Safety and Speed Management
The Specific Plan includes strategies to reduce vehicle speeds, enhance visibility, and improve safety for all travel modes on San Pablo Avenue. These strategies include lowering the speed limit on San Pablo Avenue, improving crossing and intersection design, and exploring safety improvements at driveways.
 Transit Improvements
The Specific Plan proposes to study improvements along University Avenue and the Southside area to enhance transit service on AC Transit Line 51B, strengthening connections between San Pablo Avenue, the Berkeley Capitol Corridor Station, Downtown Berkeley, and UC Berkeley.
 Bicycle Improvements
In alignment with the Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017), the City would continue to expand and improve a connected, low-stress bikeway network, with emphasis on comfort and safety.
 Pedestrian Improvements
In alignment with the Pedestrian Plan (2020), the City would continue to expand and improve a connected, low-stress bikeway network, with emphasis on comfort and safety.
 Prioritize connections
Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements on streets that provide access to schools and parks, as well as other routes that typically serve students in the Specific Plan and Study Area.

Public Realm Policies
This section outlines policies and standards designed to ensure San Pablo Avenue functions as both a transportation corridor and a community place. The public realm should make it easy to reach businesses, transit, homes, and parking while also offering spaces to gather, exercise, and socialize.

Page 14 of 312 ends

Page 222 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan WORKSESSION
November 6, 2025

Page 15 ends

 Sidewalk Zones
To serve the range of uses and infrastructure located within sidewalks, the Specific Plan proposes to establish design standards that define three zones across the sidewalk width: the Pedestrian Zone, the Amenity Zone, and the Frontage Zone. Each zone would have distinct design standards.  Sidewalk Easements
The Specific Plan encourages the expansion of sidewalk width to improve pedestrian comfort, add landscape buffers, and create more space for social activity. Mixed-use projects are encouraged to dedicate a public access easement at the frontage (see Sidewalk Expansion Incentive, below).

Property owners and businesses would be responsible for maintaining improvements within easements.
 Reestablish Sidewalk Widths
Some segments of San Pablo Avenue have sidewalks narrower than 13 ft due to older buildings encroaching on the right-of-way. Where feasible, the City would work to restore the full sidewalk width as redevelopment or building permits are pursued. Over time, public improvements should reclaim the intended minimum sidewalk width to support pedestrian safety and comfort.
 Improve Street Lighting
Community members consistently identified inadequate sidewalk lighting as a priority concern. Existing streetlights mainly illuminate roadways, leaving sidewalks dim and unsafe after dark.

The Specific Plan calls for installation of pedestrian-scale lighting throughout San Pablo Avenue and its side streets (particularly University Avenue) to enhance safety, visibility, and comfort.

Lighting standards should provide consistent coverage along sidewalks and reinforce corridor identity while balancing pedestrian comfort with minimizing light pollution.

Public Realm Expansion and Improvements
Community outreach revealed a strong desire for new public spaces that bring people together, strengthen neighborhood identity, and support local businesses. In addition to policies that encourage wider sidewalks, the Specific Plan promotes a range of strategies to expand and activate the public realm, including side street plazas, parklets, curb extensions, privately owned public open spaces (POPOS), and mid-block passages. The proposed policies are intended to increase opportunities for social life, outdoor commerce, and cultural expression along San Pablo Avenue.

Page 15 of 312 ends

Berkeley City CouncilNovember 6, 2025

Berkeley City Council
November 6, 2025