Berkeley City Council
April 28, 2026

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

PUBLIC HEARING
April 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Planning Commission From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Title 23 (Zoning) for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits (SLTE 2026)

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 23 (Attachment 1). The proposed changes apply to the sections of the BMC listed below:
 Section 23.202.020 (Residential Districts – Allowed Land Uses)  Section 23.202.050 (Residential Districts – R-1 Residential Multi-Unit 1 District)  Section 23.202.080 (Residential Districts – R-2 Residential Multi-Unit 2 District)  Section 23.202.090 (Residential Districts – R-2A Residential Multi-Unit 2A District)
 Section 23.206.030 (Manufacturing Districts – Additional Permit Requirements)  Section 23.206.060 (Manufacturing Districts – M Manufacturing District)  Section 23.206.070 (Manufacturing Districts – MM Mixed Manufacturing District)  Section 23.206.080 (Manufacturing Districts – MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District)
 Section 23.206.090 (Manufacturing Districts – MU-R Mixed Use Residential District)
 Section 23.304.100 (General Development Standards – Site Features in Residential)
 Section 23.306.030 (Accessory Dwelling Units – Development Standards)  Section 23.306.040 (Accessory Dwelling Units – Permit Procedures)  Section 23.322.040 (Parking and Loading – General Requirements)

Zoning Amendments for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2026

 Section 23.322.050 (Parking and Loading – Parking Reductions)  Section 23.322.100 (Parking and Loading – On-site Loading Spaces)  Section 23.326.070 (Demolition of Non-Residential Buildings)  Section 23.330.030 (Density Bonus—Application Requirements)  Section 23.330.080 (Density Bonus – Regulatory Agreements)  Section 23.410.020 (Appeals and Certifications – Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction)
 Section 23.502.020 (Glossary – Defined Terms)

SUMMARY
As part of regular and routine updates, staff have prepared non-substantive Zoning Ordinance amendments to maintain consistency and accuracy throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed ordinance is expected to be cost-neutral, as it only consists of non- substantive technical edits to the BMC.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Zoning Ordinance is regularly reviewed for consistency with state laws related to land use and zoning. While some state laws may require more extensive amendments or require changes to the City’s internal procedures to be consistent, the zoning amendments proposed here constitute only minor technical amendments to maintain consistency.

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

These proposed zoning amendments are part of the regular and routine maintenance of the Zoning Ordinance and include corrections and technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

At a Special Meeting on March 18, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed amendments (M/S: Kahn/Vincent; Aye:

Marthinsen, Hauser, Vincent, Twu, Owens, Wang, Kahn, Oatfield and Merker. No:

None. Abstain: None.).

Zoning Amendments for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2026

The proposed zoning amendments are technical, non-substantive changes intended to correct errors, clarify language, reflect new State law requirements and codify existing practices. The following revisions are proposed:

Table 1 Policy Summary and Zoning Amendment Proposals
Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)
BMC Section
Proposed Zoning Change
1 Table 23.202-1 (Allowed Land Uses-
Residential Districts)  Change “Multi-Family” to “Multi-Unit.” 2 3
4 Table 23.202-2; Table 23.202-5,
Table 23.202-9
(R-1, R-2 and R-2A Development
Standards)
 Correct unintended changes to Middle
Housing standards for Maximum
Residential Density and Maximum
Height.
5 6

23.206.030(A)
(Additional Permit Requirements –
Manufacturing Districts)
 Removes AUP requirement for new
floor area for residential uses in the
MU-R, per Middle Housing.
7 8
9 10

23.206.060

23.206.070

23.206.080

23.206.090
(Manufacturing Zoning Districts)
 Correct inaccurate reference to
Findings section
11 Table 23.206-14
(MU-R Development Standards)  Correct unintended changes to Middle Housing standards for Maximum
Residential Density and Maximum
Height.
12 23.206.090(B)(7)
(MU-R Land Use Regulations)  Fix typo
13 23.304.100(D)(1)
(Site Features in Residential Districts)  Change “Multi-Family” to “Multi-Unit.” 14 23.306.030(A)(2)
(ADU Development Standards)  Change “Multi-Family” to “Multi-Unit.” 15 23.306.040
ADU Permit Procedures)  State Law requirement: no short-term rental of JADUs.
 State Law requirement: owner-
occupancy cannot be required if JADU
and the single-family dwelling do not
share sanitation facilities.
16 23.322.040(D)(2)
(Parking and Loading – General
Requirements)
 Change “Multi-Family use” to “Multi-
Unit Residential use.”
17 23.322.050(A)(6)(c)
(Parking and Loading—Parking
Reductions)
 Change “Multi-Family” to “Multi-Unit.”
18 Table 23.322-12
(Off Street Loading)  Remove reference to R-1A zoning
district, which was removed with
Middle Housing.

Zoning Amendments for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2026

Ordinance
Sections
(Attachment
1)
BMC Section
Proposed Zoning Change
19 23.326.070(C)
(Demolitions of Non-Residential
Buildings)
 State law requirement: SB 330 vested
projects are exempt from demolition
review.
20 23.330.030(B)
(Density Bonus – Application
Requirements)
 Case law: City cannot require
documentation for waivers.
21 23.330.080
(Density Bonus – Regulatory
Agreements)
 Clarify title to include “Density Bonus”
22 23.410.020
(Appeals and Certifications – Appeal
Subjects and Jurisdictions)
 Text correction that Staff-Level Design
Review should be appealed to DRC
not ZAB
23 24
25 26

23.502.020
(Glossary – Defined Terms)  Clarify that Vehicle Parts Sale is a retail use
 Correct omission of Unenclosed
Accessory Structure definition
 Changing "Multi-Family" to "Multi-Unit"

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance corrects errors, clarifies language and codifies existing practice. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments do not include any allowances for additional development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendments would in no way have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are required to ensure compliance with all applicable state laws and are necessary to maintain the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance and related BMC Chapters.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Council could consider taking no action regarding the recommendations proposed by staff. In this scenario, Title 23 would remain unchanged, leaving the BMC inconsistent or outdated. This could lead to uncertainty or potentially lead to challenges in enforcement.

Zoning Amendments for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2026

CONTACT PERSON
Justin Horner, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981- 7476.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance

2. Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.202), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER (23.304), ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CHAPTER (23.306), PARKING AND LOADING CHAPTER (23.322), DENSITY BONUS CHAPTER (23.330), APPEALS AND CERTIFICATIONS CHAPTER (23.410), AND GLOSSARY CHAPTER (23.502) TO CONFORM TO STATE LAW, CORRECT ERRORS, CLARIFY

LANGUAGE, AND CODIFY EXISTING PRACTICE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That line “Multi-Family” within “Residential Uses” in Table 23.202-1 Allowed Land Uses In Residential Districts within BMC Chapter 23. 202.020 is amended to read as follows:

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
ZC = Zoning
Certificate
AUP =

ADMINISTRATIVE

USE PERMIT
UP(PH) = Use
Permit
NP = Not
Permitted
* Use-Specific
Regulations
Apply
**Required
permits for
specific
uses are set forth
in the R-BMU
Master
Development
Permit
(MDP). See

23.202.150(A)
and

23.202.150(D).

R-
1 ES-
R
R-
2 R-
2A R-3 R-4 R-5 R-S R-
SMU
R-
BMU** USE-

SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS

APPLIES TO USES

WITH AN

ASTERISK

FOLLOWING THE
PERMIT

REQUIREMENT
(E.G., ZC*)
Residential Uses
Multi-
Family
Residential
Multi-Unit
Residential

ZC NP ZC ZC UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)

23.302.070(H)
Section 2. That Table 23.202-2 R-1 Development Standards within BMC Chapter

23.202.050 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.202-2: R-1 Development Standards

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
Lot Area for New Lots, Minimum 5,000 sq. ft. 23.304.020 – Lot Requirements Usable Open Space per 1,000 sq. ft.

Residential Floor Area Minimum 150 sq. ft. 23.304.090 – Usable Open Space Floor Area Ratio, Maximum No Maximum
Main Building Height
New Buildings and Additions 35 ft. and 3
stories [1]
Within 15 ft. of Rear Property Line 22 ft.

23.304.050 – Building Height
Residential Density (du/acre)
Minimum 10
Maximum 4070

23.106.100 – Residential Density
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front [1] 5 ft. [2]
Rear [1] 5 ft. [2]
Interior Side 4 ft.

Street Side 4 ft.

23.304.030 -- Setbacks
Building Separation, Minimum 5 ft.

Lot Coverage, Maximum 60% 23.304.120 – Lot Coverage
Notes:
[1] A project that includes a pitched roof is permitted a 35-foot maximum eave height and a maximum roof height of 38 feet. A project with a 35-foot flat roof is permitted an additional 5 feet height allowance for a stair, elevator or other rooftop access feature. Such a feature shall not exceed 15% of the average floor area of all of the building’s stories.
[12] Front and rear setbacks must add up to at least 20 feet.

Section 3. That Table 23.202-5 R-2 Development Standards within BMC Chapter

23.202.080 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.202-5: R-2 Development Standards

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
Lot Area for New Lots, Minimum 5,000 sq. ft. 23.304.020 – Lot Requirements Usable Open Space per 1,000 sq. ft.

Residential Floor Area Minimum 150 sq. ft. 23.304.090 – Usable Open Space Floor Area Ratio, Maximum No Maximum
Main Building Height
New Buildings and Additions 35 ft. and 3
stories [1]
Within 15 ft. of Rear Property Line 22 ft.

23.304.050 – Building Height
Residential Density (du/acre)
Minimum 10
Maximum 5070

23.106.100 – Residential Density
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front [1] 5 ft. [2]
Rear [1] 5 ft. [2]
Interior Side 4 ft.

Street Side 4 ft.

23.304.030- Setbacks
Building Separation, Minimum 5 ft.

Lot Coverage, Maximum 60% 23.304.120—Lot Coverage
Notes:
[1] A project that includes a pitched roof is permitted a 35-foot maximum eave height and a maximum roof height of 38 feet. A project with a 35-foot flat roof is permitted an additional 5 feet height allowance for a stair, elevator or other rooftop access feature. Such a feature shall not exceed 15% of the average floor area of all of the building’s stories.
[12] Front and rear setbacks must add up to at least 20 feet.

Section 4. That Table 23.202-9 R-2A Development Standards within BMC Chapter

23.202.090 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.202-9: R-2A Development Standards

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
Lot Area for New Lots, Minimum 5,000 sq. ft. 23.304.020—Lot Requirements Usable Open Space per 1,000 sq. ft.

Residential Floor Area Minimum 150 sq. ft. 23.304.090-Usable Open Space Floor Area Ratio, Maximum No Maximum
Main Building Height
New Buildings and Additions 35 ft. and 3
stories [1]
Within 15 ft. of Rear Property Line 22 ft.

23.304.050—Building Height
Residential Density (du/acre)
Minimum 10
Maximum 6070

23.106.100 – Residential Density
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front [1] 5 ft. [2]
Rear [1] 5 ft. [2]
Interior Side 4 ft.

Street Side 4 ft.

23.304.030--Setbacks
Building Separation, Minimum 5 ft.

Lot Coverage, Maximum 60% 23.304.120—Lot Coverage
Notes:
[1] A project that includes a pitched roof is permitted a 35-foot maximum eave height and a maximum roof height of 38 feet. A project with a 35-foot flat roof is permitted an additional 5 feet height allowance for a stair, elevator or other rooftop access feature. Such a feature shall not exceed 15% of the average floor area of all of the building’s stories.
[12] Front and rear setbacks must add up to at least 20 feet.

Section 5. That BMC Section 23.206.030(A) is amended to read as follows:

A. New Floor Area. A project that creates new floor area for any use requires additional permits as shown in Table 23.206-2. Creation of new floor area includes:

1. Construction of new main buildings or accessory buildings;

2. Additions to existing buildings; or

3. The installation of new floor or mezzanine levels within or onto existing buildings.

3.4. New floor area does not include floor area associated with residential uses in the MU-R zoning district.

Table 23.206-2. NEW FLOOR AREA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
District/New Gross Floor Area Permit Required for New Floor Area M, MM
Less than 20,000 sq. ft. ZC
20,000 to less than 40,000 sq. ft. AUP
40,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
M-RD
Less than 60,000 sq. ft. ZC
60,000 to less than 100,000 sq.
ft.

AUP

District/New Gross Floor Area Permit Required for New Floor Area 100,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
MU-LI
Less than 10,000 sq. ft. ZC
10,000 to less than 20,000 sq. ft. AUP
20,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
MU-R
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. ZC
5,000 to less than 10,000 sq. ft. AUP
10,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
Section 6. That BMC Section 23.206.030(C) is amended to read as follows:

C. Major Residential Additions.

1. Where Allowed/Required Permits.
(a) Major residential additions in the MU-R district require an AUP. (b)(a) Major residential additions are not permitted in MU-LI district. (c)(b) Major residential additions in the M and MM districts are subject to the requirement in Section 23.324 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Buildings).

2. Findings. To deny an AUP for a major residential addition in the MU-R district, the review authority must find that:
(a) The proposed addition would unreasonably interfere with existing or reasonably foreseeable adjacent land uses in the M or MM district; or

(b) Existing or reasonably foreseeable adjacent land uses in the M and/or MM district would have a material adverse effect on the use of the proposed addition.

3.2. Recorded Acknowledgement. For a residential addition in the MU-R district, the residential property owner shall record an acknowledgement on the title that existing or reasonably foreseeable adjacent land uses in the M and/or MM District may create noise, dust, odors, light/glare, and other impacts that shall not be considered a nuisance if they are developed and conducted pursuant to the standards of the district.

Section 7. That BMC Section 23.206.060(E) be amended to read as follows:

E. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.100110-Permit Findings Section 8. That BMC Section 23.206.070(E) be amended to read as follows:

E. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.100110-Permit Findings Section 9. That BMC Section 23.206.080(F) be amended to read as follows:

F. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.100110-Permit Findings Section 10. That BMC Section 23.206.090(E) be amended to read as follows:

E. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.100110-Permit Findings Section 11. That Table 23.206-14 MU-R Development Standards within BMC Chapter

23.206.090 is amended to read as follows
Table 23.206-14: MU-R Development Standards

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL

STANDARDS
Lot Area, Minimum
New Lot No minimum

23.304.020 – Lot
Requirements

Per Live/Work Unit 1,250 sq. ft.

Lot Width, Minimum 40 ft.

Usable Open Space, Minimum
Per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross residential floor
area 150 sq. ft.

Per Live/Work Unit 40 sq. ft.

23.304.090 –
Usable Open
Space
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum, Non-Residential 1.5 [1] 23.106.050 - Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (DU/acre)
Minimum 20
Maximum 6070

23.106.100 –
Residential
Density
Main Building Height, Maximum
Live/work 28 ft. and 3 stories
[2]
Residential or mixed-use [3] 35 ft. or 3 stories
[4]
Within 15 ft. of rear property line 22 ft.

All other uses 35 ft. and 2 stories
[45]

23.304.050 -
Building Height
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front 5 ft.

Rear No minimum [56]
Interior Side No minimum
Street Side 5 ft.

23.304.030 –
Setbacks
Building Separation, Minimum 5 ft.

Lot Coverage, Maximum No maximum.

Notes:
[1] Maximum 1.5 for buildings with 50 percent or more live/work floor area [2] Maximum 35 ft. with a Use Permit.
[3] Mixed use is defined here as a building with 50 percent or more of gross floor area used for residential (including live/work) purposes.
[4] A project that includes a pitched roof is permitted a 35-foot maximum eave height and a maximum roof height of 38 feet. A project with a 35-foot flat roof is permitted an additional 5 feet height allowance for a stair, elevator or other rooftop access feature.

Such a feature shall not exceed 15% of the average floor area of all of the building’s stories.
[45] Maximum 3 stories for arts/craft studios and light manufacturing (with no other non- residential uses) on a block without dwelling units.
[56] Minimum 5 ft. if rear of lot abuts a street.

Section 12. That BMC Section 23.206.090(B)(7) is amended to read as follows:

7. Mixed-Use Residential. To approve an AUP or Use Permit to establish or expand of a mixed-use residential building in the MU-R district, the review authority must find that the specific combination of proposed residential and non-residential uses will not be hazardous or detrimental to persons living and/or working on the site or within the project vicinity.

Section 13. That BMC Section 23.304.100(D)(1) is amended to read as follows:

1. All multi-familymulti-unit dwellings shall have an unobstructed walkway for pedestrian access from the public right-of-way to the building.

Section 14. That BMC Section 23.306.030(A)(2) is amended to read as follows:

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

Section 15. That BMC Section 23.306.040(C)(4) is amended to read as follows:

1. The Junior ADU shall not be sold separately from the main building;

2. The ADU shall not be sold separately from the main building unless the conditions of BMC 23.306.040(D) ADUs Developed by a Qualified Nonprofit Developer are met;

3. The ADU and/or Junior ADU shall not be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days; and

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

Section 16. That BMC Section 23.322.040(D)(2) is amended to read as follows:

2. Offices in R-4 and R-5 Districts. The ZAB may approve a Use Permit to allow offices in the R-4 or R-5 district to share parking spaces with a multi-unit residential use multi-family use. To approve the Use Permit, the ZAB must find that:
(a) No more than 20 percent of the off-street parking spaces required for the multiple dwelling use will serve as required off-street parking for offices; and (b) The shared off-street parking spaces are located on the same lot as the offices that they serve or are on property under the same ownership within 300 feet from the offices.

Section 17. That BMC Section 23.322.050(A)(6)(c) is amended to read as follows:
(c) Eligible Uses: Any commercial use portion of a mixed-use building which combines retail products stores and/or personal household services and multi-unitfamily residential uses within the same building or located on the same lot (or contiguous lots as part of the same project).

Section 18. That line “R-1, R-1A, R-2” in Table 23.322-12 Land Uses Requiring Off- Street Loading Spaces within BMC Chapter 23.322.100 is amended to read as follows

District Land Use [1]
R-1, R-1A, R-2 Schools 10,000 sq. ft. or more
Section 19. That BMC Section 23.326.070(C) is amended to read:

C. Landmarks Preservation Commission Review.

1. Any application for a Use Permit or AUP to demolish a non-residential building or structure that is 40 or more years old shall be forwarded to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for review before consideration of the Use Permit or AUP.
a. Exception. Projects that are vested pursuant to SB 330 shall be exempt from demolition review.

Section 20. That BMC Section 23.330.030(B) is deleted:

B. Documentation Supporting Requests. The City may request reasonable documentation from the applicant to support requested waivers/reductions and incentives/concessions.

Section 21. That title “Regulatory Agreements” for BMC Section 23.330.080 is amended to read as follows:

23.330.080 Regulatory Agreements (Density Bonus)
Section 22. That line “Staff-level Design Review” in Table 23.410-2 Appeal Subjects and Review Authority within BMC Chapter 23.410.020 is amended to read as follows Table 23.410-1: Appeal Subjects and Review Authority

ACTION ORDINANCE

SECTION

MAY BE APPEALED

BY IS APPEALED TO MUST BE FILED
WITHIN
Staff-level Design
Review 23.406.070 Any person DRCZAB
14 days of posting
the Notice of
Design Review
Section 23. That BMC Section 23.502.020(A) be amended to read as follows:

4. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached secondary dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a proposed or existing single family dwelling, duplex, multi-family unit dwelling use, or group living accommodation and provides independent living facilities for one or more persons. An ADU must comply with local building, housing, safety and other code requirements, except as expressly modified in Chapter 23.306, and provide the following features independent of other dwelling units on the lot: Exterior or independent access to the ADU, living and sleeping quarters, a full kitchen, and a full bathroom. An ADU also includes the following: (a) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, or (b) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
(a) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (Junior ADU). A unit that is contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, or a single family dwelling unit’s attached garage. A Junior ADU must include a separate exterior entrance and, at minimum, an efficiency kitchen. A Junior ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitary facilities with a single family dwelling.

Section 24. That BMC Section 23.502.020(M)(17) is amended to read as follows:

17. Multi-Family Unit Dwelling. A building, group of buildings, or portion of a building used or designed as two or more dwelling units.

Section 25. That BMC Section 23.502.020(R)(15) is amended to read as follows

15.Retail, General. A retail establishment engaged in the sales of personal, consumer, or household items to the customers who will use such items. This use includes antique stores, art galleries, arts and crafts supply stores, bicycle shops, building materials and garden supplies stores, clothing stores, computer stores, cosmetic/personal care items, department stores, drug paraphernalia stores, drug stores, fabric, textile and sewing supply shops, flower and plant stores, food product stores, furniture stores, garden supply stores, nurseries, gift/novelty shops, household hardware and housewares stores, household electronics/electrical stores, jewelry/watch shops, linen shops includes bedding, musical instruments and materials stores, office supply stores, paint stores, photography equipment supply stores, secondhand stores, sporting goods stores, stationery, cards and paper goods stores toy stores, and variety stores and vehicle parts stores. This use excludes video rental stores, service of vehicle parts, and firearm/munition sales.

Section 26. That BMC Section 23.502.020(S)(31) is amended to read as follows

31.Structure. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. A building is a structure for the purposes of this chapter.
a. Accessory Structure. A detached structure, other than an accessory building, in which non-habitable uses or activities other than the principal use of the property are conducted. Residential accessory structures include, but are not limited to, enclosed structures such as garages, carports, garden or tool sheds, and non-enclosed structures such as, but not limited to, fences, gazebos, ground-mounted satellite dishes, skateboard ramps and wheelchair ramps.

Non-residential accessory structures include, but are not limited to, storage buildings, garages, sheds and other outbuildings.
b. Subterranean Structure. A roofed structure constructed underground, with no building stories aboveground, of which the roof does not exceed 3 feet above the pre-existing grade. Such structures are either separated from a building or connected to a building only by a passageway or hallway with no openings to finished grade except for a doorway.
c. Temporary Structure. A tent, tent-house, trailer, mobile office, mobile home or other movable structure or other temporary structure whose construction does not require a building permit.
c.d. Unenclosed Accessory Structure. An accessory structure that does not have a roof, and/or does not have walls on more than two sides. Unenclosed accessory structures include, but are not limited to, pergolas, trellises, shade structures, arbors, retaining walls, solar energy equipment, ground or pole- mounted satellite dishes, play structures, skateboard ramps, tree houses and windmills.

Section 27. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Attachment 2

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

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

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, April 28, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider the Planning and Development Department proposal to amend the following sections of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 23) in order to maintain consistency and accuracy throughout the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). The proposed amendments do not include any substantive policy changes.
 Section 23.202.020 (Residential Districts – Allowed Land Uses)  Section 23.202.050 (Residential Districts – R-1 Residential Multi-Unit 1 District)  Section 23.202.080 (Residential Districts – R-2 Residential Multi-Unit 2 District)  Section 23.202.090 (Residential Districts – R-2A Residential Multi-Unit 2A District)  Section 23.206.030 (Manufacturing Districts – Additional Permit Requirements)  Section 23.206.060 (Manufacturing Districts – M Manufacturing District)  Section 23.206.070 (Manufacturing Districts – MM Mixed Manufacturing District)  Section 23.206.080 (Manufacturing Districts – MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District)
 Section 23.206.090 (Manufacturing Districts – MU-R Mixed Use Residential District)
 Section 23.304.100 (General Development Standards – Site Features in Residential)
 Section 23.306.030 (Accessory Dwelling Units – Development Standards)  Section 23.306.040 (Accessory Dwelling Units – Permit Procedures)  Section 23.322.040 (Parking and Loading – General Requirements)  Section 23.322.050 (Parking and Loading – Parking Reductions)  Section 23.322.100 (Parking and Loading – On-site Loading Spaces)  Section 23.326.070 (Demolition of Non-Residential Buildings)  Section 23.330.030 (Density Bonus—Application Requirements)  Section 23.330.080 (Density Bonus – Regulatory Agreements)  Section 23.410.020 (Appeals and Certifications – Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction)
 Section 23.502.020 (Glossary – Defined Terms)
The hearing will be held on April 28, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

For further information, please contact Justin Horner, Principal Planner, at (510) 981- 7476.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of April 16, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

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

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: April 17, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on April 16, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

PUBLIC HEARING
April 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Subject: 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street Re-Zoning and Associated General Plan Amendments

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion:

1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1 ) to:
a. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the existing Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Use (MU) land use designation to solely Mixed Use; and b. Amend the West Berkeley Plan to include conforming land use district map amendments; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 2) amending the Zoning Map to rezone portions of 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street from Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) to Mixed Use- Residential (MU-R).

SUMMARY
BMC Section 23.412.020(A) permits a property owner to apply for an amendment to the Zoning Map. BMC Section 22.04.020 permits amendments to the General Plan Map.

General Plan Map amendments that are not initiated by the City Council or Planning Commission must first be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration, which then makes a recommendation to the City Council.

On October 20, 2025, the Planning and Development Department received General Plan and Zoning Map amendment applications from the property owner of 1650 Fifth Street to rezone the parcels to entirely MU-R and to change the General Plan land use designation of the two properties to solely Mixed Use. The proposed resolution and ordinance rezone the two parcels and make the concurrent General Plan amendments.

1646 and 1650 Fifth Street Re-Zoning and PUBLIC HEARING Associated General Plan Amendments April 28, 2026

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed rezoning and associated General Plan map amendments are expected to be cost-neutral, as preparation of materials for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings are covered by application fees. The rezoning may result in increased property tax revenue from future entitlements that propose to add new residential units to the subject properties.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
1646 and 1650 Fifth Street, as shown in Figure 1, are two properties within West Berkeley that feature residential uses and are currently developed with single-family residences. On the City of Berkeley General Plan Land Use Map, the two parcels are split-designated as two separate General Plan land use designations: Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Use (MU). On the Zoning Map, the parcels are split-zoned with two separate zoning districts: Mixed Use-Light Industry (MU-LI) and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R).

The property owner of 1650 Fifth Street has proposed a residential development project on both parcels. As residential uses are not permitted in the MU-LI zoning district, the owner is not able to utilize the entirety of both parcels for a residential development project, unless the map and plan amendments are adopted.

Figure 1: Project Site
Image not to scale
Project Site

1646 and 1650 Fifth Street Re-Zoning and PUBLIC HEARING Associated General Plan Amendments April 28, 2026

Zoning District Boundary
The City of Berkeley Zoning Map would be amended to re-designate 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street as solely MU-R. The extent of the zoning district changes is shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2: Existing Zoning Map
Figure 3: Proposed Zoning Map
Project Site
Project Site

1646 and 1650 Fifth Street Re-Zoning and PUBLIC HEARING Associated General Plan Amendments April 28, 2026

Allowed Uses
The primary difference between the MU-LI and MU-R Districts is that residential uses are Not Permitted in the MU-LI District, while they are allowed in the MU-R District.

Development Standards
Since both districts are within the parent category of Manufacturing districts, the development standards of each district are similar, with the same standards for minimum lot area, rear and side setbacks and lot coverage. MU-R includes multiple residential-related standards such as Usable Open Space and Residential Density that MU-LI does not by virtue of disallowing residential uses.

General Plan and West Berkeley Plan Amendments
The proposed Zoning Map amendments require conforming amendments to the West Berkeley Plan and General Plan.1 The proposed General Plan amendments would update the General Plan Land Use Map so the properties are solely designated as Mixed Use (MU). The proposed West Berkeley Plan amendments would update the Land Use Districts Map so the properties are solely designated as Mixed Use/ Residential. The extent of the General Plan and West Berkeley Plan amendments is shown in Attachment 1, Exhibit A of the Staff Report.

BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its regular meeting on March 4, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone portions of 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street from MU-LI to MU-R, and to make conforming amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and the West Berkeley Land Use Map.

Tribal Consultation (SB 18)
Pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 (2004, Burton), City staff sent scoping consultation notices on January 8, 2026 to tribes identified as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area by the Native American Heritage Commission.

On March 12, 2026, staff conducted a consultation meeting with the Muwekma Ohlone tribe. The tribe did not have any objections to the proposed rezoning, and requested that the project sponsor host cultural sensitivity training for workers before construction and that the project include monitoring for tribal cultural resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The proposed amendments are covered by the common sense exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The application seeks to alter the boundaries 1 The West Berkeley Plan is an amendment to Berkeley’s General Plan, providing policies to guide development in West Berkeley.

1646 and 1650 Fifth Street Re-Zoning and PUBLIC HEARING Associated General Plan Amendments April 28, 2026

between two existing zoning district and land use designations. Both existing districts and designations have been previously evaluated for potential environmental impacts, and the amendments would not introduce new uses or modify the already-allowed uses within each district and land use designation. Additionally, the change in zoning district and land use designation will not create any new adverse physical effects on the environment discordant from what is allowed in each zoning district or land use designation. The amendments therefore can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of having a potentially significant effect on the environment and therefore no subject to CEQA.

The proposed amendments would also facilitate the development of a multi-unit residential project in a previously developed urbanized area. Such development is associated with lower average Vehicle Miles Travelled and more efficient utility use.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The split-designation and split-zoning of these two parcels are remnants of land use decisions that precede the passage of the West Berkeley Plan in 1993. Current best practice is to avoid, and remedy, split zoning to provide more logical coherence to local land use regulations.

The proposed amendments would facilitate the development of a multi-unit residential project on parcels already occupied by residential uses, adding to the City’s housing supply.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could deny the application to amend the zoning map. This would allow a suboptimal zoning configuration to persist and would limit the ability of the project sponsor to redevelop the property with multi-unit residential uses.

CONTACT PERSON
Joshua Muller, Associate Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7488 Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Proposed General Plan and West Berkeley Plan Amendments

2. Ordinance

3. Project Application, received October 20, 2025

4. Public Hearing Notice

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR 1646 AND 1650 FIFTH STREET, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ASSOCIATED ZONING

MAP AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”), received an application from the owner of 1650 Fifth Street and on behalf of the owner of 1646 Fifth Street, to rezone the two parcels from Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R) to solely Mixed Use-Residential, and to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Use (MU) to solely Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2026, the City deemed the application complete; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request and recommended the City Council make map amendments to rezone the two parcels; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request; and WHEREAS, all documents constituting the record of this proceeding are and shall be retained by the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, at 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, California.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Berkeley: 1) Adopts amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to change the existing Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Use (MU) land use designation to solely Mixed Use, for the properties at 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street; and 2) Amends the West Berkeley Plan to conform to the proposed amendments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to California Government Code Section 65358, the City Council makes the following findings to support the General Plan and West Berkeley Plan amendments, included as Exhibit A:

1. The proposed amendments are in the public interest. The General Plan amendments serve the public interest by facilitating additional housing capacity and production to better meet housing demand.

2. The proposed amendments are consistent and compatible with the General Plan.

The proposed General Plan amendments would ensure internal consistency among General Plan elements.

3. The potential effects of the proposed amendments have been evaluated and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The potential effects of the proposed amendment are to encourage the development of additional housing units on parcels already occupied by residential uses.

Residential uses are not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.

EXHIBIT A

GENERAL PLAN AND WEST BERKELEY PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS General Plan Land Use Map:

West Berkely Plan Land Use Map:

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE 1646 AND 1650 5th STREET TO MIXED USE-RESIDENTIAL (MU-R)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.412.060, the City Council makes the following findings to support the zoning map amendments:

1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or area plan. The zoning map amendments would be consistent and compatible with the General Plan, as the proposed rezoning involves two existing zoning districts and does not propose any modifications to the intents, allowed uses, or development standards of either district.

2. The proposed amendments are consistent with state law. The zoning map amendments are consistent with state law because they do not reduce the intensity of residential use allowed under the existing General Plan or zoning pursuant to Gov. Code section 66300(b)(1).

3. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. The zoning map amendments are to unify the zoning district designations for two properties and would not create any new uses that would have detrimental impacts to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City or its inhabitants. Additionally, the amendments would not create or exacerbate any nonconforming uses or conditions through the modification of the zoning district designations.

4. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments would rectify two instances of split-zoning and would not include uses inconsistent with the intent of the MU-R zoning district.

5. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, and other characteristics to ensure that the permitted land uses and development will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of the property, surrounding properties, and the community at large. The zoning map amendments do not change the physical or legal boundaries or characteristics of the two lots. The amendments will also align the zoning district designation with the existing land use of the properties and will ensure any future development on the lot will align with the purpose and intent of the MU-R zoning district.

6. The Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) district’s purpose is to “encourage the development of a mixed-use light industrial area” and “provide for the continued availability of manufacturing and industrial buildings for manufacturing uses.” The proposed Zoning Map amendments would reduce the intensity of permitted

manufacturing uses on the subject parcels, and place the parcels under a single zoning designation for the anticipated development of residential uses. As a result, the proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 14 Cal. Code. Regs Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 2. The City of Berkeley Zoning Map is amended to read as follows:

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

/gid00049/gid00064/gid00070/gid00068/gid00001/gid00018/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00001/gid00019v. 10/10/2023 /[email protected] • Phone (510) 981-7410, TDD (510) 981-7450 Planning and Development
1947 Center St, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
/gid00001

APPLICATION CITY OF BERKELEY LAND USE PLANNING

GENERAL

INFORMATION
All new uses,
structures, and
modifications to
structures in the
City of Berkeley
are required to be
in conformancde
with the Zoning
Ordinance, Title
23 of the Berkeley
Municipal Code.

Additional
information
about zoning
permits:
/gid00053/gid00088/gid00079/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00059/gid00078/gid00077/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001 /gid00049/gid00068/gid00081
/gid00076/gid00072/gid00083/gid00082
/gid00041/gid00078/gid00086/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00052/gid00084/gid00065/gid00076/gid00072/gid00083/gid00001 /gid00064/gid00001/gid00059/gid00078/gid00077/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00049/gid00081/gid00078/gid00073/gid00068/gid00066/gid00083/gid00001 /gid00034/gid00079/gid00079/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00064/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077 /gid00052/gid00084/gid00079/gid00079/gid00075/gid00068/gid00076/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083/gid00064/gid00075/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001 /gid00054/gid00082/gid00068/gid00001/gid00064/gid00079/gid00079/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00064/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00082/gid00013/gid00001 /gid00069/gid00078/gid00081/gid00076/gid00082/gid00013/gid00001/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001 /gid00072/gid00077/gid00082/gid00083/gid00081/gid00084/gid00066/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00082 /gid00059/gid00078/gid00077/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00049/gid00081/gid00078/gid00073/gid00068/gid00066/gid00083/gid00001 /gid00052/gid00084/gid00065/gid00076/gid00072/gid00083/gid00083/gid00064/gid00075/gid00001 /gid00051/gid00068/gid00080/gid00084/gid00072/gid00081/gid00068/gid00076/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083/gid00082/gid00001/gid00001 (must accompany
this app
lication)
Zoning Project Application
APPLICATION TYPE? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY:

ZONING PROJECT APPLICATION
Administrative Use Permit(s)
Use Permit(s)
Variance(s)
Telecommunications Use Permit
Modification to an Administrative Use
Permit or Use Permit

PROJECT INFORMATION
Unit(s)/Suite(s) #:

Assessor Parcel Number(s):

Project Address(es):

Project Description:
(include applicable demolition/removal, proposed use(s) total square feet of new/addition, height, number of units and very-low income units, and parking)
DEDICATED CONSULTANT REVIEW REQUESTED FOR USE PERMIT? (Check box if requested) Dedicated Consultant Review involves a competitive bid process to select an outside consultant, and is only available for Use Permits, substantial modifications to a Use Permit, Variances. Consultant costs are in addition to Use Permit fees already paid.

PROPERTY OWNER’S NAME:

Owner’s Property Address:

Phone Number::

Email:

APPLICANT’S NAME:

Owner’s Property Address:

Phone Number::

Email:
057-2116-021; 057-2116-22; 057-2116-03
1646, 1650, and 1654 Fifth Street
Amend Zoning / General Plan designation of three adjacent properties to coincide with property line and existing Residential Use.

Justin Talbott; 1650 Fifth Street, LLC; City
Same as Project addresses
Matthew Wadlund
510-332-6468
[email protected]
of Berkeley
Attachment 3

v. 10/10/2023/gid00049/gid00064/gid00070/gid00068/gid00001/gid00019/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00019

APPLICATION CITY OF BERKELEY LAND USE PLANNING
YES, Pre-Application #PLN20
Effective January 1, 2023, (State Government Code, Section 65103.5 (e), SB 1214), if an official copy of architectural drawings are submitted to the Land Use Division of the Planning and Development Department as part of a zoning permit application, the design professional (or the owner of the copyright if different from the design professional) may submit a separate “site plan” or “massing diagram” for posting online or for distribution to the public.

If a separate “site plan” or “massing diagram” is not submitted in addition to the official architectural plans, permission is deemed granted to the Land Use Division to post online or to provide to the public copies of the architectural drawings without the restrictions that would otherwise apply.

A massing diagram and a site plan are defined as follows per Government Code Section 65103.5 (f): “Massing diagram” means a document that displays the three-dimensional form of a building and describes the general profile, bulk, setbacks, and size of the building, but does not contain specific architectural detail.
“Site plan” means a document for a project that is drawn to scale and displays all of the following: property lines, setback lines, topographic lines, easements, drainage, utilities, lighting, driveways, surrounding streets and traffic flow, parking lots and parking spaces, landscaped areas, setback distance between buildings and property lines, outline of existing and proposed buildings and structures, distance between buildings, and ground sign location.

DRAWINGS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT STATEMENT /gid00001

ZONING PROJECT APPLICATION
PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (required):

My application includes a separate “site plan” or “massing diagram,” defined in Government Code Section 65103.5(f), for posting online or for distribution to the public.

Permission is granted to make publicly available the
submitted architectural drawings without restriction to posting online or distribution to the public.

OWNER’S SIGNATURE:APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE:

Printed Name: Printed Name:Date: Date:

Under penalty of perjury, I certify that:
(1) the application materials are true and complete to the best of my knowledge; and (2) if provided, the attached paper and electronic copies of this application are the same; and (3) I agree to pay all expenses associated with this application (*Owner’s signature, or signed letter authorizing applicant to apply on owner’s behalf, is required for all applications) YES
YES

YES YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Does your project require staff-level or committee-level design review?
Does your project utilize State Density Bonus?
Does your project include demolition of a
nonresidential building, or demolition or
substantial changes to any building that is 40 or
more years old?
Is your project vested by a preliminary housing development pre-application under SB 330?
Does your project include on-site below market rate units (affordable housing)?
-
PROJECT INFORMATION:

Matthew Wadlund 10.20.2025
Signature from City Oficial Pending

Attachment 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Adoption of Zoning Map Amendments to Title 23 of the
Berkeley Municipal Code, and General Plan Amendments to change the zoning designation of 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street.

The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Department of Planning and Development is proposing amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan to update the General Plan Land Use designation of 1646 and 1650 Fifth Street from both Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Use (MU) to solely Mixed Use, and to change the Zoning designation of both parcels from both Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R) to solely Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R).

Proposed zoning amendments affect the following Sections of Title 23: 23.108.030 (Zoning Map).

Proposed General Plan map amendments include making concurrent modifications to the General Plan Land Use Map and the West Berkeley Plan Land Use Map.

The proposed amendments are covered by the common sense exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 6:00 pm in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of April 16, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Joshua Muller, Associate Planner at 510-981- 7488. Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

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

Attachment 4
or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: April 17, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.404.040, BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on April 16, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
April 28, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Subject: UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative’s Interim Evaluation of the Berkeley Encampment Resolution/RV Buyback Program

INTRODUCTION
This report highlights the key findings and policy recommendations from a formal evaluation (included as Attachment 1) of the City’s use of State of California Encampment Resolution Fund – Round 3 (ERF-3) grant funding to pilot an “RV Buy- Back” program to transition residents living in the Second Street encampments in Northwest Berkeley, which Council directed staff to close in September, 2024. The evaluation was performed by Dr. Margot Kushel and Dr. Michael Duke of the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (UCSF BHHI).

The evaluation presented the City a unique opportunity to partner with the nation’s foremost academic expert in homelessness, Dr. Kushel, and her team to study the City’s approach to resolving and closing large homeless encampments using leased motels—a strategy that has been used by the Homeless Response Team since 2021 across four motels, but which, to date, has lacked any empirical backing as a data- driven best practice. Results largely suggests that the City’s approach to resolving encampments – and in particular, its innovative use of an RV Buy Back program to help transition vehicular residents into shelter – was successful in meeting its goal of permanently resolving this large, dangerous, and deeply entrenched encampment by transitioning its residents onto a lasting path to ending their homelessness. Finally, the evaluation offers a number of empirical findings and policy recommendations that should inform the difficult work of resolving encampments not just in Berkeley, but around the State.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In September 2024, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the closure of the large, dangerous encampments that had been concentrated along Second Street and its cross- streets from Cedar to Page. Shortly thereafter, the City was awarded a $5.4 million (approximate) Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF-3) grant award from the State of California, which the City used to master lease the former Howard Johnson Motel

Interim Evaluation of Berkeley’s RV Buyback Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 28, 2026

(1619 University Ave.) and contract with Dorothy Day House to operate a non-congregate shelter dedicated to the residents of this encampment. Part of the grant award provided $150,000 to pilot an RV Buy Back program to incentivize and motivate people living in oversized vehicle encampments (RVs and trailers) to transition into interim housing. This is a population that the City has struggled to bring indoors and which previous BHHI research in the East Bay has found to be largely unreceptive to anything other than permanently subsidized housing. 1 In addition, the grant awarded $200,000 for a formal evaluation of the RV Buy Back and encampment resolution efforts by UCSF BHHI.

Evaluation research began concurrently with the City’s encampment resolution efforts on Second Street (January, 2025), and the interim research findings were published by BHHI in March, 2026. These findings will be supplemented by a scientifically rigorous, independent evaluation from BHHI to understand what works, what does not, and how future programs can better support people as they move from encampments into shelter and housing.

The full interim report is included as Attachment 1 and contains a number of important findings and policy recommendations for the practice of encampment resolution and homeless encampments more generally – a largely recent and mostly unstudied phenomenon in California and the United States. Notable findings for Berkeley include:
 The effort was largely successful in meeting its goals of permanently resolving the Second Street encampments and transitioning its residents into interim, and eventually permanent, housing. Among 54 encampment residents eligible to enter the Capri Motel (formerly the Howard Johnson Motel) non-congregate interim shelter program, 41 did. After initial skepticism, and some more lasting discontent with the motel’s limitations on visitors, the residents who were transitioned out of the encampment and into the Capri Motel have mostly expressed satisfaction with both the buyback and non-congregate shelter program. The Capri Motel shelter, operated by Dorothy Day House, has helped residents become “document-ready” for housing; has connected them to health care and other social services; and has permanently rehoused 8 individuals thus far.
 Oversized vehicle owners overwhelmingly chose to participate in the buyback program. Residents in 29 of the 32 oversized vehicles in the encampment accepted the buy-back offer (which they generally characterized as fair) and did not appear, upon follow-up, to regret that decision. Said one resident about the Buy Back program, “Offering to buy my vehicle to get me off the street is a fantastic idea, because that's actually what was holding me to the street at that point. I mean, it was my shelter. It was my house, basically. So, to leave that, I'm 1 Pruss, G.J., Knight, K.R., Resnikoff, N., and Kushel, M. (2022). The Long Road Home: Housing and Service Needs of People Who Inhabit Oversized Vehicles in Oakland's Public Parking. UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. See: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2026- 02/UCSF%20BHHI%20Oversized%20Vehicle%20Report.pdf

Interim Evaluation of Berkeley’s RV Buyback Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 28, 2026

worried. And then to have to sell that or having somebody buy that at the same time, it was just like two birds with one stone. And it made everything sort of believable that I could actually do it.”
 The City’s approach to this large encampments was pragmatic and enabled it to successfully and permanently close it. “Counter to myths,” the report states (p. 6), “people experiencing homelessness want to accept credible offers of non- congregate shelter.” To mitigate against people coming from surrounding areas and migrating to the encampment to seek resources, the City took a census of the encampment several months prior to the program’s initiation, giving long-term residents priority. Found the report, “This is a pragmatic way to handle prioritization, and the need for it speaks to the high interest in these programs” (p. 6).

The report also offers a number of important policy recommendations and implications for the Homeless Response Team’s work, including:
 To address homelessness among people living in oversized vehicles, pair low-barrier non-congregate shelter with oversized vehicle buyback offers and allow participation in one without the other. For City staff, this recommendation signals an important break from past approaches to addressing RV homelessness with safe off-street parking programs, which increase safety for vehicular residents but keep them unsheltered (according to Federal definitions of homelessness) and, in the City’s experience, are largely unsuccessful at ultimately transitioning people out of unsheltered homelessness and into permanent housing.

The research suggests that Berkeley’s approach to pairing RV Buy back offers with interim housing offers--in a way that maximizes participant choice by not fully conditioning one on the other—is a promising approach that, if expanded, could see success in resolving other vehicular encampments.
 Jurisdictions looking to resolve encampments should not assume that all encampment residents prefer or require to be sheltered or housed near one another. This is a critical preliminary finding, as the City’s Homeless Response Team frequently hears from encampment advocates and concerned community members that encampments offer community with a number of benefits to residents and that, by closing these encampments without regard to this community, the City may be doing more harm than good. Found the report:

We found no evidence that it was crucial to the encampment residents that they all moved to the same place. Residents’ expressions of solidarity and need to remain together rarely extended beyond their romantic partners, roommates, or immediate neighbors in the encampment. Instead, their decisions to participate in the non-congregate shelter program on whether they thought it would improve their household’s circumstances (pp. 15-16).

Interim Evaluation of Berkeley’s RV Buyback Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 28, 2026

This empirical finding suggests that good-faith offers of meaningful resources designed to end homelessness are more important to encampment residents than any perceived allegiance to their encampment as a group, and that “the planning process should include private conversations with [encampment] residents to assess whether they have a strong preference to stay together, live apart, or have no preference.”
 Resolving encampments requires a regional approach that intentionally prioritizes permanent supportive housing resources to encampments needing to be resolved. Specifically, the report seems to offer two paths for continued advocacy from City leadership to State and County leadership:
o The report found that most of the residents in the Second Street encampments had come there after losing their housing in other, neighboring jurisdictions. This corroborates the Homeless Response Team’s anecdotal findings in this and other encampments, and is substantiated by data from the most recent (2024) Point-in-Time Count, in which 57% of unsheltered individuals reported last being housed in Alameda County at the time they became homeless, compared to 78% in the rest of the County. From the report: “There is a need for policies that disincentivize jurisdictions to “push” community members away and that support jurisdictions that have a larger share of people from other jurisdictions” (p. 5).
o Additionally, the report suggests that examination of local Coordinated Entry prioritization policies, made in Alameda County at the Continuum of Care (CoC) level, is important to transition people out of encampments:
“There is a need to examine prioritization processes for permanent supportive housing and housing subsidies and to investigate other ways to promote permanent housing exits to allow for continued program success” (p.5). Neighborhood Services staff, who represent Berkeley on the CoC Leadership Board and other countywide tables, will continue to advocate for this policy position, as affirmed by the City Council with their May 20, 2025 direction2 that the City Manager affirm this position in a letter sent to the Board of Supervisors on May 28, 2025.

BACKGROUND
On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 71,513-N.S., adopting the City’s first homeless encampment policy and directing staff to prioritize the closure of the encampments along 2nd St and cross streets in Northwest Berkeley. On September 27, 2024, the City was awarded a roughly $5.4 million ERF-3 grant, and on 2 See: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-05- 20%20Item%2029%20Alternative%20Housing%20Options.pdf

Interim Evaluation of Berkeley’s RV Buyback Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 28, 2026

November 19, 2025, the City Council approved the use of that grant to master lease the former Howard Johnson Motel on University Avenue and contract with Dorothy Day House to operate that motel as low-barrier, noncongregate shelter dedicated to the residents of the to-be-resolved Second Street encampments. On April 15, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 71,713-N.S., authorizing the City Manager to enter into a $200,000 contract with the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative to perform evaluative research on the City’s use of this grant to resolve the encampment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no climate or environmental impacts associated with this report, except that whenever unhoused persons are permanently transitioned out of street homelessness, it leads to a better, healthier environment for all.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
As the City faces significant budget deficits in the coming budget cycles and Council must make difficult choices about which city services, including homeless programs, can be sustained, these results and findings may influence an analysis of program funding decisions towards the City’s goal of continuing to reduce unsheltered homelessness, and inform City advocacy to State and County leaders for targeted resources and policy approaches that will enhance the City’s demonstrated success in resolving large encampments. Additionally, the report found that, once RVs formerly used as shelter were ready for removal from the streets, “Delays stemming from a lack of cooperation from local tow companies and existing State and City laws dictating the disposal processes for abandoned and potentially hazardous vehicles caused there to be a delay in removing the vehicles (and thus delays in paying residents the majority of the buyback price)” (p. 12). Council may wish to examine local ordinances and policies with an eye towards alleviating such delays, especially in the context of future RV Buy Back expansion to other encampment sites.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
To be determined.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Radu, Neighborhood Services Manager, (510) 981-7045.

Attachments:

1. Interim Evaluation of the Berkeley Encampment Resolution/RV Buyback Program

Interim Evaluation:

Berkeley Encampment
Resolution/RV Buyback
Program
Jan 2025 – Dec 2025
PUBLISHED MARCH 2026

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 2

Interim Evaluation of the Berkeley Encampment
Resolution/RV Buyback Program
Findings from the first year (Jan 2025–Dec 2025)
Authors: Margot Kushel, MD, Michael Duke, PhD.

Suggested Citation: Kushel, M., Duke, M. (2026). Interim Evaluation of the Berkeley Encampment Resolution/RV Buyback Program. UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 Preliminary Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Preliminary Recommendations ................................ ................................ .................. 5 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7 Overview of Program and Process ................................ ................................ ................. 8 Findings................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 9 Description of the Encampment Prior to the Initiative ................................ ................... 9 Laying the Groundwork ................................ ................................ ............................ 10 RV Buyback Program ................................ ................................ ............................... 12 Non-Congregate Shelter Program ................................ ................................ ............. 15 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 21 Appendix: Research Methods ................................ ................................ ...................... 22 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 22

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 3

Executive Summary
To resolve a longstanding homeless encampment in which most residents lived in oversized vehicles, the City of Berkeley instituted an initiative consisting of a vehicle buyback program for all oversized vehicles and offers of a stay in a low-barrier non- congregate shelter program with enhanced case management.

The buyback had two goals: to allow the city to dispose of oversized vehicles, the majority of which were not operable, and to provide residents with liquid assets in exchange for giving up their vehicle, in order to encourage them to accept non- congregate long-term shelter.

The goal of the shelter program is to provide a safe setting for residents while they identify and move into permanent housing. The shelter funding will last three years; thus, the City offered residents the ability to stay for up to three years. The City supported the initiative using funding from California’s Encampment Resolution Fund.

Berkeley officials chose the encampment due to both the perceived needs of the residents and the public safety risks of the encampment. To decrease the risk of people entering the encampment for the purposes of enrolling in the program, the City took a census of residents in October 2024 to determine priority.

Preliminary Findings
Overall
• The program, while not without challenges, has met its preliminary goals.

Among owners of 32 oversized vehicles in the encampment, 29 accepted the buyback offer. Among 54 encampment residents eligible to enter the non- congregate shelter program, 41 did. The encampment has been closed. Most residents are doing well in the non-congregate shelter. Of 34 in the main shelter, eight have returned to permanent housing, most are now “document-ready,” and eight expect housing soon. Most have engaged in health services, and none have died. Four residents have been evicted for rule violations. After initial skepticism, the residents have mostly expressed satisfaction with both the buyback and non-congregate shelter program.

Program Uptake
• Most encampment residents had not lived in Berkeley when they had lost their stable housing. Instead, they came to the encampment from other encampments nearby, including a large number whose encampment was “cleared” in a neighboring county.
• Oversized vehicle owners overwhelmingly chose to participate in the buyback program, which offered to buy oversized vehicles for $175 per linear foot, regardless of condition. Owners of 29 out of 32 existing oversized vehicles elected to take part. One of the three who did not participate in the buyback took

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 4

the offer to move into the non-congregate shelter and gave her oversized vehicle to a relative in another part of the state.
• Of 54 encampment residents who were eligible for the program, 41 elected to move into a non-congregate shelter. They brought two additional residents, including romantic partners and family members who were not in the census, for a total of 43 shelter program participants. Of these 43 residents (primary residents and their partners or family), 34 lived in the primary non-congregate shelter, and the City placed the nine others elsewhere.

Resident Experience
• Overall, after initial distrust, residents viewed the program positively. They felt that the buyback program was generally fair and did not appear to regret having sold their vehicles. The program has helped residents become “document-ready” for housing and connect them to health care and other social services.
• The shelter program is low-barrier and does not require sobriety or engagement in treatment as a condition to stay in the hotel. The program has sought to engage residents in case management, housing navigation, and healthcare services. There have been no overdoses or deaths among residents. • In the primary shelter, eight of the 34 residents have exited for long-term permanent housing. An additional eight are in the process of obtaining housing, which they anticipate moving into in the near future. Four residents have been evicted from the program for violating program rules. These four residents returned to unstable settings, including homelessness, but remain eligible for case management services at the facility.

Encampment resolution
• The City was able to close the encampment. The majority of the residents accepted and remained in shelter. Residents who declined the offer of non- congregate shelter (including two households who declined the vehicle buyback program) moved to other unsheltered areas.

Implementation Challenges
• The City experienced delays in disposing of the vehicles that they bought back. Causes of delays included difficulty finding local towing companies willing to remove the vehicles and restrictions imposed by local and state laws on removing vehicles. The delays caused concern among the owners who participated in the RV buyback program, but the City was eventually able to remove the vehicles.
• Non-congregate shelter residents were concerned about limitations on visitors to the site, despite generally approving of the program.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 5

• Returns to housing have been slow, due to long wait lists for housing subsidies or permanent supportive housing slots. At the time of this interim report, eight of the 34 residents of the primary shelter have regained permanent housing. An additional eight are in the process of obtaining permanent housing.

Berkeley has moved eight additional people into the shelter, who came from other encampments.

Preliminary Recommendations
• To address homelessness among people living in oversized vehicles, pair low-barrier non-congregate shelter with oversized vehicle buyback offers and allow participation in one without the other. Without vehicle buyback offers, residents may fear losing their primary asset by coming indoors. This is a particular concern for those offered shelter, rather than permanent housing. By acknowledging the importance of the oversized vehicles to residents’ sense of safety and empowering them with the flexibility that comes from having a small amount of savings, the buyback program built trust, gave residents agency, and enabled residents to accept offers of long-term (but not permanent) non- congregate shelter.
• Maintain program flexibility. Key strategies that increased program uptake included not requiring residents to accept the buyback offer to move into the non- congregate shelter, providing a low-barrier shelter with best practices around overdose prevention and resident well-being, and allowing residents to live with partners, pets, or other family members.
• Increase efforts to better understand cross-jurisdictional movement to create equitable policymaking. The Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS) creates an opportunity for policymakers to understand the frequency and patterns of movement across jurisdictional lines among people experiencing homelessness. While they had lived in the targeted encampment for some time, many residents had initially moved there from another encampment a few miles away that had been “cleared” without viable offers of shelter. The original encampment, while only a few exits up a major highway, was in a different county. The people who came from the neighboring county chose the Berkeley encampment for its proximity to employment and to their social support. They came without respect to county lines, which are not visible or important to people experiencing homelessness. People did not come from afar to seek services; however, cities that abut county borders (particularly those with more punitive policies) may observe a higher proportion of people coming from other counties. There is a need for policies that disincentivize jurisdictions to “push” community members away and that support jurisdictions that have a larger share of people from other jurisdictions. The increased use of the Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS), a database that combines jurisdictions' Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), may allow for

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 6

better understanding of cross-jurisdictional movement to allow for more equitable policymaking.
• Use transparent prioritization policies. Counter to myths, people experiencing homelessness want to accept credible offers of non-congregate shelter. To mitigate against people coming from surrounding areas for the program, the City took a census of the encampment several months prior to the program’s initiation, giving these residents priority. This is a pragmatic way to handle prioritization, and the need for it speaks to the high interest in these programs. • Jurisdictions looking to resolve encampments should not assume that all encampment residents prefer or require to be sheltered or housed near one another. It is plausible that different encampment communities have different preferences. Part of the planning process should include private conversations with residents to assess whether they have a strong preference to stay together, live apart, or have no preference.
• Ensure adequate staffing and on-site services to maintain healthy environments and promote successful linkages to community services.

Increasing on-site housing navigation and health services (including low-barrier mental health and substance use treatment) may increase uptake. • Prioritize permanent housing exits to sustain program capacity. Program success depends on the program’s ability to transition residents to permanent housing. Doing so will allow the program to serve a larger number of people.

There is a need to examine prioritization processes for permanent supportive housing and housing subsidies and to investigate other ways to promote permanent housing exits to allow for continued program success.

“Offering to buy my vehicle to get me off the street is a fantastic idea, because that's actually what was holding me to the street at that point. I mean, it was my shelter. It was my house, basically. So, to leave that, I'm worried.

And then to have to sell that or having somebody buy that at the same time, it was just like two birds with one stone. And it made everything sort of believable that I could actually do it.” - Berkeley Encampment Resident

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 7

Introduction
Homelessness, particularly unsheltered homelessness, is a significant issue throughout California. The state is home to approximately 12% of the nation’s population, but 24% of its homeless population, and about half of its unsheltered population. Sixty-six percent of people experiencing homelessness in California do so in unsheltered locations—living their private lives in public and facing numerous health and safety threats.

Unsheltered homelessness includes both people living outdoors and people living in a vehicle. One increasingly common experience is living in a vehicle. In the California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH), 21% of adult Californians experiencing homelessness reported spending most nights in the prior six months in a vehicle, and about twice as many spent one or more nights there. Up to half of the people living in their vehicles do so in “oversized” vehicles, such as Recreational Vehicles (RVs), school buses, or similar. People experiencing homelessness reported staying in vehicles (rather than outside or in shelters) because they provided protection from the elements and a greater sense of safety. However, many of these vehicles are inoperable and vulnerable to ticketing, impoundment, and vandalism.

In many communities, unsheltered homelessness is most visible in encampments, including some that contain clusters of oversized vehicles. While these spaces can provide residents with a sense of community and safety, they can create public health threats—including poor sanitation—and generate community complaints.

Data from early 2025 suggest that focused efforts throughout California led to a 9% reduction in unsheltered homelessness. However, homelessness—and particularly unsheltered homelessness—remains a critical challenge in California.

On September 10, 2024, the City Council of Berkeley, CA adopted Resolution No. 71,513-N.S., which prioritized resolving a longstanding encampment in the Northwest part of the city due to health and safety risks. This encampment included a number of oversized vehicles in which residents lived. To support residents and reduce the harms that can occur during encampment resolutions, Berkeley’s Homeless Response Team planned two initiatives to support residents: a vehicle buyback program and a non- congregate shelter program in a local motel with wraparound services. The City chose Dorothy Day House, a local homeless services organization, to operate the shelter program. The City of Berkeley received funding through round three of California’s Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF-3). The program began in January 2025.

The City of Berkeley contracted with UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (BHHI) to evaluate the intervention. In this report, UCSF BHHI investigators

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 8

present an interim evaluation following the first year of the program. It describes the city’s preparatory activities to establish the program, encampment members’ initial responses to the initiatives, the subsequent opportunities and challenges faced by residents in adjusting to their new living situation, and the efforts of staff to help them achieve their housing and other life goals. The UCSF Institutional Review Board approved the project. We present methodological details in an appendix.

Overview of Program and Process
The program consisted of two distinct components: 1) a vehicle buyback program, and 2) non-congregate shelter and wraparound services for former encampment residents.

The City conducted a census of the encampment in October 2024, a few months before the start of the program. The 36 encampment residents who were present in the census received priority for participating in these programs. Residents who were not in the initial census but moved in prior to the program announcement received second preference.

Residents could participate in either the buyback program, the shelter program, or both.

Vehicle Buyback
The buyback program offered residents $175 per linear foot (front to rear bumper) to purchase their oversized vehicles. Each resident could sell one eligible vehicle and receive a flat rate, regardless of the vehicle’s operability or condition. To recognize that participants might change their minds after signing over their vehicle, the City paid participants 15 percent upfront, and the remaining 85 percent once the City towed the vehicle from the encampment. If residents changed their minds and chose not to sell their vehicle to the City after receiving their deposit but before the City disposed of the vehicle, they could keep the deposit.

Non-Congregate Shelter Program
The shelter program provided residents non-congregate, low-barrier shelter with on-site case management to help them achieve their goals, including permanent housing. The City master leased a local two-story motel as the primary shelter. Dorothy Day House, a local nonprofit that serves people experiencing homelessness, provided the services, which included case management and a meal program. Residents are eligible to stay for up to three years, at which point the funding for the program is scheduled to run out.

Although the shelter was low-barrier, residents were required to follow program rules to remain there. These rules prohibited violence, activities that drew law enforcement to the shelter with a search warrant, and outside visitors in their rooms.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 9

Findings
Description of the Encampment Prior to the Initiative
The encampment was situated along Second Street
from Cedar to Page Streets. Some encampment
residents resided on Jones, Page, and Cedar Streets,
which run perpendicular to Second Street. It was
bordered to the west by the Eastshore Freeway (which
serves as the de facto access road for Interstates 80
and 580) and to the east by a set of train tracks.

Although we do not know how long the site has served
as an encampment, visual evidence from Google Maps’
street view suggests that people have resided in tent and vehicle encampments at this location on and off since at least 2008.

Before becoming homeless, most participants lived in Richmond, El Sobrante, or San Pablo in Contra Costa County. Two lived in Berkeley. Most residents came to the encampment from other encampments in Berkeley and Richmond, where most lived in oversized vehicles. Although some residents lived in tents, most resided in RVs or other oversized vehicles, and some owned trailers, cars, and other small vehicles in addition to their RV. Most had acquired their vehicle while already homeless, often purchasing them from other people who experienced homelessness. These vehicles were in various stages of repair; few were fully operable. One resident noted that she had purchased her vehicle with proceeds from selling her condominium after realizing she was going to become homeless; her vehicle was operable. Residents described several reasons for moving to the encampment. Some relocated to the area to be closer to their workplaces. Nearly all moved there because they had friends or acquaintances living in the encampment. Many relocated to the area after being displaced from their encampment on Rydin Road in Richmond, approximately 2.5 miles away. “I had a friend that stayed on Second Street, and he kept telling me, ‘Come over, come to Berkeley’, because Richmond … they don't do no helping with nothing ... So I just called him up one day, he pulled my van out here with a small car. It's been cool. I liked it. That's a lot better than Richmond.”
Vehicle residents reported that they lived in a series of vehicles since they had become homeless; some had been towed, while others became uninhabitable. Most participants brought their oversized vehicles with them from other encampments. Others obtained them from residents who had left the 2nd Street encampment due to illness or incarceration, while a few who initially lacked a vehicle cohabited with residents who

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 10

had one. Some residents, particularly those living in tents, lived alone. Most others lived with family, friends, or romantic partners.

The encampment had several sections, and residents reported settling into sections where they already knew people. Although residents highlighted some positive aspects of living in the encampment—supportive relationships with their immediate neighbors, independence, freedom from the burden of paying rent—they also described numerous challenges. Sanitation posed a common concern. Participants complained about the encampment’s large rat population, with some residents resorting to purchasing pellet guns to address the issue. People from outside the neighborhood used the encampment as an illegal dumping ground, leaving their refuse in a trash mound on Second Street. Residents would consolidate this trash to avoid having it cover the entire width of the street, but the debris would nonetheless blow throughout the encampment.

Participants reported being the victim of theft, both by other residents and by people from outside the encampment. Although residents reported they could rely on their close neighbors to watch their vehicles in their absence, theft remained a consistent problem. Women reported feeling unsafe in the encampment and described strategies for increasing their safety, including establishing relationships with male partners.

Women participants reported that sexual assaults, indecent exposure, and other forms of gender violence posed an ongoing concern in the encampment.

Laying the Groundwork
To fulfill their obligation to resolve the Second Street encampment while ensuring that the resolution serves as a bridge to social services and permanent housing, the City of Berkeley’s Homeless Response Team (BHRT) initiated outreach in the encampment.

Realizing that people experiencing homelessness throughout the city might relocate to Second Street to participate in the upcoming program, the BHRT decided to prioritize long-term residents. In October 2024, they initiated a census for all current residents.

Those on this list would receive priority for participating in the vehicle buyback and the non-congregate shelter programs. The initial list included 36 people. A second “Tier 2” list included those who had arrived after the October census and would be offered services if there were sufficient resources.

On January 14, 2025, the City’s Homeless Response Team and Dorothy Day House held a community meeting in the encampment to discuss the vehicle buyback and housing programs. Approximately 28 residents attended. Residents asked how the BHRT determined the price and whether they would need to sell their vehicles to participate in the shelter program. The presenters noted that Berkeley decided to offer a flat rate of $175 per linear foot to promote equity among encampment residents. They emphasized that participants were not required to participate in both programs and could participate in only one. Most of the questions focused on the shelter program.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 11

Several residents voiced their concerns about the policy prohibiting them from inviting guests, including family, to the motel. The Dorothy Day staff explained that the organization had faced problems with visitors carrying weapons or selling drugs in their other facilities. Implementing a no-guest policy was an effort to keep shelter residents safe. Residents expressed concern about rules limiting their ability to cook in their rooms, beyond using a microwave. The Dorothy Day representative noted that cooking in the rooms would pose a fire hazard. She reminded those in attendance that the program would provide three meals per day to residents and accommodate guests’ dietary restrictions. Residents expressed concern about their pets. Program staff assured them that they could bring their dogs or cats.

Given the impact of the encampment resolution on their living situation, residents reported experiencing a range of emotions during the meeting. Some came to the meeting determined to participate in the program. As one resident reported, “I wanted to be first on the list to get in here (to the motel). Because I don't want to be out there…I made sure we got in here. I was on them every day. I'm like, ‘I don't want to be there anymore, you got to get me out of there. You can have the car. I don't care. Just get us out of here.’”
Most reported feeling apprehensive during the
meeting, unsure about how the resolution would
affect them, and whether the program would
improve their housing situation.

Some characterized the process as coercive,
since the City planned to close the encampment
regardless of whether residents participated in
the program. The presenters noted that the City
Council had directed them to clear the
encampment. Their goal was to provide
alternatives and to avoid engaging law
enforcement. They noted: “Help us to avoid
doing things the hard way.” The presenters
added that residents could move to other
unsheltered locations, if need be, but they could
not stay where they were. A resident noted:
“Whatever they say is going to happen is what's
going to have to happen… it seemed like you didn't really have a choice in that we were going to either have to go along with it or you would suffer the consequences if you didn't…. They said either you can do this the hard way or you can do this the easy way.

And so, I figured that the easy way was going along with whatever program they had set “I wanted to hear what
they had to say. Because
we'd been hearing
rumors about that
something like this was
going to happen, but you
can't count on anything
really. You know what I
mean? So, I was kind of
a little bit excited.

Apprehensive, of course,
of everything, but here
we are.”

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 12

forward. And the hard way would be removals by the police department, aggressive removals, as they said.”
RV Buyback Program
The City of Berkeley modeled the buyback program on a successful initiative in Marin County and insights from a prior BHHI research study of oversized vehicle residents, The COVID-19-Oriented Resident of Oversized Vehicle Assessment (COROVA). In COROVA, residents of oversized vehicles expressed that they were concerned about losing their primary asset (their oversized vehicle) in exchange for a non-permanent offer of shelter (or short-term subsidized housing). By offering to buy back vehicles, the City acknowledged the importance of the oversized vehicles to residents’ sense of security and well-being, giving residents the confidence to accept the non-congregate shelter offer.

The buyback program proved popular among
residents. City outreach workers approached
the owners of 32 vehicles in the encampment:
of those, 29 agreed to the sale. After buying
the vehicles, the City arranged to tow and
dispose of them. Each resident approached
could sell one oversized vehicle. Delays
stemming from a lack of cooperation from
local tow companies and existing State and
City laws dictating the disposal processes for
abandoned and potentially hazardous vehicles
caused there to be a delay in removing the vehicles (and thus delays in paying residents the majority of the buyback price). After this delay, the City was able to tow the vehicles and pay the residents the remainder of their fee.

Program Acceptance
RV residents considered their vehicles their homes and felt emotionally attached to them. Many spoke with pride about improvement projects they had undertaken to keep their living spaces comfortable, clean, and in good physical condition. Despite these sentiments, most felt cautiously optimistic when they heard about the buyback program.

Given the power imbalance between the encampment residents and the City, coupled with lingering concerns that city officials had not always treated homeless residents fairly, some expressed apprehension about the program, concerned about whether the City “(was) going to follow through with what they were saying as far as acquiring our vehicles from us and of our homes, to be honest. Our vehicles. And just a little bit Outreach workers
approached the
owners of 32
oversized vehicles
in the encampment
29 agreed to sell.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 13

apprehensive of (whether) they're going to follow through. I mean, it's the City, you know what I mean? And it is just us.”
Residents characterized the amount the City offered as fair. Because most residents’ vehicles were inoperable, they felt that the amount they received in the buyback program was more than they would receive had they sold them on the open market.

One respondent noted that he was reluctant to sell his vehicle but conceded that the buyback program had worked out for the best: “I didn't have a choice in the matter. My motor home was past registration, and it was going to get towed anyway. I had no choice in the matter. And turns out it was a good thing.” Another resident who had been skeptical about the program was surprised by the amount she received: “I thought (the buyback offer) was very generous. And I keep saying that I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate the generosity, that they could have said 25 bucks a foot. They really could have … I was shocked, that's all. Shocked and thankful and grateful. We deserve it.”
Table 1. Vehicle Buyback Program Uptake
Tier 1 Residents Tier 2 Residents Total
Declined 3 0 3
Accepted 16 13 29
Total 19 13 32
As shown in Table 1, 16 out of 19 vehicle owner-residents listed in the October census (Tier 1) agreed to participate in the buyback program. The Homeless Response Team subsequently approached an additional 13 eligible owner-residents who were not listed in the October census (Tier 2), all of whom chose to participate. In total, owners of 29 out of the 32 vehicles who were approached agreed to sell their vehicles to the City.

Three encampment residents declined to participate in the buyback program. Two moved their vehicles to a nearby location. While the third declined to sell her vehicle, she agreed to leave the encampment and participate in the shelter program. The sole owner of an operable vehicle, she felt that the amount the City offered for the vehicle should be based both on the vehicle’s condition and its square footage, not just on its length from bumper-to-bumper: “Some of these people only bought their (vehicles) for a couple hundred (dollars). Some people were gifted it, but I bought mine because that was the money that I got from selling my condo. So I just didn't think it was fair.” Instead of selling her RV, she took it to a relative’s property to be renovated. She planned to repair the vehicle and then either give the vehicle to her daughter or use it as short-term rental unit.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 14

Some residents who participated in the buyback program came to realize that, while they viewed their vehicles as their homes, the logistical challenge of keeping them had become a barrier to obtaining permanent housing. As one resident said, “Offering to buy my vehicle to get me off the street is a fantastic idea, because that's actually what was holding me to the street at that point. I mean, it was my shelter. It was my house, basically. So, to leave that, I'm worried. And then to have to sell that or having somebody buy that at the same time, it was just like two birds with one stone. And it made everything sort of believable that I could actually do it.” Once participants signed over their vehicles, the City paid their 15 percent deposit quickly; once the City arranged to have the vehicles towed from the encampment, they would pay the remainder. However, there were delays in removing some of the vehicles, for two reasons: 1) local tow companies refused the vehicles, citing lack of impound yard space or potentially hazardous vehicle conditions (e.g., rodents) as reasons they could not accept them; and 2) restrictions imposed by State and local laws on the circumstances in which, and the processes by which, vehicles that could not be impounded could otherwise be removed from the street. As a result, many participants experienced longer-than-anticipated delays in receiving their money, causing some to express concern. Because the City staff and Dorothy Day personnel discussed the non- congregate program together during the town hall meeting, some residents assumed that the shelter staff were City employees and directed questions and frustration about not knowing when they would receive their money to them. Although most residents understood the circumstances that caused these delays, they were worried that they would not receive the remainder of their payout, or that their vehicles would fall into disrepair.

A few participants mistakenly believed that the City would void their agreement should anything happen to their vehicle after they left the encampment. For example, an encampment resident who moved into the motel heard that other people were squatting in his vehicle to escape the cold. Concerned that the presence of people in his vehicle would nullify the agreement, he returned to the encampment and shattered all of the vehicle’s windows to make it less habitable.

Program participants used the funds from the buyback program in a variety of ways.

Some chose to save all or part of their payout to develop a financial cushion once they regained housing. Others used the money to pay off debts or to provide financial support to family members. Despite the challenges of limited street parking around the non-congregate shelter, a few used the proceeds to purchase new vehicles. However, these were cars, rather than oversized vehicles, and residents did not intend to live in them.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 15

Non-Congregate Shelter Program
Program Acceptance
Table 2. Non-Congregate Shelter Program Participation
Tier 1 Tier 2 Other
Participants1 Total
Declined 7 6
Accepted 29 12 2
• Program
motel
21 11 2 34
• Other
Dorothy Day
facility
6 1 7
• Other indoor
destinations
2 2
Total 29 12 2 43
Although residents participating in the encampment meeting expressed reticence about the non-congregate shelter program, ultimately 29 of the 36 Tier 1 residents and 12 of the 18 Tier 2 residents encountered chose to participate. In addition, two people not listed in either tier participated. These were romantic partners, friends, or family members who were able to move in with Tier 1 or Tier 2 encampment residents who had moved into the non-congregate shelter.

We were unable to interview all participants who declined. Of the seven Tier 1 encampment residents who declined the shelter program, three were members of a single family. While two of these three family members wished to participate in both the vehicle buyback and non-congregate shelter programs, the third did not. In the interest of keeping the family intact, they decided to turn down both programs. Of the six Tier 2 - eligible residents who did not participate, one was able to move into permanent housing, removing the need for the program. The remaining five did not provide enough information for BHRT to enroll them into the HMIS system, so their subsequent location is unknown. In total, 43 participants enrolled in the non-congregate shelter program, with 34 moving to the 26-room main program motel. The residents brought along 26 animals (primarily dogs). We found no evidence that it was crucial to the encampment residents that they all moved to the same place. Residents’ expressions of solidarity and need to remain together rarely extended beyond their romantic partners, roommates, or immediate neighbors in the encampment. Instead, their decisions to

1 Romantic partners, friends, or family members of Tier 1 or Tier 2 participants

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 16

participate in the non-congregate shelter program on whether they thought it would improve their household’s circumstances.

Residents began arriving at the motel in March
2025. They were able to move in at their own
pace. Residents appreciated this approach,
since it gave them time to organize their
possessions. Participants chose their own
living arrangements. While some opted to live
alone, others chose to live with romantic
partners or friends. Despite concerns among
some meeting attendees about being unable
to bring all their possessions, most participants
chose to bring only a few pieces of clothing
and their bicycles.

Initial Program Impressions
Despite initial reservations, all expressed relief about moving out of the encampment.

As a participant noted, “I'm happy I'm out (of) the streets. That's what I'm happy at. I'm not in no car. I'm not in no trailer with the big rats.” Others felt that the program offered them a way out of what they considered a permanent cycle of homelessness: “On the street, you're always in fight or flight mode and there's always an emergency… And you can't have nothing because you got to live out of a backpack. You can't have any paperwork. It is just impossible. So I’d given up on ever getting out.” Another participant expressed a similar sentiment, noting that being sheltered motivated him to make positive changes in his life: “Being (homeless) for so long, it had me in a mindset of living that way. So, me getting here (to the motel), it is bringing me back to my regular state of mind to where I want to get a job and I want to do things.” Another resident remarked on the positive changes that he has seen in his neighbors since they moved to the motel: “I see the changes in people's faces … What I used to think were the grumpiest people in the world, actually have smiles and stuff … Even the dogs are happy.”
When asked to describe what they most appreciated about living in the motel, most described the comfort of sleeping indoors and, particularly, the ability to shower whenever they pleased: “Sleeping in a bed and a shower right here is just incredible. I mean, you don't really know how much you miss something like that until you don't have it. And then you get it again … to take a shower right when I wake up, or just to be able to go to the bathroom right here is incredible.”

“They're not trying to
rush me out [of the
encampment] this time...

They're trying to take a
different approach, which
is cool. I'm basically
telling them when I want
to be moved.”

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 17

Relations with Program Staff
Some residents were initially distrustful of the staff and the program, based on their negative perceptions of similar programs. Over time, they came to appreciate the project personnel: “The staff is nice because I've heard horror stories about other people going into motels and they're treated like crap, their items are searched, their rooms are searched when they're not there, that (kind of) thing. In that aspect, I think we're better off here because everybody seems to be -- the staff has been nothing but nice.” Residents particularly appreciated the staff’s sensitivity regarding the challenges they faced in transitioning to life in a non-congregate setting. “All the staff seem very, really nice and ready to help, and like really help without being demeaning at the same time ... Especially when you're dealing with a bunch of sensitive people, (who have) kind of been left to their own devices out there.” Another resident concurred, adding that “(the staff’s) whole goal is to transition you and acclimate you back into society, and to have a normal functioning life now.”
During staff meetings, the program manager emphasized the importance of treating residents with respect and understanding, adding that disrespect directed toward participants would result in disciplinary action. For example, residents reported that a staff member engaged in harassing behavior, particularly toward the female residents.

Residents were initially concerned that bringing these incidents to the program manager’s attention would result in an escalation of those behaviors. However, after an investigation, the manager removed the staff member from the facility. Residents identified this staffing decision as evidence that the program manager would take their potential concerns over staff behavior seriously.

Staff said that they were initially wary of the encampment residents. They were pleasantly surprised to discover that the residents generally were friendly and respectful, particularly once they settled into the program. The director noted that the residents are “such a beautiful group,’ adding that, “if you show that you care, without judgement, you get a lot more from them.”
Response to Program Regulations
When residents enrolled in the program, the case manager presented them with a document listing each of the facility’s rules. After discussing them, staff asked them to write their initials next to each rule, indicating that they agreed to adhere to it. As a low- barrier, program, the staff prided themselves on the lack of burdensome regulations found in other shelter settings. Residents generally considered these rules to be fair.

However, some found the concept of adhering to rules imposed by others to be challenging and associated behavioral control with their previous experiences with

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 18

incarceration. For these, living with rules felt like a significant departure from their experiences while homeless.

Despite initial concerns that the presence of security cameras and a dedicated security guard on site would expose residents to unwanted scrutiny, most came to see these measures as an effort to ensure their safety. Some felt that the cameras constituted a form of surveillance, a perception that came in part from presenters at the community meeting characterizing the initiative as a “pilot project.” As one resident put it, “You like structured a program, and we're guinea pigs. We're doing a trial run, just like a pilot program on TV, to see what the ratings are. If they get good ratings, then they (will) decide to keep it or not keep it.” For some, the presence of an evaluator at the facility (MRD) offered further evidence that residents were under surveillance.

Residents’ opinions remained divided on the program’s no-visitor policy. While many came to support the value of barring acquaintances from the facility to reduce potential drug selling and theft, residents felt that exceptions should be made for family members, with some stating that their family's presence would motivate them to reach their work and housing goals. Staff felt that the presence of family members on the campus would pose a potential liability, particularly given the presence of dogs in the motel. They proposed a compromise, as part of their efforts to provide additional recreational activities, by allowing residents to invite one family member to special events such as Thanksgiving dinner and a Christmas party.

Residents expressed concern about their inability to knock on each other’s doors within the motel, particularly when they lived on different floors of the complex. Although staff characterized this regulation as a safety precaution, it made communication between residents difficult. To overcome this, first-floor residents would sometimes stand in the parking lot and shout the names of their friends on the second floor to get them to open their door and speak to them.

Program Services
Food
The program provided residents with three meals per day, with accommodations made for dietary restrictions. The staff prepared most of the food in a modest kitchen in the motel’s office. Once prepared, they placed the food on a table in the facility’s former registration area for residents to take back to their rooms whenever they pleased.

Residents were generally satisfied with the food quality, though many noted it lacked variety or contained too much salt. For residents with high blood pressure and other medical issues, the high level of sodium posed a health issue. They would skip meals or purchase food on their own rather than risk their health. A resident with complex food

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 19

allergies noted that she was unable to eat most of the food on offer. Since she could not prepare meals in her room, she reported losing weight since she arrived at the motel.

Residents said they had brought this issue to the staff’s attention, but that the staff were initially slow to address it.

Case Management and Service Coordination
When participants moved into the motel, the
intake staff told them that they would not provide
extensive case management right away, to give
residents time to settle into the facility. However,
the program manager was on leave during this
period, which delayed case management
services by several additional weeks. While a
few residents described becoming impatient to
receive case management, most tended to be
sympathetic to these initial delays: “I'm being
patient. I mean, they've done everything they've
said so far (that) they're going to do. So I figure,
trust them.”
The staff described case management as consisting of linking participants to health and social services to help them achieve their goals. The staff coordinated services with local health, housing, and social service providers. The staff considered the coordination of housing services to be central to the program’s mission. As many residents lacked the necessary documents to become eligible for housing programs, during the first program year, much of the case managers’ focus was on helping residents obtain their social security cards, state IDs, verification of homelessness necessary for the Coordinated Entry process, and other relevant documents. While many were proactive in obtaining these documents, staff perceived others as being less motivated. As a staff person put it, “Sometimes they make the effort, and then they don't follow through, and we have to stay on them. And I don't like to do that because it's hard for me because I don't like to smother someone or make them feel like they're being forced to do something.” To increase motivation, the program offered residents a $50 gift card once they became “document-ready.” As of this writing, all but one resident has obtained the necessary documents to be considered for housing.

As a low-barrier non-congregate shelter, the program incorporated best practices around overdose prevention and resident well-being. For example, the staff had a protocol to check on residents who used drugs, in case they required treatment with naloxone (which can reverse an overdose) or other medical care. There have been no deaths at the site, and we are unaware of any overdoses requiring ambulances. “On the street, you're
always in fight or flight
mode and there's always
an emergency… And you
can't have nothing
because you got to live
out of a backpack. You
can't have any
paperwork. It is just
impossible. So, I’d given
up on ever getting out.”

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 20

The program’s case management linked residents to existing community services. To enhance service provision, staff from a local Federally Qualified Health Center with deep expertise in homelessness (Lifelong Medical Care) visited the site weekly to provide health services and coordinate linkages to health. In addition, a program providing supplies to reduce harm, including naloxone and condoms, visited the site weekly. Another organization came periodically with donated dog food. Once connected to healthcare, residents were able to get to their appointments using the MediCal transportation benefit, which provides access to public transit, taxis, ride shares, or van transport. To further improve access, at the time of this interim report the staff was discussing increasing the presence of on-site services.

Residents discussed the role of increased access to healthcare on their well-being.

They attributed their improved access both to the connections to care facilitated by program staff and due to the newfound stability in their housing situation. In one instance, a participant received brain surgery due to a life-threatening condition. As her partner noted, “If we hadn't been in (the motel), they would not have done the surgery.

Because you can't be on the street and they won't give you surgery…Being in here was a real blessing. Because as soon as we got in here, we were able to get her medical appointments and scheduled the surgery, and then she just had it.” Housing Navigation and Housing Outcomes
Case managers connected residents to local organizations that provided housing navigation. Housing navigation involves a suite of activities (including helping clients become “document-ready” and helping them apply for benefits, as well as helping with the housing search and engaging landlords). Program staff stated that the quality of the housing navigation that clients received varied widely. While some housing navigators maintained communication with their clients and submitted paperwork in a timely fashion, others did not do so. In response, on-site case managers took on some of these responsibilities. Many participants from Tier 1 had received a housing assessment as part of their enrollment into the Coordinated Entry System2 prior to moving to the site. To date, eight people of the initial 34 clients in the primary non- congregate shelter have moved on to permanent housing from the motel site: two veterans received housing through VA programs, and two couples moved into subsidized housing with services. Two other individuals obtained subsidized housing through programs that prioritized people experiencing homelessness. Nine people moved to other sites in Berkeley. At the time of this writing, we do not have housing- outcome data for these individuals.

2 The Coordinated Entry System (CES) is a network that aligns regional homeless services to connect people experiencing or at risk of homelessness to appropriate services and housing interventions to secure permanent and stable housing.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 21

Negative Exits
As a low-barrier facility, participants could be expelled from the program only if they engaged in acts of violence or if their activities caused police to arrive at the motel with a search warrant, since the program bars law enforcement from entering the premises otherwise. To date, four residents have been asked to leave the program: one due to domestic violence concerns and another for violating the visitor policy by bringing an off- site guest into their room. The remaining two were dismissed due to separate theft- related incidents that had occurred off-site. These cases resulted in a warrant, which left the staff with no alternative but to allow the police to enter the facility to arrest the suspects. Program staff emphasized that these individuals remain eligible for case management services, especially since, in some instances, their romantic partners still reside in the motel.

New Arrivals
The program admitted eight new participants from encampments into the units vacated by residents who moved into permanent housing or were otherwise exited.

Conclusion
The program resolved the longstanding Second Street encampment using a model that paired vehicle buyback with low-barrier non-congregate shelter with wraparound services—an approach that promoted voluntary engagement and brought most residents indoors. Together, these components offered residents a long-term respite from living outdoors, the opportunity to exchange their (often inoperable) oversized vehicles for savings, and a path to housing stability. The vast majority of eligible encampment residents accepted one or both aspects of the program. Despite occasional missteps, the program has met its primary goal. Most residents approved of the program, because it offered them the opportunity to move beyond a state of survival—providing the scaffolding to help them plan for their future. At the time of this interim report, the former site of the Second Street encampment remains clear of inhabited vehicles and tents.

Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative | homelessness.ucsf.edu 22

Appendix: Research Methods
Data Collection
We used four overlapping forms of data collection.

Ethnography: A hallmark of qualitative research; ethnography consists of in-depth observation within specific communities to understand the subjective experience of people residing in those settings. To date, we have engaged in approximately 100 hours of ethnographic data collection at the encampment and the motel, in addition to observing relevant meetings and events between residents, city officials, and Dorothy Day House personnel. We took extensive field notes after every observational session.

In-Depth Interviews: To date, we have carried out 32 semi-structured interviews with encampment residents, housing advocates, and Dorothy Day staff members. We initially interviewed 20 residents and subsequently followed six of these participants with interviews every two to three months. Residents received a $30 debit card for participating in each interview.

Document Review: We reviewed news reports, current and historical photographs, meeting agendas, and other materials about the encampment and the vehicle buyback and housing program.

Review of Program Metrics: With assistance from the City and the shelter operator, we reconstructed the numbers of people who were offered and accepted (or rejected) the vehicle buyback and shelter placement, the number of people who exited the shelter, and the number of people placed in housing.

Analysis
In qualitative research, analysis typically occurs throughout the research process. We use the Dedoose (version 10.0.59) software platform to code and analyze the data. We created a single coding manual for the observational, interview, and document data. We employed an interpretivist codebook approach to our thematic analysis, by using a structured coding manual to organize and categorize the data and then applying these coded materials to extrapolate themes.

Communications

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

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

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

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

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

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

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