Agenda packet, first session — Berkeley City Council, September 29, 2026 (part 10 of 10)

Page 1245 ends

13 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

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

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
Commercial,
Physical or
Biological
Testing
AUP AUP NP NP NP NP NP NP AUP NP NP AUP 23.204.040(E)
Cannabis
Testing
AUP AUP NP NP NP NP NP NP AUP AUP [2] NP AUP [2]
Manufacturing
Construction
Products
– – – – – – – – UP(PH) NP
Light
Manufacturing
– – – – – – – – AUP [1] -- AUP* [1]

23.204.160(B)(4)

23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Pesticides/He
rbicides/Fertili
zers
– – – – – – – – UP(PH) -- NP
Petroleum
Refining and
Products
– – – – – – – – UP(PH) -- NP
Pharmaceutic
als
– – – – – – – – UP(PH) -- UP(PH)* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Primary
Production
– – – – NP – – – – UP(PH) -- NP

Page 922 of 990 ends

Page 1246 ends

14 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
Manufacturing
Semiconducto
rs
– – – – NP – – – – UP(PH) -- UP(PH)* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a) Material
Recovery
Enterprise
– – – – – – – – – – -- --* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Media
Production
UP(P
H)
UP(P
H)
UP(P

H) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(P
H)
UP(PH
) UP(PH) UP(PH)
* AUP UP(P
H) AUP 23.204.130(B)(4)
Mini-storage UP(P
H) NP NP NP NP NP NP – UP(PH) NP NP NP
Recycled
Materials
Processing
– – – – – – – – – – -- --* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Recycling
Redemption
Center
AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a) Repair Service,
Non-Vehicle
– – – – – – – – – AUP -- AUP* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Research and
Development
– – – – – – – – – -- -- --* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Services to
Buildings and
Dwellings
– – – – – – – – – AUP -- AUP* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)

Page 923 of 990 ends

Page 1247 ends

15 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
Warehouse UP(P
H) NP NP NP NP NP NP – UP(PH) NP NP NP
Warehouse-
Based Non-Store
Retailer
– – – – -- – – – – – -- --* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Wholesale Trade – – – – -- – – – – AUP -- AUP* 23.204.160(D)(3)(a) Incidental Uses
Amusement
Devices
AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* UP(P
H) AUP* 23.302.070(B)
Alcoholic
Beverage
Service
See 23.310
Cafeteria, On
Site
UP(P
H)
UP(P
H)
UP(P
H)
UP(P

H) UP(PH) UP(P
H)
UP(PH
) UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP UP(P
H) AUP
Columbaria See 23.302.070(C)
Food and
Beverage for
Immediate
Consumption

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Food Service
Establishment,
Under 3,000 sq.
ft.

ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* 23.310.030

Page 924 of 990 ends

Page 1248 ends

16 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
Food Service
Establishment,
3,000 sq. ft. or
larger
AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* ZC* 23.310.030 Live
Entertainment
Unamplified

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Live
Entertainment
Amplified

AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Manufacturing AUP AUP UP(P

H) UP(PH) NP UP(P
H) AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP* 23.204.160(B)(4)
Retail Sale of
Goods
Manufactured
On-Site

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC AUP ZC ZC
Storage of
Goods (>25%
gross floor area)
AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP AUP* 23.302.020(C) Wholesale
Activities
AUP* AUP* UP(P
H)* UP(PH)* NP AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP AUP AUP 23.204.080(B)(3) Other Miscellaneous Uses
Art/Craft Studio ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Page 925 of 990 ends

Page 1249 ends

17 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
ATM, Exterior
and Attached to
Bank
AUP AUP AUP UP(PH) AUP AUP AUP AUP* AUP AUP AUP AUP*

23.204.120(B)(2)

23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
ATM, Interior or
Exterior and Not
With Bank
UP(P
H)
UP(P
H)
UP(P

H) NP UP(PH) UP(P
H)
UP(PH
) NP UP(PH)
* AUP UP(P
H) AUP*

23.204.130(B)(2)

23.204.160(D)(3)(a)
Circus/Carnival UP(P
H)
UP(P
H)
UP(P

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

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

H) NP NP NP UP(PH) UP(P

H) NP UP(PH) NP NP UP(P
H) NP
Home
Occupations
See 23.302.040
Live/Work See 23.312
Parking
Lot/Structure
See 23.302.070(.G)
Public Market,
Open Air

AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP UP(PH) AUP AUP
Public Market,
Enclosed
AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP [2] AUP ZC
Short-Term
Rental
See 23.314 NP NP See 23.314 NP See 23.314 NP See 23.314

Page 926 of 990 ends

Page 1250 ends

18 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC C-SP
Urban
Agriculture, Low-
Impact
ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC* ZC ZC ZC
Urban
Agriculture,
High-Impact
AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP AUP AUP

23.318
Wireless
Telecommunicati
on Facility
See 23.332—Wireless Communication Facilities
Notes:
[1] Requires a Use Permit if either 5,000 sq. ft. or more of floor area or 10,000 square feet or more of lot area. [2] Requires a Use Permit if more than 10,000 sq. ft.

Page 927 of 990 ends

Page 1251 ends

19 Section 3. That Table 23.204-2 New Floor Area Permit Requirements within BMC Chapter 23.204.030 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.204 2: New Floor Area Permit Requirements

DISTRICT/NEW GROSS FLOOR AREA
PERMIT

REQUIRED FOR

NEW FLOOR
AREA

C-C, C-U, C-SP
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. ZC
5,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
C-N, C-E, C-SO (any amount of new floor area) UP(PH)
C-NS
Less than 2,000 sq. ft. ZC
2,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
C-SA
Less than 3,000 sq. ft. ZC
3,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
C-T -
Less than 1,500 sq. ft. AUP
1,500 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
C-DMU
Less than 10,000 sq. ft. ZC
10,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
C-W
5,000 sq. ft. or more except when an AUP is required below UP(PH) 7,500 sq. ft. or less in a building containing only retail uses AUP 20,000 sq. ft. or less in a building with residential and retail space that is more than 15% and less than 33% of the floor area being created AUP C-AC
New Main Building or New Dwelling Unit UP(PH)
Addition of 5,000 sq ft or more UP(PH)
Section 4. That Table 23.204-3 Tenant Space Reconfiguration Permit Requirements within BCM Chapter 23.204.030 is amended to read as follows:

Page 928 of 990 ends

Page 1252 ends

20 TABLE 23.204 3: Tenant Space Reconfiguration Permit Requirements District
Permit Required for Tenant
Space Reconfiguration
Project

C-C, C-U
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. ZC
5,000 sq. ft. or greater AUP
C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO (All reconfiguration projects) AUP C-SA, C-DMU, C-AC No additional permit required
C-T
Increasing the number of individual tenant spaces ZC
5,000 sq. ft. or greater AUP
Creating a tenant space less than 1,000 sq. ft. AUP

C-W, C-SP
Less than 5,000 sq. ft ZC
In existing buildings in a designated node affecting 5,000 sq. ft. or greater AUP
Section 5. That Table 23.204-4 Commercial Recreation Center Permit Requirements within BMC Chapter 23.204.040 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.204-4: Commercial Recreation Center Permit Requirements

DISTRICT/USE SIZE PERMIT REQUIRED

C-C, C-U, C-T, C-DMU, C-W
Under 5,000 sq. ft indoor use ZC
5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. indoor use AUP
Over 10,000 sq. ft. indoor use or outdoor use of any size UP(PH)

C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SA, C-SO, C-AC
Under 3,000 sq. ft indoor use AUP
Over 3,000 sq. ft. indoor use or outdoor use of any size UP(PH) C-SP
Under 10,000 sq. ft. indoor use ZC
Over 10,000 sq. ft. indoor use or outdoor use of any size AUP Section 6. That Section 23.204.140(A) is amended to read as follows:

Page 929 of 990 ends

Page 1253 ends

21 A. District Purpose. The purpose of the West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) district is to:

1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan Commercial District Avenue Commercial Land Use designation;

2. Provide locations for commercial services which primarily serve area residents and/or businesses;

3. Support the retention and attraction of a balance of both smaller and larger stores and restaurants;

4. Provide appropriate locations, consistent with West Berkeley Plan policies, for commercial services which serve a citywide or broader clientele;

5. Provide a relatively compact, clearly bounded set of commercial areas in West Berkeley, so as to both improve the quality of West Berkeley shopping environments and to prevent commercial overspill into industrial areas;

6. Encourage the intensification of commercial activity at designated nodes to help develop more pedestrian-oriented environments at those locations;

7. Increase the opportunities for development of housing in commercial areas to support local retailing and use of transit lines and opportunities for mixed use projects combining pedestrian-oriented neighborhood-serving uses with mixed income housing in locations abutting residential districts;

8. Encourage appropriately intense development in underutilized portions of commercial streets;

9. Promote development compatible with adjacent commercial, residential and industrial areas;

10.Provide a location for cultural and performing arts activities; and

11.promote environmental protection for the residents and workers both within and adjacent to the district from such detriments as noise, fumes, and other detrimental environmental effects.

Section 7. That Sections 23.204.140(B)(3) and (4) are amended to read as follows

3. Automotive Uses
(a) As used in this paragraph, “automotive use” means a use classified in Table

23.204-1 as a vehicle service and sales use, except for vehicle parts store. “Automotive site” means a site which was legally used or approved for use as an automotive use as of March 1, 1997.
(b) On lots in the C-W district with frontage on San Pablo Avenue:

Page 930 of 990 ends

Page 1254 ends

22 An automotive use may be established only on an automotive site; and If an automotive use on an automotive site is discontinued for a period of two years or more, it may not be re-established.

3.4. Langendorf Building. See Section 23.206.030.D– Additional Permit Requirements (Langendorf Building).

Section 8. That Section 23.204.140(D) is amended to read as follows D. Designated Nodes.

1. Purpose. The purposes of the designated nodes in the C-W district are to:
(a) Intensify retail, commercial, and mixed-use activity around major intersections;
(b) Reflect and reinforce the major existing and developing concentrations of pedestrian-oriented uses;
(c) Encourage intensified development around transit transfer points; (d) Help define the urban form of San Pablo Avenue by developing identifiable areas of concentrated development.

2. Location. Properties designated as nodes in the C-W district are shown in Figure 23.204-7: C-W Designated Nodes.

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

Page 931 of 990 ends

Page 1255 ends

23 4. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are not permitted in the designated nodes:
(a) Vehicle rentals
(b) Used vehicle sales when not principally in buildings (c) Vehicle washes
(d) Tire sales and service
(e) Open air markets
(f) Circus/carnivals
(g) Public utility substation buildings, tanks

5. Findings. To approve a Use Permit or AUP for a project in a the designated node, the review authority must find that the project supports the development of a strong retail commercial and pedestrian-oriented environment at the node.

Factors the review authority should consider when making this finding include:
(a) The placement of store entrances relative to the street and parking lots; and
(b) The size and prominence of display windows and areas facing the sidewalk.

Figure 23.204-7: C-W Designated Nodes

Page 932 of 990 ends

Page 1256 ends

Page 933 of 990 ends

Page 1257 ends

Page 934 of 990 ends

Page 1258 ends

26 Section 9. That BMC Section 23.204.160 be added to read as follows:

A. District Purpose. The purpose of the San Pablo Avenue Commercial (C- SP) district is to:

1. Implement the General Plan’s designation for Avenue Commercial, as well as the policies of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan;

2. Encourage the intensification of commercial activity at designated nodes to help develop more pedestrian-oriented environments at those locations;

Page 935 of 990 ends

Page 1259 ends

27 3. Increase the opportunities for development of housing in commercial areas to support local retailing and use of transit lines and opportunities for mixed use projects combining pedestrian-oriented neighborhood-serving uses with mixed income housing in locations abutting residential districts; and

4. Promote development compatible with adjacent commercial, residential and industrial areas.

B. Allowed Land Uses.

1. General. See Table 23.204-1.

2. Mixed Use Buildings. In all mixed-use buildings, all stories above the second story shall be used for residential uses.

3. Automotive Uses.
a) As used in this paragraph, “automotive use” means a use classified in Table 23.204-1 as a vehicle service and sales use, except for vehicle parts store. “Automotive site” means a site which was legally used or approved for use as an automotive use as of March 1, 1997.
b) On lots in the C-SP district with frontage on San Pablo Avenue:
i. An automotive use may be established only on an
automotive site; and
ii. If an automotive use on an automotive site is
discontinued for a period of two years or more, it may not be re-established.

4. Light Manufacturing Use. Light manufacturing is permitted with a Zoning Certificate subject to conformance with the following conditions to minimize potential negative impacts on surrounding properties:
a) Production methods shall be limited to the use of hand tools or small-scale, light mechanical equipment occurring solely within an enclosed building where such production requires no
outdoor operations or storage, and do not produce noise, vibration, or air pollution that will endanger neighboring properties.
b) On-site sales of goods produced on site, as well as incidental sales, are permitted.

5. Temporary Uses. The following temporary uses are permitted with a Zoning Certificate as specified below:

Page 936 of 990 ends

Page 1260 ends

28 a) Public Market, Enclosed. A temporary public market is allowed within either a vacant commercial space or a space occupied by a legally established commercial use, for a period not to exceed three years.
b) Food Service Establishment. A temporary food service establishment is allowed within either a vacant commercial space or a space occupied by a legally established commercial use, for a period not to exceed three years.

6. Outdoor Temporary Uses on Private Property. A temporary outdoor use may be conducted as follows:
a) The following businesses are not covered by this
subsection:
i. Delivery-Only (Cannabis) Retailers.
ii. Liquor Stores/Wine Shops.
iii. Adult-Oriented Businesses.
iv. Smoke Shops.
v. Firearm/Munitions Businesses
b) Zoning Certificate.
i. A business may conduct business outdoors on a
temporary basis subject to approval of a Zoning
Certificate and compliance with 23.204.160(B)(5)(d)(iv) operating standards.
ii. An application for a Zoning Certificate must be
accompanied by a site plan, business description and
operational plan that certifies compliance with

23.204.160(B)(5)(d)(vii) operating standards.
iii. The operator of the temporary use must have the
written permission of the property owner.
c) Time Period. An outdoor temporary use allowed in this subsection shall not exceed one year. A time extension is not allowed unless approved by the Zoning Officer.
d) Operating Standards.
i. A 10-foot setback is required from any property in a residential district.

Page 937 of 990 ends

Page 1261 ends

29 ii. Operating Hours are limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Operating Hours include the time that the business is
open for customer access to the departure of the last
patron.
iii. Temporary outdoor lighting fixtures must be oriented in a manner to direct light away from adjacent parcels.
e) Existing Parking and Loading. Non-residential parking and loading requirements on private property are temporarily suspended if the outdoor use displaces areas designated for these purposes.
f) Temporary Fixtures and Structures. Movable fixtures such as tables and chairs, umbrellas, heaters, generators, trucks or trailers must be stored in a secure place on private property when not in use.
g) Safety.
i. If the Temporary Outdoor Use is located within an
active parking lot, a business must provide temporary
barriers to separate vehicle traffic from pedestrians
and commercial activity.
ii. If the Temporary Outdoor Use fully occupies a parking lot, a business must provide temporary barriers to
prevent vehicle traffic from entering the parking lot.
h) Remedies. A Zoning Certificate for a Temporary Outdoor Use may be revoked for non-compliance with any
conditions in this subsection.
.

C. Additional Permit Requirements. See BMC Section 23.204.030- Additional Permit Requirements
D. San Pablo Avenue Designated Nodes.

1. Purpose. The purposes of the designated nodes in the C-SP district are to:
a) Intensify commercial activity around major intersections; b) Reflect and reinforce the major existing and developing concentrations of pedestrian-oriented uses;
c) Help define the urban form of San Pablo Avenue by developing identifiable areas of concentrated commercial activity.

Page 938 of 990 ends

Page 1262 ends

30 d) Encourage commercial uses that promote social interaction and collaboration.

2. Location. Properties designated as nodes in the C-SP district are shown in Figure 23.204-8: C-SP Designated Nodes.

3. Ground Floor Uses.
a) Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited on the Ground Floor in designated nodes:
i. ATM, Exterior and Attached to Bank.
ii.ATM, Interior or Exterior and Not with Bank.
iii. Banks and Financial Services, Retail.
iv. Bus/Cab/Truck/Public Utility Depot.
v. Business Support Services.
vi. Group Living Accommodation.
vii. Insurance Agents, Title Companies, Real Estate Agents, Travel Agents.
viii.Kennels and Pet Boarding.
ix. Large Vehicle Sales and Rental.
x. Live/Work units.
xi. Manufacturing.
xii. Material Recovery Enterprise.
xiii.Multi-Unit Residential
xiv. Municipal Animal Shelter.
xv. Parking Lot/Structure.
xvi. Public Utility Substation Buildings, Tanks.
xvii. Recycled Materials Processing.
xviii. Recycling Redemption Center.
xix. Repair Service, Non-Vehicle.
xx. Research and Development.
xxi. Services to Buildings and Dwellings.
xxii. Single-Family Residential.

Page 939 of 990 ends

Page 1263 ends

31 xxiii. Small Vehicle Sales and Service.
xxiv. Tire Sales and Service.
xxv. Used vehicle sales when not principally in buildings. xxvi. Vehicle Repair and Service.
xxvii. Vehicle Rentals.
xxviii. Vehicle Sales, new.
xxix. Vehicle Wash.
xxx. Warehouse-Based Non-Store Retailer.
xxxi. Wholesale Trade.
b) Zoning Certificate Exceptions. Entertainment establishments are permitted in designated nodes with a Zoning Certificate. c) Prohibited Uses, Ground Floor. Prohibited uses are
permitted on the ground floor where located behind a non- prohibited use. The prohibited use must meet the following standards.
i. Occupy a minimum of 50-foot depth of the ground floor street frontage; and
ii. Occupy the full extent of the building frontage, excluding required utilities, driveways, pedestrian access and
residential lobby.

4. Findings. To approve a Use Permit or AUP for a project in a designated node, the review authority must find that the project supports the purposes in Section 23.204.160(D)(1).

Page 940 of 990 ends

Page 1264 ends

32 Figure 23.204-8. C-SP Designated Nodes

Page 941 of 990 ends

Page 1265 ends

33 D. Development Standards.

1. Basic Standards. See Table 23.204-45.

TABLE 23.204-45: C-SP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

PROJECT LAND USE

BASIC STANDARDS NON-

RESIDENTIAL

ONLY OR

MIXED-USE

SUPPLEMENTAL

STANDARDS
Lot Area Minimum
New Lots
Per Group Living
Accommodation Resident
No minimum No minimum

23.304.020– Lot
Requirements
Residential Density
Minimum (du/acre) No minimum No minimum
Maximum (du/acre) No maximum No maximum

23.106.100 –
Residential
Density
Private Open Space, Minimum
Per Dwelling Unit or
Live/Work Unit 40 sq. ft.

Per Group Living
Accommodation Resident
No minimum
No minimum

23.204.160(E)(3)
– Private Open
Space
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 3.0 4.25
Main Building Height,
Minimum No minimum No minimum
Main Building Height,
Maximum
40 ft. and 3
stories
75 ft. and 7
stories

23.304.050–
Building Height
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum See Table

23.204-46
See Table

23.204-46

23.304.030–
Setbacks

23.304.131 –
Non-Residential
Districts Abutting
a Residential
District

Page 942 of 990 ends

Page 1266 ends

34 Building Separation, Minimum No minimum No minimum

23.304.040 –
Building
Separation in
Residential
Districts
Lot Coverage, Maximum 100% 100% 23.304.120– Lot
Coverage

2. Minimum Setbacks. Minimum setbacks apply to the ground floor only and are based on the ground floor frontage type either required or allowed. Figure 23.204-9: Ground-Floor Frontage Types in Designated Nodes shows the locations where certain ground-floor frontage types are required within Designated Nodes. Outside of Designated Nodes, any ground floor frontage type is allowed. Table 23.204-46: C-SP Ground Floor Setback Standards shows the required ground-floor lot line setbacks in the C-SP district. Required frontage types are described in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards document.

3. Parapet Walls. For roofs with parapet walls, building height is measured to the top of the roof. Parapets may exceed the height limit by up to 5 feet as of right.

TABLE 23.204-46: C-SP GROUND-FLOOR SETBACK STANDARDS

LOT LINE & PROJECT GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE

TYPE REQUIRED SETBACK
Front [1]
Storefront and Active No minimum
Residential and Live/Work [2] Minimum 5 ft.

Maximum 8 ft.

Rear No minimum
Interior Side [3] No minimum
Street Side No minimum
Notes:
[1] Applies to parcels fronting a public street or a privately-owned public open space. [2] Applies also to the second floor when the ground-floor clear ceiling height is less than 12 feet, measured from sidewalk grade.
[3] Applies also to frontage along an abutting mid-block public access easement.

Page 943 of 990 ends

Page 1267 ends

35 Figure 23.304-9: Ground Floor Frontage Types in Designated Nodes

Page 944 of 990 ends

Page 1268 ends

36 4. Private Open Space Requirements. The following standards apply to the C-SP district only and supersede requirements in Section

23.304.090 – Usable Open Space.
(a) Purpose. These requirements are intended to provide high quality private open spaces for active and passive recreation.

They establish minimum standards for the size and location of such spaces, as well as provisions for privacy.
(b) Applicability. Private open space required in Table 23.204-45 may be satisfied by providing common private open space and/or personal private open space.
(c) Definitions.
a. For the purposes of this section, Common Private Open Spaces are courtyards, sport courts, outdoor dining
areas, community rooms, recreational amenities, rooftop amenities, play areas, and gardens for communal use
within a development.
b. For the purposes of this section, Personal Private Open Space is an individual yard, terrace, balcony, porch, or deck that is directly accessible from the associated
residential unit.
(d) General Standards. Private Open Space may not contain areas designated for off-street parking and loading, service areas, driveways, required walkways or other features used for access to dwelling units.
(e) Design Standards. Common and Personal Private Open Space design shall comply with the standards listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards.

5. Public Open Space Incentives. To encourage the creation of high- quality, publicly accessible open space within private development in the C-SP district, a development project may provide up to 70 percent of the total private open space required in Table 23.204-45 through one or more of the following types of public open space. (a) Sidewalk Expansion. For the purposes of this section, a sidewalk expansion is an additional ground-floor setback beyond the minimum or maximum required in Table 23.204-46. i. Location. Applies only to parcels fronting San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street,
University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue.

Page 945 of 990 ends

Page 1269 ends

37 ii. Design. Sidewalk design shall comply with the
standards listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
Design Standards. The final design shall be approved
by the Public Works Department.
iii. Incentive. Each square foot of sidewalk space
provided beyond the required ground-floor setback is
counted as 1.5 square feet of Private Open Space as
required in this section.
(b) Privately Owned Public Open Space (POPOS). For the
purposes of this section, POPOS are courtyards, plazas, parks, walkways and gardens for use by the public on privately owned land.
i. Location. POPOS must be located within a designated
node, as shown in Figure 23.204-8.
ii. Design. POPOS design shall comply with the
standards listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
Design Standards.
iii. Maintenance. Maintenance of the POPOS shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
iv. Incentive. A POPOS is allowed the following
incentives, subject to meeting all of the requirements in this section:
a. Each square foot of POPOS is counted as 2 square
feet of private open space as required in this section; and
b. Wavier of any plan review fees levied by the City
related only to the POPOS.
c) Side Street Plaza. For the purposes of this section, a Side Street Plaza is a conversion of a minor street that intersects with San Pablo Avenue into a plaza through either limiting or removing vehicle access.
i. Location. The applicant shall propose a location
consistent with Policy PR-P.14 Side-Street Plazas in
the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The final location
shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
ii. Design. Side Street Plazas shall comply with the
standards listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

Page 946 of 990 ends

Page 1270 ends

38 Design Standards. The final design shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
iii. Ownership and Maintenance. The ownership and
maintenance of the Side Street Plaza shall be defined
through an ordinance and a Memorandum of
Understanding between the property owner and the
City.
iv. Incentive. A Side Street Plaza is allowed the following incentives, subject to meeting all of the requirements in this section:
a. 1 square foot of Side Street Plaza credited in lieu of 2 square feet of required Private Open Space.
b. Waiver of any plan review fees levied by the City
related only to the Side Street Plaza.
c. Waiver of any additional City regulations and/or
fees, at the discretion of the City.
(d) Mid-Block Passages. For the purposes of this section, a mid- block passage is a privately-owned, publicly accessible path within a development project that provides a mid-block
connection to enhance pedestrian and multimodal circulation. i. Location. Mid-block passages are permitted on lots
that: (1) exceed 170 linear feet of site frontage along either San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue; and (2)
have frontage on opposite sides of a block.
ii. Design. Mid-block passages shall comply with the
standards listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
Design Standards.
iii. Incentive. Each square foot of mid-block passage is counted as 1.5 square feet of Private Open Space as
required in this chapter.

E. Design Standards.

1. Applicability. New buildings and alterations to existing buildings, with the exception of automotive uses on an automotive site (BMC Section

23.204.160(B)(3) (Automotive Uses), shall be reviewed for compliance with the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards document.

2. Exceptions. The Design Review Committee or Design Review staff may grant exceptions to the design standards set forth in the San Pablo

Page 947 of 990 ends

Page 1271 ends

39 Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards document upon making the findings required for such exceptions included in that document.

F. Permit Findings. To approve any AUP or Use Permit for a project in the C-SP district, the review authority must make the findings in Section 23.406.040-Use Permits and find that the proposed use or structure:

1. Is consistent with the purpose of the district; and

2. Encourages utilization of public transit in the area of the proposed building.

Section 10. That the lines “Multi-Unit Residential” and “Mixed-Use Residential” in Table 23.206-1: Allowed Land Uses in Manufacturing Districts within BMC Section

23.206.020 are amended to read as follows:

Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use
Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP,
see 23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards
Apply

M MM MU-LI MU-R MR-D
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk
following the permit requirement
(e.g., ZC*)
Residential
Uses
Multi-Unit
Residential
NP NP NP* ZC* NP

23.206.090(B)(8);

23.406.070(C)(2)(d);

23.206.090(E)
Mixed-Use
Residential
NP NP NP* UP(PH)* NP 23.206.090(B)(7);

23.206.090(E)
Section 11. That Section 23.206.040(R) is amended to read as follows R. Vocational Schools in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. A vocational school in the MU-LI or M-RD district must provide training for occupations and/or industries found within the area bounded by the City of Albany to the north, the City of Emeryville/Oakland to the south, San Pablo Avenue to the east and the Eastshore Freeway to the west in the West Berkeley Plan area.

Section 12. That Section 23.206.050(A)(4) is amended to read as follows

4. Replacement Space. Floor area occupied by a protected industrial use that is changed to a non-protected use must be replaced within the area bounded by the City of Albany to the north, the City of Emeryville/Oakland to the south, San Pablo Avenue to the east and the Eastshore Freeway to the west , in the West Berkeley Plan area, by a comparable space devoted to one or more of protected industrial uses.

Page 948 of 990 ends

Page 1272 ends

40 Section 13. That Section 23.206.050(B)(4)(a) is amended to read as follows (a) To approve a permit required by Table 23.206-9, the review authority must find that space occupied by the existing non- industrial protected use will be replaced with a comparable space within the area bounded by the City of Albany to the north, the City of Emeryville/Oakland to the south, San Pablo Avenue to the east and the Eastshore Freeway to the west in the West Berkeley Plan area, which is reserved for use by any protected use in the same category. Such replacement space may not qualify for exemption under Paragraph 3 (Owner- Occupied Exemption) above or by reason of having been
established after July 6, 1989.

Section 14. That Section 23.206.060(A)(1) is amended to read as follows

1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan Manufacturing District Manufacturing Land Use designation;
Section 15. That Section 23.206.070(A)(1) is amended to read as follows

1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan MM Manufacturing Land Use designation; Section 16. That Section 23.206.080 is amended to read as follows

23.206.080 MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District
A. District Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) district is to:

1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan Light Manufacturing District Land Use designation;

2. Encourage development of a mixed use-light industrial area for a range of compatible uses;

3. Encourage development of an area where light manufacturers can operate free from the economic, physical and social constraints caused by incompatible uses;

4. Encourage the creation and continuation of well-paid jobs which do not require advanced degrees;

5. Provide for the continued availability of manufacturing and industrial buildings for manufacturing uses, especially of larger spaces needed by medium sized and larger light manufacturers;

Page 949 of 990 ends

Page 1273 ends

41 6. Provide opportunities for office development when it will not unduly interfere with light manufacturing uses and/or the light manufacturing building stock;

7. Provide the opportunity for laboratory development and research and development facilities in appropriate locations;

8. Support the development of businesses which contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the environment;

9. Allow on-site ancillary retail as a tool to maintain and enhance the economic viability of manufacturers in the district; and

10.Maintain and improve the quality of the West Berkeley environment, while allowing the lawful and reasonable operation of light industrial uses.

B. Land Use Regulations.

1. Allowed Land Uses. See Table 23.206-1: Allowed Land Uses in Manufacturing Districts

2. Use Permit Not Required. An existing use in the MU-LI district may be modified or intensified without a Use Permit if:
(a) A Use Permit is not required by this chapter; and
(b) The Zoning Officer determines that the modification or intensification of the use can reasonably be expected not to increase any impact regulated under environmental performance standards.

3. Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales. Alcoholic beverage retail sales are allowed in the MU-LI district only when incidental to food product stores.

4. Theaters. Only live stage performances are allowed in a theater in the MU-LI district. Motion picture theaters are not permitted.

5. Vehicle Wrecking. Permits required for vehicle wrecking the MU-LI district is determined by size of lot, not floor area.

6. Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Areas. To increase affordable housing production and expand the supply of family-sized units, the MU-LI district shall include an Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Area as shown in Figure 23.206-1. Multi-unit and mixed-use residential uses shall be allowed within the Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Area with a UP(PH), provided that the development project either:
a) Offers 100 percent of the residential units, excluding any manager’s unit, at a rent that is affordable to households earning less than 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI); or

Page 950 of 990 ends

Page 1274 ends

42 b) Sells 100 percent of the residential units at a price that is affordable to an appropriate-sized household whose income is no more than 80 percent of the AMI; or
c) Provides at least 50 percent of the residential units as either two- or three-bedroom units.

Page 951 of 990 ends

Page 1275 ends

43 Figure 23.206-1: Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Area in the MU-LI District
C. Additional Permit Requirements. See Section 23.206.030-Additional Permit Requirements.

D. Outdoor Recreation Sub-Zone.

Page 952 of 990 ends

Page 1276 ends

44 1. An Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone may be designated by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. In an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone, parks and outdoor recreational uses are permitted with a Use Permit.

2. Properties designated as an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone must be:
a) Designated specifically for outdoor recreational use in the West Berkeley Plan;
b) Owned or under acquisition by a public agency which is subject to the Zoning Ordinance;
c) At least 5 contiguous acres in area;
d) Not primarily occupied by a conforming use as designated in the West Berkeley Plan; and
e) At least 1,000 feet from any other Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone.

3. The initial designation of an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone expires five years from the designation date. To permit outdoor recreational uses after that date, the Council must renew the Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone designation.

E. Development Standards.

1. Basic Standards. See Table 23.206-12: for development standards in the MU- LI district Development Standards.

TABLE 23.206-12: MU-LI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL

STANDARDS
Lot Area, Minimum No minimum 23.304.020-Lot
Requirements
Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit, Minimum n/a
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 2.0
Main Building Height, Maximum 45 ft. 23.304.050-
Building Height
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front No minimum
Rear No minimum
Interior Side No minimum
Street Side No minimum

23.304.030-
Setbacks

Page 953 of 990 ends

Page 1277 ends

45 Building Separation, Minimum No minimum
Lot Coverage, Maximum 100%

2. Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Areas. Multi-unit and mixed-use residential projects on parcels located within the Affordable and Family Housing Opportunity Area as shown in Figure 23.206-1 shall comply with the development standards in the San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) District (see

23.204.160).

F. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.1100 – Permit Findings.

Section 17. That Section 23.206.090(A)(1) is amended to read as follows

1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan Mixed Residential District Use Land Use designation;
Section 18. That Section 23.206.110(A) within BMC Chapter 23.206 is amended to read as follows
A. All Manufacturing Districts. To approve an AUP or a Use Permit in a Manufacturing District, the review authority must find that the project:

1. Is consistent with the purposes of the district;

2. Is compatible with the surrounding uses and buildings;

3. Complies with the policies of the adopted West Berkeley General Plan; and

4. Meets any applicable performance standards for off-site impacts.

Section 19. That Table 23.302-2 Permit Requirements for Outdoor Uses within BMC Chapter 23.302 is amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.302 2: Permit Requirements for Outdoor Uses
DISTRICT/USE CHARACTERISTICS [1] PERMIT

REQUIRED
All Commercial Districts Except for C-W
Not abutting a residential district AUP
Abutting a residential district UP(PH)

C-W, C-SP
Not abutting a residential district and less than 10,000 s. ft. AUP Abutting a residential district UP(PH)
10,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)

Page 954 of 990 ends

Page 1278 ends

46 M, MM, M-RD [2]
Less than 20,000 sq. ft. ZC
20,000 sq. ft. or more AUP
MU-LI
Less than 20,000 sq. ft. ZC
20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. AUP
More than 30,000 sq. ft. UP(PH)
MU-R
Not abutting a residential district AUP
Abutting a residential district UP(PH)
Notes:
[1] Size is measured as the lot area of the outdoor activity or storage [2] In the M, MM, and M-RD districts, permits are required only for activity or storage not ancillary to a permitted use.

Section 20. That section 23.302.020(D)(5) within BMC Chapter 23.302.020 is amended to read as follows:

5. C-W and C-SP Districts. In the C-W and C-SP districts, uses outside of a building must be permitted or incidental to permitted use in the district.

Section 21. That Table 23.302-1 Allowed Hours of Operation within BMC Chapter

23.302 is amended to read as follows:

DISTRICT ALLOWED HOURS OF OPERATION
PERMIT

REQUIRED TO

EXTEND HOURS

C-C, C-U, C-NS, C-AC,
C-W nodes, C-SP, C-N,

C-E, C-SO, C-SA, MU-
R
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 midnight AUP

C-N, C-E, C-SO, C-SA,
C-W outside nodes,
MU-R
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 midnight AUP
C-T, C-DMU 24 hours per day 7 days a week N/A
Section 22. That Section 23.302.070(E)(3) is amended to read as follows:

3. C-SPW District Requirements.
(a) Food service drive-through is not permitted on properties fronting San Pablo Avenue.

Page 955 of 990 ends

Page 1279 ends

47 Section 23. That Table 23.302-7 Permit Requirements for Parking Lots/Structures within BMC Chapter 23.302.070 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.302-7: Permit Requirements for Parking Lots/Structures

DISTRICT PERMIT REQUIRED
Residential Districts
R-3 Use Permit for all parking lots and structures. [1]

R-S, R-SMU, R-
BMU
Use Permit for parking structures only. Parking lots are not permitted, except on lots between Acton Street and Virginia Gardens and between Peralta Avenue and Northside Avenue in the R-BMU.

All other
residential
districts
Use Permit for all parking lots and structures.

Commercial Districts
C-C, C-U Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures with 5 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for more than 5 spaces.

C-SO AUP for parking lots and structures with 5 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for more than 5 spaces.

C-DMU AUP for parking lots with 8 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for all parking structures. Lots with more than 8 spaces not permitted.

C-N, C-E, C-
NS, C-SA Use Permit for all parking lots and structures.

C-T Use Permit for all parking structures. All parking lots not permitted.

C-W, C-SP AUP for parking lots and structures with 10 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for parking lots and structures with more than 10 spaces. [2] Manufacturing Districts
M, MM
AUP for parking lots and structures with 10 or fewer spaces exclusively for uses in the district. Use Permit for parking lots and structures with any number of spaces not exclusively for uses in the district.

MU-LI, M-RD
Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures with 10 or fewer spaces exclusively for uses in the district. AUP for parking lots and structures with 11 spaces or more exclusively for uses in the district.

Use Permit for parking lots and structures with any number of spaces not exclusively for uses in the district.

MU-R
Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures exclusively for uses in the district. Use Permit for parking lots and structures not exclusively for uses in the district.

Page 956 of 990 ends

Page 1280 ends

48 Notes:
[1] Parking lots and structures in the R-3 district are not permitted within the Southside Plan area
[2] Parking lots and structures in the C-SP district are not permitted within Designated Nodes (see Section 23.204.160(D).

Section 24. That Table 23.304-3 within BMC Chapter 23.304.030 is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.304-3: Setbacks Adjacent to Residential Districts Minimum Lot Line Setback when Lot Line Abuts or Confronts a Lot in a Residential District
District Front Rear Interior
Side Street Side

C-C, C-U, C-

N, C-E, C-

NS, C-SA, C-

SO, C-DMU,

C-W, C-AC,
MU-LI
Same as required
in adjacent
Residential District
[1]
10 feet or 10% of the
lot depth, whichever
is less
5 ft.

Same as required in
adjacent Residential
District [1]
C-SP 5 ft. [2] No minimum 5 ft. 5 ft. [2]
C-T No minimum 5 ft. 4 ft.

MU-R 10 ft. [1] 10 feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less [32] Notes:
[1] In the MU-LI and MU-R districts, setback may be reduced to the smaller of front setbacks on abutting lot with an AUP. [2] Applies only to the portion of the parcel located within 30 ft. of an abutting Residential District. [32] This applies to lots that abut or confront a lot either in a Residential District or containing one or more dwelling units.

Section 25. That Section 23.304.050(C) is amended to read as follows C. Parapets Allowed Above Height Limit. Parapets may exceed the height limit by up to five feet as of right in the following districts:

1. The R-3, R-S, R-SMU, and C-T districts located within the Southside Plan boundaries.

2. The C-DMU district (see Section 23.204.130(E)(1)(b)).

3. The R-BMU district (see Section 23.202.150(F)).

4. The C-AC district (see Section 23.204.150(E)(4)).

5. The C-SP district (see Section 23.204.160(E)(3)).

Section 26. That Section 23.304.140 is amended to read as follows

Page 957 of 990 ends

Page 1281 ends

49 A. Downtown Area Plan. Projects in the Downtown Area Plan boundaries are subject to the applicable mitigation measure in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Downtown Area Plan Final EIR.

B. Southside Plan.

1. Mitigation Measures. Projects in the Southside Plan boundaries are subject to the applicable mitigation measures in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program the Southside Plan Final EIR.

2. Permit Findings. To approve an AUP or Use Permit for a project in the Southside Plan boundaries, the review authority must find that the project complies with the Southside Plan’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).

C. West Berkeley Plan. Projects in the West Berkeley Plan boundaries are subject to the applicable mitigation measure in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program of the West Berkeley Plan Final EIR.

D. C. Adeline Corridor Plan. Projects in the Adeline Corridor Plan boundaries are subject to the applicable mitigation measure in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Adeline Corridor Plan Final EIR.

E. D. Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Project. Projects in the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Project boundaries are required to implement all the applicable mitigation measures in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations Transit- Oriented Development Zoning Project EIR.

E. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Projects in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan boundaries are subject to the applicable mitigation measure in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final EIR.

Section 27. That Section 23.312.040(E) be added to read as follows E. C-SP District. In addition to the standards in Subsection A (All Districts) above, the following live/work standards apply in the C-SP district.

1. Only ground floor space may be changed to live/work units.

2. Live/work units are prohibited in C-SP Designated Nodes (see Section

23.204.160(D).

Section 28. That Section 23.312.050(D)(1) is amended to read as follows

1. Establishment of a live/work unit will not interfere with the lawful operation of manufacturers and other industries existing in or adjacent to the district and

Page 958 of 990 ends

Page 1282 ends

50 will not impede the lawful future establishment of manufacturers and other industries permitted under the West Berkeley Plan.

Section 29. That Section 23.322.050(B)(2)(c)(1) within BMC Chapter 23.322 is amended to read as follows
i. The parking requirement modification will implement the West Berkeley Plan goals and policies related to improvement and support for alternative transportation, as well as pedestrian improvements and activity, and similar policies.

Section 30. That the line “Modifications to Development Standards in West Berkeley Plan Area” in Table 23.402-1 in BMC Chapter 23.402.020(B) is amended to read as follows
Modifications to
Development
Standards in
West Berkeley
Plan Area

23.406.080 Evaluate -- -- - Decision -- Appeal
Section 31. That Section 23.406.060(A)(1) is amended to read as follows

1. Facilitate the implementation of the General Plan and area plans, including the West Berkeley Plan;
Section 32. That Section 23.406.070(B)(1)(a) is amended to read as follows

1. Design Review is required for:
a) Projects in all Non-Residential Districts except for Residential Uses in the MU-R zoning district, and projects located within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area.

Section 33. That Section 23.406.080 within BMC Chapter 23.406 is amended to read as follows

23.406.080 – Modification of Development Standards in West Berkeley Plan Area A. Purpose. A Modification of Development Standards is a discretionary approval to modify land use and development standards for development projects in the West Berkeley Plan area. For the purposes of this section, West Berkeley is defined as the area bounded by the City of Albany to the north, the City of Emeryville/Oakland

Page 959 of 990 ends

Page 1283 ends

51 to the south, San Pablo Avenue to the east and the Eastshore Freeway to the west.

The purpose of these modifications is to:

1. Facilitate the implementation of the West Berkeley General Plan;

2. Facilitate the reuse of large and multi-user sites which might otherwise prove difficult to reuse;

3. Facilitate the development and reuse of large, multi-user sites as integrated units in a stable and desirable environment to benefit occupants, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole; and

4. Allow modifications of standards when:
(a) The modifications serve the overall purposes of their districts and the West Berkeley General Plan on large, complex sites; and
(b) The design of the project is compatible with the design and character of the surrounding area.

B. Eligibility. A project must satisfy the following criteria to be eligible for a Modification of Development Standards.

1. More than 50 percent of the site area must be within a C-W, C-SP, MU-LI, MM or M district.

2. The site must be either:
(a) At least five contiguous acres within the City boundary under a single ownership and not primarily being used occupied by a conforming use conforming to the West Berkeley Plan; or
(b) Less than five acres and forms a full city block bounded on all sides by public streets (exclusive of alleys), mainline railroad tracks, and/or the borders of the City.

C. Allowed Modifications. The ZAB may allow modifications to the following land use and development standards:

1. Permitted location of land uses within a building, site, or district.

2. Development standards including but not limited to, height, yards, open space, and parking.

D. Project Phases. The ZAB may approve a Modification of Development Standards application to allow a project to be built in phases.

E. Limitation. A Modification of Development Standards may not allow any modification that would violate Section 23.206.050 (Protected Uses).

F. Review Authority. The ZAB takes action on all Modification of Development Standards applications.

Page 960 of 990 ends

Page 1284 ends

52 G. Public Notice and Hearing. The ZAB shall review and act on a Modification of Development Standards application at a noticed public hearing in compliance with Chapter 23.404 (Common Permit Requirements).

H. Findings for Approval.

1. To approve a Modification of Development Standards, the ZAB shall make all of the following findings:
(a) The site is eligible for a Modification of Development Standards under Subsections B (Eligibility) and E (Limitation);
(b) The project is likely to advance the purposes of the West Berkeley General Plan and this section;
(c) The project supports the attraction and/or retention of the types of businesses reflected in the purpose statement of the applicable district. (d) The modification is necessary and appropriate for the development of the proposed project.

2. To approve a Modification of Development Standards, the ZAB shall also make all required Use Permit findings in Section 23.406.040 (Use Permits) and any additional Use Permit findings required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use or development in the applicable district.

Section 34. 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.

Page 961 of 990 ends

Page 1285 ends

53 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING MAPS
Map 1. Project Area – Existing West Berkeley Commercial Zoning District (C-W)

Page 962 of 990 ends

Page 1286 ends

54 Map 2. Project Area – Proposed San Pablo Avenue Commercial Zoning District (C-SP)

Page 963 of 990 ends

Page 1287 ends

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
June 3, 2026
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Justin Horner Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a staff presentation, consider public comments, and adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council:

1. Adopt the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Attachment 2) and San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards Document (Attachment 3).

2. Amend the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance, University Avenue Strategic Plan, and General Plan (Attachment 1, Exhibits A, B, and E).

3. Retire the West Berkeley Plan and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan (Attachment1, Exhibits C and D).

SUMMARY
City staff are proposing amendments to the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance, and conforming amendments to the University Avenue Strategic Plan, and General Plan as part of the proposed adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards Document (Design Standards Document). The full text of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan changes can be found in Attachment 1. The Specific Plan identifies goals, policies and programs that address citywide and regional goals for housing production and affordability, and support small businesses, multimodal streets, and cultural vitality. The Design Standards Document provides a set of standards to support Specific Plan implementation. As part of adoption of the Specific Plan, staff are proposing to retire the West Berkeley Plan and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan.

The Planning Commission provided comments at its April 3, 2024, December 4, 2024, November 5, 2025, and March 18, 2026 meetings and now staff are requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Specific Plan and implementing legislation.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 964 of 990 ends

Page 1288 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 2 of 19 ends

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Specific Plan and implementing legislation are intended to support housing production and affordability, and small businesses along the San Pablo Avenue corridor, which would result in additional contributions to the tax base and economic vitality in Berkeley. Therefore, the proposed amendments may result in an increase in employment, property tax, business license tax and sales tax revenues due to increased business activity in the Specific Plan area.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As described in the Land Use Chapter of the Specific Plan, land uses along San Pablo Avenue have been shifting away from the historically regional-serving, auto-oriented land use pattern of primarily commercial and light industrial businesses and towards higher density residential and local-serving commercial uses. This transition is beginning to transform the Specific Plan Area into a more vibrant, mixed-use district.

The Specific Plan would supersede the 1993 West Berkeley Plan for all properties within the Specific Plan Area while carrying forward the West Berkeley Plan’s key goals related to land use and community character. Further, based on Commission and Council feedback, the West Berkeley Plan is proposed to be retired with adoption of the Specific Plan. Also, the Specific Plan would supersede the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan, which is proposed to be retired with adoption of the Specific Plan (see Summary of Proposed Plan Retirements below). All future development projects would be required to comply with the Specific Plan, the Design Standards Document, and the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). The Design Standards Document and BMC Title 23 contain the design standards and zoning regulations that implement the Specific Plan.

BACKGROUND
There are three prior actions by City Council that led to the development of a Specific Plan for San Pablo Avenue: 1) a 2015 City Council referral to develop a plan to guide development on San Pablo Avenue; 2) acceptance of a 2021 grant awarded by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which designated San Pablo Avenue as a Priority Development Area; 1 and 3) adoption of the 2023–2031 Housing Element Update, which established the development of a San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan as a programmatic goal.2

As shown in Table 1 below, the Specific Plan development process began in June 2023 with an assessment of existing conditions and initial community engagement efforts, which consisted of a pop-up event at the Harvest Festival and targeted intercept survey to gather input on the current condition and future development of San Pablo Avenue. In January 2024, an open house was held to collect input on existing conditions. In August 2024, a Community Assessment Report (Link 1- Community Assessment Report) and Policy Options and Development Framework (Link 2 - Policy Options and Development Framework) were published. In September 2024, a community workshop was held to collect input on the findings of these reports. The following month,

1 Priority Development Areas (PDAs) | Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031.

Page 965 of 990 ends

Page 1289 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 3 of 19 ends

a survey was conducted that provided insights into priorities for policy development.

Then, a walking tour was held to gather input on development scenarios. At the December 4, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, staff provided a project update and Commissioners provided feedback on policy options related to these reports (Link 3 – December 4, 2024 Planning Commission presentation). The project team incorporated feedback from the Commission, as well as feedback received through community engagement efforts, into the Public Review Draft Plan (Draft Plan) published in October 2025 (Link 4 – Public Review Draft Specific Plan).

In October 2025, a second open house was held to gather input in advance of publishing the Public Review Draft Specific Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council provided feedback on the Draft Plan at their November 5 and November 6 meetings, respectively (Link 5 – November 5, 2025 Planning Commission presentation), (Link 6 – November 6, 2025 City Council presentation). In response to comments received, the project team conducted additional analysis and developed policy options for feedback from the Planning Commission. At the March 18, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments from the public and Commissioners regarding the following policy topics: maximum building height, voluntary commercial in-lieu fee, local density bonus program, allowed uses, and retirement of the West Berkeley Plan (Link 7 – March 18, 2026 Planning Commission presentation).

Since the March Planning Commission meeting, the project team has refined the Specific Plan policies, Design Standards Document and associated zoning regulations and prepared the Specific Plan and Design Standards Document for adoption. In addition, staff provided a memorandum to the Transportation Infrastructure Commission at its April 16, 2026 meeting describing transportation-related changes made to the Specific Plan in response to community feedback on the Public Review draft (Link 8 – Transportation Infrastructure Commission Memorandum, April 16, 2026 ).

Table 1 - Community Outreach Process
October 21, 2023 Harvest Festival Pop-Up Event
November 1, 2023 Planning Commission Information Item
November 2023 Targeted Survey Results
January 24, 2024 Community Open House #1
April 4, 2024 Planning Commission Status Update and
Overview #1
September 26, 2024 Community Workshop
October 2024 Community Survey Results
November 16, 2024 Walking Tour
December 4, 2024 Planning Commission Status Update and
Overview #2
October 29, 2025 Community Open House #2
November 5, 2025 Planning Commission Planning Commission Status Update and Overview #3
November 6, 2025 City Council Worksession
March 18, 2026 Planning Commission Planning Commission
Status Update and Overview #4

Page 966 of 990 ends

Page 1290 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 4 of 19 ends

April 16, 2026 Transportation Infrastructure Commission Information Item
June 3, 2026 Planning Commission Recommendation

DISCUSSION
The project for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to City Council includes adoption of the Specific Plan, as well as a Design Standards Document, Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments, corresponding General Plan text and Map amendments to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan, and retirement of the West Berkeley Plan and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan. The section describes each of the project components in more detail.

Summary of Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan includes six chapters, consisting of:
• The Introduction chapter (Chapter 1) provides context about Specific Plan Area conditions, the purpose of the document, and the community engagement process.
• The Vision & Desired Results chapter (Chapter 2) provides long-term vision, brief historical context, goals and planning framework for the Specific Plan Area. • Three chapters focus on Land Use, Economic Development, and Streets, Mobility, and the Public Realm (Chapters 3 through 5), that each include goals, policies and standards.
▪ The Implementation chapter (Chapter 6) describes implementation measures or a preliminary set of next steps to achieve the long-term vision of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would be monitored and updated on a regular basis to reflect progress, lessons learned, changing circumstances, new opportunities, and community priorities over time.

A stand-alone Design Standards Document would implement urban design-related policies by articulating design requirements at the site, building and public realm levels for new development and alterations of existing buildings.

The following sections briefly describe the policies contained in each chapter and Design Standards Document, as they have been refined based on feedback received on the Draft Plan.

Land Use (Chapter 3)
The following policies aim to increase the diversity and supply of housing, and to support commercial vitality and reduce ground floor vacancies while promoting active, pedestrian-oriented development and public realm improvements. For more details about how these policies would be implemented through zoning, see Summary of Zoning and Plan Changes below.

• Establish the San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) Zoning District (Figure 1)

Page 967 of 990 ends

Page 1291 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 5 of 19 ends

Currently, the Specific Plan Area is largely within the West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) district; a few parcels are split-zoned C-W and Mixed- Use Light Industrial (MU-LI), University Commercial (C-U), or residential (R-1, R-2, R-3) districts. The Specific Plan would re-zone these parcels within the Specific Plan Area to a new district – San Pablo Commercial (C- SP) to implement the Specific Plan’s land use policies. • Focus Commercial Uses within Designated Nodes
The existing C-W district includes Designated Nodes at key intersections where development standards and permitted uses concentrate neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The Specific Plan would continue this framework and expand the number of permitted uses in Designated Nodes to increase flexibility for long-term commercial viability. • Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses
Compared to the existing C-W district, the C-SP district would allow for a more active, flexible, and community-oriented mixed-use environment with certain industrial uses allowed where compatible with residential uses. To support commercial vitality, temporary uses that include retail, enclosed public markets3, food service establishments, and commercial uses located outdoors would be allowed with a zoning certificate, subject to meeting performance standards.
• Allow Affordable and Family-Friendly Housing on certain MU-LI Parcels The Specific Plan would permit mixed-use and multi-family developments on certain MU-LI parcels within the Specific Plan Area, as long as the applicant dedicates either: 1) 100% of residential units as deed-restricted affordable housing or 2) at least 50% of residential units as “family-sized” (two or three-bedrooms). The C-SP development standards would apply to eligible projects. The affordability requirement for rental units would be to households earning less than 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI); for ownership units, the sales price would be affordable to households earning no more than 80 percent of the AMI.
• Local Density Bonus
The Specific Plan would establish a pilot San Pablo Avenue Density Bonus Program by developing an affordable-housing benefit for new residential ownership (condominium) projects that is exclusively met through paying an in-lieu fee to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

This program would align with a recently adopted Council referral to facilitate lower-cost ownership opportunities in Berkeley (Link 9 - April 14, 2026 Council Referral).

3 A facility or location where people regularly gather for the sale and purchase of food, beverages, flowers, crafts, and other similar goods. Public markets are open daily, year-round, in a permanent location, with multiple vendors that are owner-operated. (b) Enclosed. A public market conducted indoors. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.502.020(P)(20)

Page 968 of 990 ends

Page 1292 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 6 of 19 ends

• Public Open Space Enhancements
The Specific Plan includes incentives to create high-quality, publicly accessible open space within private development projects to enhance the pedestrian environment and support placemaking. A development project applicant could choose to substitute private open space for any of the following four types of public open space: sidewalk expansion, privately- owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPOS), side-street plazas, or mid-block passages.
• Ground Floor Form Types
The Specific Plan establishes four ground floor form types—Storefront, Active, Residential, and Live/Work—with tailored design standards to support an adaptable and walkable public realm and prioritize transparency, architectural articulation, and seamless adaptability between various commercial uses. Outside of Designated Nodes, any form type can be selected to meet the requirement. Also, more than one form type can be combined within a single development.
• The Storefront form type is intended to encourage a strong retail- oriented commercial frontage, where residential use is allowed behind the commercial frontage. This form type would be required on parcels fronting San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, and certain side streets within Designated Nodes.
• The Active form type is intended to be functional for a range of non- residential uses and residential amenity spaces. This form type would be allowed on certain side streets within Designated Nodes as an alternative to Storefront.
• The Residential form type is intended to foster social interaction and street activation while providing appropriate transitions between public and private space. This form type would be allowed in a few locations within the Cedar and Dwight Nodes; it is also allowed outside of Designated Nodes.
• The Live/Work form type is intended to support the unique needs of spaces that combine living and working and provide a storefront character to enhance the pedestrian environment. This form type would only be allowed outside of Designated Nodes.
• Development Standards
The Specific Plan includes new development standards t o encourage additional housing development in the Specific Plan Area (see Summary of Zoning and Plan Changes section below). The proposed Design Standards Document provides objective standards to further the vision of the Specific Plan by promoting a built form and architectural character that reinforces San Pablo Avenue’s distinctive place in the city, that supports walking, and sustains a diverse, active and safe public realm.

Page 969 of 990 ends

Page 1293 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 7 of 19 ends

Figure 1 – Existing and Proposed Zoning Map

Page 970 of 990 ends

Page 1294 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 8 of 19 ends

Economic Development (Chapter 4)
The Specific Plan’s economic development policies support the land use policies by aiming to retain and grow local businesses, activate vacant and underutilized spaces, and strengthen the relationship between public and private spaces so that the Specific Plan Area is a place of economic opportunity and cultural vitality. • Business Activation
To expand opportunities for existing business and support development of new businesses, the Specific Plan: 1) introduces a maker space use (a light manufacturing use) that is limited to hand tools and small-scale equipment occurring solely within an enclosed building; and 2) would allow retail and office space with approval of a Zoning Certificate to support co- working spaces.
• Technical Assistance
The Specific Plan proposes to strengthen the identity of the area as a lively and inclusive commercial district by building the capacity of existing neighborhood groups, associations and businesses to organize corridor- specific initiatives and events.
• Business Improvement District (BID) Feasibility Study The Specific Plan proposes to study the feasibility of forming one or more BIDs. The study would assess different boundaries and implementation approaches and establish a pilot in one or two Designated Nodes – focusing on Designated Nodes where public investments and community business interest are concentrated, long-term businesses with pedestrian- oriented storefronts are clustered, and planned or completed mixed-use development are increasing residential density.
• Establish a Process to Prioritize Public Investment in Designated Nodes Concentrating resources within the Designated Nodes would deliver visible, coordinated improvements that can attract new businesses, enhance safety, and build community identity. The Specific Plan seeks to establish a process to prioritize public investments in Designated Nodes.

Streets and Mobility (Chapter 5)
Community feedback emphasized the importance of making San Pablo Avenue easier to cross, more comfortable to walk and bike along, and better connected to the surrounding neighborhoods and regional destinations. To support this transition, the Specific Plan includes transportation policies that: 1) provide local context to inform updates of the City’s Pedestrian and Vision Zero Action Plans expected to begin in 2026 or 2027; 2) call for implementation of mobility hubs in collaboration with MTC and AC Transit; 3) improve safety by managing vehicle speeds and lowering speed limits; and 4) improve multimodal connectivity at key intersections (see Appendix D to the Specific Plan).

Page 971 of 990 ends

Page 1295 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 9 of 19 ends

Public Realm (Chapter 5)
The Specific Plan proposes policies and standards for the public realm that make it easy to reach businesses, transit, homes, and parking while also offering spaces to gather, exercise, and socialize.

• Sidewalks
To serve the range of uses and infrastructure located within sidewalks, the Specific Plan establishes design standards for each of three zones:

Pedestrian, Amenity, and Frontage. Where sidewalk widths are narrower than preferred in the Berkeley Pedestrian Plan (2020),4 the Specific Plan would encourage widening as properties are redeveloped. In addition, the Outdoor Commerce Use Fee would be waived for 10 years from permit issuance where sidewalks are widened for commercial uses.5 • Streetscape
The Specific Plan updates streetscape standards from the existing San Pablo Avenue Public Improvement Plan (2003) for pedestrian-scale lighting, street furnishing, bus stop improvements, medians, trees, and landscaping. Elements of the streetscape standards would apply to side streets within the Specific Plan Area, including University Avenue.

• Side Street Plazas
The Specific Plan encourages converting minor streets into side street plazas by limiting or removing vehicle access at certain intersections along San Pablo Avenue that generally extend only a few blocks east/west of San Pablo Avenue or that lack a median break. Implementation approaches include public-private partnerships, a future BID, and as an open space incentive in new development.
• Parklets and Curb Extension Common Spaces
On side streets within the Specific Plan Area, parklets and curb extensions offer opportunities to create community gathering areas, outdoor business spaces and streetscape landscaping within the public right-of-way. To encourage development of these spaces, the Specific Plan proposes waving the Sidewalk Seating Permit fee for up to 10 years from permit issuance.6
• Pocket Parks and Plazas
There are no publicly owned park, plazas, or other community spaces located along San Pablo Avenue. Community feedback throughout the planning process emphasized a strong desire for accessible public open space along San Pablo Avenue. The Specific Plan suggests future

4 City of Berkeley, Pedestrian Plan. Appendix B: Engineering and Design Guidance, page B-8. 5 Outdoor Commerce, Sidewalk Seating, and Parklets | City of Berkeley 6 Ibid.

Page 972 of 990 ends

Page 1296 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 10 of 19 ends

evaluation of the feasibility of acquiring underutilized parcels for a public park along San Pablo Avenue.

Design Standards Document
To help achieve the Specific Plan’s vision of a built form and architectural character that reinforces San Pablo Avenue’s distinctive place in the city, supports walking, and sustains a diverse, active and safe public realm, a Design Standards Document is proposed for adoption with the Specific Plan. The document has been developed with a goal to not adversely affect project feasibility, with language that is objective yet flexible.

Compliance would be mandatory. Projects that comply with the applicable standards would be exempt from the City’s Design Review process; however, a project proponent could request an exception to any standard, and that exception would be reviewed through the existing Design Review process and certain findings would need to be made. The document is organized into five sections:

1. Introduction. Describes the purpose and applicability of the standards, the guiding principles, and administrative process to revise them.

2. Site Design. Provides standards for the arrangement of activities on the site, primarily in relation to the adjacent public space. The site design section includes standards for pedestrian and vehicular access, as well as parking and service locations within a development site.

3. Building Design. Provides architectural standards, including façade modulation and articulation, windows, colors and materials, roofs, and parking garages.

4. Pedestrian-Level Design. Provides standards primarily at the ground floor that relate to the building’s interaction with sidewalks, adjacent buildings, and open space. The pedestrian-level design section includes standards for ground-floor frontages, as well as private and public open space, as well as standards for service and utilities, private parklets and public art.

5. Glossary. Defines technical terms not otherwise included in the Zoning Ordinance (BMC Title 23).

Summary of Zoning and Plan Changes
To implement the Specific Plan, staff are proposing the following Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments to create a new District (C-SP), as well as conforming amendments to the University Avenue Strategic Plan and General Plan. The Specific Plan Area encompasses the 2.35-mile San Pablo Avenue corridor within the city limit.

Parcels included in the Specific Plan Area front and are adjacent to San Pablo Avenue.

In addition, parcels fronting University Avenue between Ninth Street and Curtis Street are included, as well as various parcels fronting side streets parallel to San Pablo Avenue (see Figure 1: Existing and Proposed Zoning Map).

Page 973 of 990 ends

Page 1297 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 11 of 19 ends

Zoning District Boundary
The City of Berkeley Zoning Map would be amended to re-designate the Specific Plan Area to a new District - C-SP. The zoning district boundary would be slightly more expansive than the existing C-W district, as described in the Land Use section above.

Zoning District Purposes
The C-SP District purposes are to implement the General Plan’s designation for Avenue Commercial, encourage intensification of commercial activity at Designated Nodes, and increase opportunities for housing, as well as to promote development that is compatible with adjacent commercial, residential and industrial areas.

Allowed Uses and Permit Thresholds
Compared to the existing C-W district, the allowed uses in the C-SP District encourage more public and quasi-public uses, discourage industrial uses that are incompatible with residential development, and maintain the existing restrictions on automotive uses located on San Pablo Avenue.

Temporary Uses
As described in the Land Use section above, certain temporary uses would be allowed with a Zoning Certificate. Retail, enclosed public markets, and food service establishments could occupy either a vacant or occupied commercial tenant space for up to three years. Temporary outdoor uses would be allowed for one year with a Zoning Certificate subject to compliance with performance standards, such as setbacks from residential properties, operating hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and submittal of site, operational, and business plans. Temporary outdoor uses would be allowed in existing surface parking lots with safety measures in order to activate underutilized spaces.

Designated Nodes
The proposed C-SP district would maintain the existing Designated Node structure established in the West Berkeley Plan. In the current C-W district, ground floor use regulations allow a narrow set of uses. The proposed C-SP district instead would list prohibited ground floor uses, which do not meet the Designated Node purposes to concentrate pedestrian-oriented uses.

Development Standards
As shown in Tables 2 and 3 below, the proposed C-SP district would increase development capacity from the existing C-W district for mixed-use buildings only. Key changes include an increase in the maximum allowed building height and FAR, and setbacks would apply only at the ground floor and would vary based on ground floor form type.

Page 974 of 990 ends

Page 1298 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 12 of 19 ends

Table 2 – Development Standards
Development Standard Existing C-W Proposed C-SP [1]
Single-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-Use
Min. Open Space [2] 40 sq. ft. No change
Max. FAR 3.0 4.25
Max. Height
Stories 3 4 7
Feet 40 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft.

Min. Density N/A 145 du/ac
Min. Setbacks See Table 2
Notes:
[1] No changes proposed to existing development standards for single-use projects. [2] Per dwelling unit or live/work unit.

Table 3 – Development Standards – Proposed Ground-Floor Setbacks Setback Existing C-W Proposed C-SP
Not adjacent to residential district
Front [1]
No minimum
Storefront or Active
Frontage No minimum
Residential and
Live/Work Frontage
[2]
Minimum 5 ft.

Maximum 8 ft.

Interior Side
Any frontage type
No minimum [3]
Street Side No minimum
Rear No minimum
Adjacent to residential district
Front Same as required in
Residential district
Any frontage type
5 ft. [4]
Interior Side 5 ft. No change
Street Side Same as required in
Residential district 5 ft. [4]
Rear 10 feet or 10% of the lot
depth, whichever is less No minimum
[1] In the C-SP district, parcels fronting a public street or a privately-owned public open space. [2] Applies also to the second floor when the ground-floor clear ceiling height is less than 12 feet, measured from sidewalk grade.
[3] Applies also to frontage along an abutting mid-block public access easement. [4] Applies only to the portion of the parcel located within 30 ft. of an abutting Residential District.

Page 975 of 990 ends

Page 1299 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 13 of 19 ends

Setbacks
For parcels not adjacent to a residential district, a minimum and maximum front setback would be required only for residential and live-work frontages. To support an active, pedestrian-oriented public realm, the front setback would also apply to the second floor when the ground-floor clear ceiling height is less than 12 feet, measured from finished grade. No minimum interior side, street side or rear setback would be required.

For parcels adjacent to a residential district, a 5-foot minimum front and street side setback would be required only to the portion of the parcel located within 30 feet of the residential district. The existing 5-foot minimum interior side setback would remain, and no minimum rear setback would be required to account for the additional front and side street setback.

Open Space – Private
To provide high quality private open spaces for active and passive recreation and account for public open space incentives, private open space requirements would be established that apply only in the C-SP District. Specifically, the District defines two types of private open space: common and personal. Common private open spaces are courtyards, sport courts, outdoor dining areas, community rooms, recreational amenities, rooftop amenities, play areas, and gardens for communal use. Personal private open space is an individual yard, terrace, balcony, porch, or deck that is directly accessible from the associated residential unit. These areas would be required to comply with design standards that support social interaction while providing a suitable level of privacy for residents. A development project could satisfy the minimum requirement by providing any amount of common and/or personal open space.

Open Space – Public
To encourage the creation of high-quality, publicly accessible open space within private development in the C-SP District, a development project could provide up to 70 percent of the total required private open space through one or more of the following types of public open space:

• Sidewalk Expansion. Defined as an additional ground-floor setback beyond the minimum or maximum required, and would apply only to parcels fronting San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue. A design that would comply with the Specific Plan standards and be approved by the Public Works Department would receive credit for 1.5 square feet of private open space per square foot of sidewalk. • Privately Owned Public Open Space (POPOS). Defined as courtyards, plazas, parks, walkways and gardens for use by the public on privately owned land, POPOS are allowed only within a Designated Node. A design that would comply with the Specific Plan standards could receive credit for 2 square feet of private open space per square foot of POPOS, and a waiver of plan review fees related to the POPOS. Ownership and maintenance would be defined through an ordinance and memorandum of understanding.

Page 976 of 990 ends

Page 1300 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 14 of 19 ends

• Side Street Plaza. Defined as a conversion of a minor street that intersects with San Pablo Avenue into a plaza through either limiting or removing vehicle access. A project applicant could propose a location and design consistent with the related Specific Plan policy (PR-P.14) and subject to approval by the Public Works Department. A qualifying project would receive credit for 2 square feet of required private open space per square foot of side street plaza, as well as a waiver of any plan review fees related to the plaza as well as additional regulations or fees at the City’s discretion. Ownership and maintenance would be defined through an ordinance and memorandum of understanding. • Mid-Block Passage. Defined as a privately-owned, publicly accessible path within a development project that provides a mid-block connection to enhance pedestrian and multimodal circulation, mid-block passages would be allowed on lots that both exceed 170 linear feet and front San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue and have frontage on opposite sides of a block. A design that would comply with the Specific Plan standards would receive credit for 1.5 square feet of private open space per square foot of mid-block passage.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendments
Adoption of the Specific Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance amendments requires the following conforming amendments to the University Avenue Strategic Plan and General Plan:

• University Avenue Strategic Plan. The Specific Plan Area would be amended to remove the existing San Pablo Avenue Node, as this area overlaps with the Specific Plan area and would therefore be superseded by the Specific Plan and C-SP zoning district (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B).
• General Plan. The Land Use Element would be amended to add a new policy – LU-47: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan – to implement the Specific Plan and take action to achieve its desired outcomes. The C-SP district would be added as a compatible zoning district to the existing Avenue Commercial land use designation. The land use diagram would be revised to apply the Avenue Commercial land use designation to the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Urban Design and Preservation Element would be amended to add reference to the Specific Plan (see Attachment 1, Exhibit E).

Summary of Proposed Plan Retirements
The following would be retired with adoption of the Specific Plan:

• San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan (SPAPIP). Adopted on December 7, 2004, the SPAPIP was developed to support pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and transit users, while also revitalizing the area along and surrounding San Pablo Avenue. While many improvements have been completed, the SPAPIP itself is now outdated and would be replaced/superseded by this Specific Plan. The SPAPIP’s recommendations served as a foundation for the Specific Plan's public realm framework, informing its policies, programs and design standards (see Attachment 1, Exhibit D).

Page 977 of 990 ends

Page 1301 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 15 of 19 ends

• West Berkeley Plan (WBP). Adopted in 1993 and amended in 2011, the WBP serves as the guiding document for land use, economic development, and urban design within West Berkeley. The Specific Plan would supersede portions of the WBP where the two plans overlap. Staff assessed the WBP and found that nearly all of its implementation measures have been completed (November 5, 205 PC presentation - Link 5). The evaluation also reaffirmed that the WBP is primarily implemented through the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The City Council and Planning Commission expressed support for retiring the WBP as part of adoption of the Specific Plan (see Attachment 1, Exhibit C).

Summary of Proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Amendments Table 4, below, provides a summary of the proposed amendments included in the Ordinance, including the specific code sections modified, a description of the changes, and the corresponding rationale.

Table 4 - Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments
Ord
Section
BMC Section
and Title
Description of Changes Rationale
Title 23, Division 1- General Provisions
1 23.108.020 – Zoning
Districts
Add San Pablo
Commercial (C-SP)
zoning district
Establish the C-SP
district
Title 23, Division 2- Zoning Districts
2 23.204.020 -Allowed
Uses in Commercial
Districts.

Add C-SP permit
thresholds
Establish the C-SP
3 & 4 23.204.030-Additional
Permit Requirements.

Add C-SP permit
thresholds for construction
of new floor area and
tenant space
configurations
Establish the C-SP
district
5 23.204.040 – Use-
Specific Permit
Requirements and
Regulations
Add C-SP permit
thresholds for commercial
recreation centers
Establish the C-SP
district
6, 7, 8 23.204.140 C-W West
Berkeley Commercial
District.

References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan.

Automotive uses
regulations on lots with
frontage on San Pablo
Avenue moved to the new
C-SP district.

Continue the
existing policy
regarding auto
uses on San Pablo
Avenue

Page 978 of 990 ends

Page 1302 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 16 of 19 ends

Reference to San Pablo
Avenue and Nodes within
the Specific Plan Area
removed.

Establish the C-SP
district
9 23.204.160 C-SP San
Pablo Avenue
Commercial
Add C-SP district to the
Zoning Ordinance.

Establish the C-SP
district
10 23.206.020 Allowed Uses
in Manufacturing
Districts.

Allow multi-unit and
mixed-use residential
within the MU-LI district to
support affordable and
family-friendly housing
opportunity areas.

Allow certain types
of housing on
certain MU-LI
zoned sites within
the Specific Plan
Area.
11 23.206.040 Use-Specific
Regulations.

References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan.
12, 13 23.206.050 Protected
Uses.
14 23.206.060 M
Manufacturing District.
15 23.206.070 MM Mixed
Manufacturing District.
16 23.206.080 MU-LI Mixed-
Use Light Industrial
District.

References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Add affordable and family-
friendly housing
opportunity areas.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan.

Allow certain types
of housing on
certain MU-LI
zoned sites within
the Specific Plan
Area.
17 23.206.090 MU-R Mixed-
Use Residential District. References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan. 18 23.206.110 Permit
Findings.

Title 23, Div 3- Citywide Provisions
19, 20,
21 23.302.020 General Use
Regulations. Add C-SP district to the
Zoning Ordinance
Establish the C-SP
district
22, 23 23.302.070 Use-Specific
Regulations
24 23.304.030 Setbacks Add C-SP setbacks
requirements adjacent to
residential districts.
25 23.304.050 Building
Height
Allow parapets to exceed
the height limit by up to 5
feet as of right.

Page 979 of 990 ends

Page 1303 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 17 of 19 ends

26 23.304.140 Area Plans References to West
Berkeley Plan removed,
reference to San Pablo
Avenue Specific Plan
added
Retire the West
Berkeley Plan.

Implement San
Pablo Avenue
Specific Plan
27 23.312.040 Live/Work
Standards
C-SP Live/Work
standards.

Establish the C-SP
district.
28 23.312.050 Live/Work
Findings References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan. 29 23.322.050 Parking
Reductions
Title 23, Div 4 – Permits and Administration
30 23.402.020 Review and
Decision-Making
Authority References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan. 31 23.406.060 Master Use
Permits
32 23.406.070 Design
Review
Exempt projects that
comply with the San Pablo
Avenue Specific Plan
Design Standards from
the Design Review
requirements.

Implement San
Pablo Avenue
Specific Plan and
Design Standards
33 23.406.080 Modification
of Development
Standards in West
Berkeley Plan Area
References to West
Berkeley Plan removed.

Retire the West
Berkeley Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Design Standards Document, as well as implementation of conforming Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments and associated General Plan text and map amendments, and retirement of the West Berkeley Plan and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan (proposed project) is consistent with Housing Element Update Program 27. The proposed project would increase allowable density, height, and building bulk to facilitate mixed-use and residential development within the Plan area. The environmental impacts of implementing the Housing Element Update were previously analyzed in the 2023 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (2023 EIR- Link 10). The proposed zoning changes represent a refinement of the policies evaluated in the 2023 EIR.

California Public Resources Code Section 21080.085 establishes a statutory exemption from CEQA for rezoning undertaken to implement the schedule of actions, such as Program 27, in a housing element, such as the Housing Element Update, that has been

Page 980 of 990 ends

Page 1304 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 18 of 19 ends

approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.7 The exemption also applies to General Plan amendments necessary to ensure consistency between a General Plan and a proposed rezoning.

While the statutory exemption applies to the proposed actions, out of an abundance of caution, staff have also prepared, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously certified Housing Element Update EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), once an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required only if substantial changes are proposed to the project, substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information of substantial importance becomes available that would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Based on the analysis contained in the Addendum, none of these conditions are present. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required.

NEXT STEPS
• City Council will conduct a Public Hearing.
• Adoption by the City Council is anticipated later this year. • Project updates, public documents, and subscription options for email notifications are available on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan webpage.

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

1. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-10
a. Exhibit A Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
b. Exhibit B Draft University Avenue Strategic Plan Amendments c. Exhibit C Draft West Berkeley Plan Amendments
d. Exhibit D Draft San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan Amendments e. Exhibit E Draft General Plan Amendments

2. Final Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

3. Final Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Design Standards Document

4. Draft CEQA Addendum

5. Public Hearing Notice

Links:

1. Community Assessment Report, August 2024 (Linked)

2. Policy Options and Development Framework Memorandum, August 2024 (Linked)

7 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Memo Re: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Reforms for Housing Element Rezoning (Public Resources Code Section 21080.085), May 19, 2026. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/memos/ceqa- rezone-exemption-memo-051926.pdf

Page 981 of 990 ends

Page 1305 ends

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2026

Page 19 of 19 ends

3. Planning Commission Presentation, December 4, 2024 (Linked)

4. Public Review Draft Plan and Appendices, October 2025 (Linked)

5. Planning Commission Presentation, November 5, 2025 (Linked)

6. City Council Worksession Presentation, November 6, 2025 (Linked)

7. Planning Commission Presentation, March 18, 2026 (Linked)

8. Transportation Infrastructure Commission Memorandum, April 16, 2026 (Linked)

9. April 14, 2026 City Council Referral – Establish a Citywide Local Density Bonus Program to Facilitate Lower-Cost Ownership Homes (Condominiums) (Linked)

10. 2023 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Linked)

Page 982 of 990 ends

Page 1306 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23

OF THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAP TO CREATE THE SAN

PABLO COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPT THE SAN PABLO AVENUE

SPECIFIC PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS CONFORMING

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE STRATEGIC PLAN , THE WEST

BERKELEY PLAN, THE SAN PABLO AVENUE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PLAN , AND

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AVENUE COMMERCIAL LAND USE

DESIGNATION AND LAND USE DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE CERTAIN PARCELS

WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ASSOCIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”), in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-range development, and further to periodically update that plan to reflect current conditions; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Berkeley Plan in 1993, and adopted amendments to that plan in 1999 and 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the University Avenue Strategic Plan in 1996; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan in 2003; and
WHEREAS, the amendments do not change the designation of any parcel to reduce the intensity of use allowed under the existing General Plan or zoning pursuant to Gov. Code section 66300(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the adopted Housing Element Update (HEU) includes “Program 27 – Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors” to develop a San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan to increase allowed densities and/or development capacity, and study design standards, public improvements, and mechanis ms to incentivize affordable housing by December 2025; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, the City Council forwarded to the Planning Commission a referral to develop a Plan to guide development on San Pablo Avenue; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council adopted resolution No. 69,953 -N.S. accepting a $750,000 Priority Development Area (PDA) planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City held community engagement workshops on the following dates:

January 24, 2024, September 26, 2024, and October 29, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held discussions on the San Pablo Specific Plan

Page 983 of 990 ends

Page 1307 ends

on the following dates: April 3, 2024, Dece4mber 4, 2024, November 5, 2025, and March 18, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2026 , the Planning Commission held a 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, on May 15, 2026, a public hearing notice was provided to tribes with traditional lands or places located within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), for the public hearing held on June 3, 2026.

WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the Berkeley Voice and posted in three public places pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 on May 15, 2026 and May 22, 2026 for the public hearing held on June 3, 2026; 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; and WHEREAS, in connection with the amendments, an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Review ( EIR) pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines has been prepared that describes the changes the proposed Project would have to the HEU, and compares the impacts of those changes to the impacts of the HEU identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to the certified Final EIR determined that potential impacts associated with the proposed Project are consistent with potential impacts disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. That is, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the EIR. Further, no new information of substantial importance exists which would require major revisions of the HEU EIR . Therefore, none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1-2) requiring preparation for a subsequent EIR have been met.

Further, none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have been met; and
WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the Addendum, no further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed Project, no subsequent EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and the Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and therefore the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Final EIR sufficiently addresses impacts from the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Addendum demonstrates that the proposed Project was analyzed as HEU Program 27 in the 2023 EIR and the Addendum further demonstrates that the Project proposes to modify HEU Program 27 but these modifications do not result in the need to prepare a subs equent or supplemental EIR. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), no further environmental review is required; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Berkeley to: 1) Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to establish a San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) zoning district; 2) Amend the General Plan and Land Use Diagram to incorporate the C-SP zoning district into

Page 984 of 990 ends

Page 1308 ends

the existing Avenue Commercial (AC) land use designation and redesignate certain parcels within the project area to be consistent with the C -SP zoning district; 3) Amend the University Avenue Strategic Plan to conform to the C -SP zoning district text and map amendments; 4) Retire the West Berkeley Plan; and 5) Retire the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvement Plan.

Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.412.060, the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support its recommendation for the zoning ordinance amendments:

(1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or area plan. The Zoning Ordinance amendments are consistent and compatible with the General Plan, as the proposed San Pablo Commercial (C-SP) district will support a pedestrian -friendly, visually attractive area of pedestrian scale and serve neighborhood needs by providing ground-floor commercial standards and permitting a range of commercial uses that are compatible with residential uses, consistent with General Plan Policy LU-27. (2) The proposed amendments are consistent with state law. The Zoning Ordinance amendments are consistent with state law because they do not reduce the intensity of use allowed under the existing General Plan or zoning pursuant to Gov. Code section 66300(b)(1). Further, staff prepared an Addendum to the HEU EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental effects of adoption and implementation of the proposed zoning and General Plan and West Berkeley Plan amendments.
(3) The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare . The Zoning Ordinance amendments serve the public interest by facilitating implementation of the San Pablo Specific Plan. The Plan goals include increased diversity and supply of housing, increased business activity to support a thriving community, enhanced interaction between public and private spaces, and enhanced local and citywide access. The Zoning Ordinance amendments will not result in the immediate approval of any specific development project. Any future development project will continue to be subject to the City’s development and environmental review procedures. (4) The proposed amendments are internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance amendments to create the C -SP district and retire the West Berkeley Plan include non - substantive revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure internal consistency. (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 affected sites are physically suitable for the proposed Zoning Map Amendments to create the C -SP district, as the changes implement General Plan policies related to commercial land use designations.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65354, the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support its recommendation for the General Plan , University Avenue Strategic Plan, West Berkeley Plan, and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvement Plan text and map amendments included as Exhibits B through E of this resolution:

(1) The proposed amendment is in the public interest. The proposed General Plan, University Avenue Strategic Plan, West Berkeley Plan, and San Pablo

Page 985 of 990 ends

Page 1309 ends

Avenue Public Improvement Plan amendments serve the public interest by facilitating additional housing capacity and production in a transit-rich area of the city to better meet housing demand, increase business activity to support a thriving community, enhance interaction between public and private spaces, and improve local and citywide access to and from the Plan Area;
(2) The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the General Plan. The proposed General Plan , University Avenue Strategic Plan, West Berkeley Plan, and San Pablo Avenue Public Improvement Plan amendments support a pedestrian-friendly, visually attractive area of pedestrian scale and serve neighborhood needs by providing ground -floor commercial standards and permitting a range of commercial uses that are compatible with residential uses, consistent with Gen eral Plan Policy LU -27. Further, the amendments ensure internal consistency among General Plan elements. The potential effects of the proposed amendment have been evaluated and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The General Plan amendments would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the City because they would facilitate development that would be completed in compliance with current building and fire codes and regulations; and would be sub ject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding noise and air quality, waste diversion, toxics and stormwater requirements, as well as applicable mitigation measures included in the Housing Element Update EIR.

I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Berkeley, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Hauser, Twu, Owens, Merker and Chair Marthinsen

NOES: Commissioners Kahn and Oatfield

ABSENT: Commissioner Wang

ABSTAIN: None

_________ _
Justin Horner

SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Page 986 of 990 ends

Page 1310 ends

Chapter Implentation Measures Status Notes

1.1 Rezoning COMPLETE Manufacturing Zoning districts

1.2 Redevelopment Plan Amendments N/A Redevelopment Agency was dissolved

1.3 Truck Weight Ordinance COMPLETE BMC Chapter 14.56 (Movement of Heavy Vehicles and Equipment (Ordinance 6799-NS; 2004)

2.1 Consolidated Parking INCOMPLETE Neither site available for parking now

3.1 Inventory of Industrial Space COMPLETE Ordinance 65,210 -NS - 2011 West Berkeley Plan Update - inventory conducted as part of the update

1. Target Industrial retention and attraction program COMPLETE (i.e. Manufacturing Week)

2. Large Site Reuse Project COMPLETE Ordinance 65,210 -NS - 2011 West Berkeley Plan Update

3. Major Employer Training Project COMPLETE OED - Confirmed Complete

1. Rezoning COMPLETE Manufacturing Zoning districts

2. Arts and Crafts Ordinance Review COMPLETE Ordinance 65,210 -NS, 2011 West Berkeley Plan Update, and Berkeley Business zoning updates

3. Mitgations as ordinance related to housing, child care and others COMPLETE Inclusionary Housing ordinance - Family Dare Care use updates

4. Coordination with County ONGOING
B.1 Building Buyout Program COMPLETE Mitigation for Durkee project B.2 Buyouts of Retiring Owners COMPLETE Project Equity
B.3 Employment/Training System COMPLETE First Source
B.4 Recognition system COMPLETE Berkeley Manufacturing Week; Green Business Certification B.5. Business Assistance COMPLETE OED Business Assistance C.1 Business Directory COMPLETE Developed internally OED Economic snapshot.

D.1. San Pablo Ave Economic Development Study COMPLETE San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan D.2. Redevelopment Feasibility Study N/A Redevelopment Agency was dissolved D.3 Economic Development Organization - COMPLETE Explored - OED marked complete

1.1 Centralize and Coordinate Environmetal Information
COMPLETE https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/public-records/community-right-know-hazardous-materials California Environmental Recording System

1.2 Development and Implement work program for the Community Environmental Advisory Commission COMPLETE The CEAC is now the Environment and Climate Commission

1.3 Revise and resubmit to state Citywide Chemical Emergency Response Plan COMPLETE Toxics' Area Plan: reviewed by state every 3 years

1.4 Provide Risk management and communication program assistance to manufacturers and other businsses. ONGOING

1.5 Work with businesses to improve existing odor problems COMPLETE Air District regulates

1.6 Continue to review new and expanded uses for odorous potential ONGOING

1.7 Provide assistance to businesses through the Recycle Market Development Zone (RMDZ) COMPLETE Recycling Market Development Zone through CalRecycle B.1 Map source sites and groundwater contamination plumes COMPLETE CalEnviroScreen B.2 Construct acoustic berm along western edge of Aquatic Park via Aquatic Park Master Plan INCOMPLETE Studied; found infeasible; barriers upgraded at Aquatic Park; acoustic berm was found to be too costly because of the need for concrete piers and a retaining wall. $13M - likely higher now.

C.1 Implement 1991 Hazardous Material Importation Regulation Act COMPLETE regulation required by state law C.2. Create a hazard ranking system for use in charging fees and evaluating Use Permits COMPLETE Fees scale for larger haz mat quantities on-site C.3 Develop and Implement standard Use Permit conditions for hazardous waste hauling COMPLETE Regulated by Department of Toxic Substances Control C.4 Adopt requirement for pollution prevention planning COMPLETE Toxics C.5 Implement Non-Point Discarge Program (runoff program) COMPLETE Storm Water Management Plan C.6. Work with BAAQMD to ensure clean air measures are implemented ONGOING C.7. Implement Ozone Depletion Ordinance COMPLETE https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/11.62 C.8 Revision of Noise Ordinance COMPLETE https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/13.40.050 C.9 Improve consideration of noise in Use Permit decisions COMPLETE https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/13.40.050 D.1. Study requirements for increase public notification for environmetal review when related to hazardous materials.

COMPLETE no study was conducted however increased notification and state requirements have been implemented through CERS and permit requirements through the Toxics Division; exceptions to exemptions D.2. Study possibilty of extending tax credits or other incentives for pollution preventions, source and toxic use reduction. INCOMPLETE Study not conducted. State offers various incentives (cap and trade, Carl Moyer, California Pollution Control Financing Authority, etc)
D.3 Research more comprehensive Hazardous Materials Transprotation Ordinance COMPLETE https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/11.50 Yes: Railway Study
D.4. Research a Mandatory Commercial Hazardous waste recycling Ordinance COMPLETE Nicole Kim: supereded by desginated hauling o ut of Berkeley D.5 Identify sources of night noise and develop appropriate mitgations when possible INCOMPLETE Environmental Quality
Land Use
Economic Development
ATTACHMENT 4: West Berkeley Plan Implementation Measure Assessment Table from Planning Commission meeting
March 18, 2026

Page 987 of 990 ends

Page 1311 ends

Chapter Implentation Measures Status Notes

1.1 Redevelopment Area Public Improvement N/A Redevelopment Agency was dissolved

1.2 Soundwall Design and Construction Monitoring

INCOMPLETE
https://aquaticpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AqPk-Sound-Barrier-Options-2000.pdf Caltrans found the "living sound wall" would cost $13 million because of concrete piers and retaining wall, rending project infeasible.

1.3 News rack Ordinance-Explore the feasibility-given both aesthetic and First Amendment concerns-- of an Ordinance regulating the placement and design of news racks. COMPLETE https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/16.44

1.4 Train Station Design Concept COMPLETE

1.5 Facade Improvement Program - seek funding to develop a facade and signage improvement. INCOMPLETE Likely attempted to seek funds however no signage or facade improvement program is in place

1.6 4th St. Area Strategic Plan INCOMPLETE

1. 7 Development of Design Guidelines for various areas IN PROGRESS SPA SP

1.8 Gateway Improvement Studies IN PROGRESS SPA SP

1.9 1-80 Corridor Visual Improvement Study COMPLETE https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/I- 80_Gilman_Visual_Impact_Assessment_Aug2018.pdf

1.10 Billboard Amortization removing billboards from San Pablo Avenue IN PROGRESS SPA SP

1.11 Zoning Ordinances Changes for and between Nodes COMPLETE

1.12 Sign Ordinance Amendment COMPLETE Sign Ordinance has been amendmended since WBP adoption

1.13 Review of Major Public Improyements ONGOING

2.1 Designation as Certified Local Government-Apply to State Historic Preservation Office for certification as a Certified Local Government. COMPLETE Certified: March 1, 2000

2.2 Completion of West Berkeley Historic Survey (with BAHA) INCOMPLETE Shifted to citywide historic statement and survey via HE EIR mitgation; HE EIR says we shoud do this citywude, which would include West Berkeley. So, still in GP

2.3 Research for Landmark Designation on State Historic Resources Inventory building COMPLETE 4 local landmarks and 1 landmark district established post 1993 in WBP area

2.4 Historic signs program-Install signs at historic buildings and sites, COMPLETE https://berkeleyplaques.org/

2.5 Elementary educational program INCOMPLETE

2.6 Heritage Area Designation INCOMPLETE "when residents suport such efforts"

3.1 Codomices Creek Regulation and Improvement ONGOING Updates to the creek ordinance in 2006

3.2 Tree Planting Program COMPLETE https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/streets-sidewalks-sewers-and-utilities/city-trees-and-coast-live-oak- ordinance

3.3 Aquatic Park Access Improvements: Improve access to Aquatic Park COMPLETE Email Nelson Lam

3.4 Other Aquatic Park Master Plan Improvements COMPLETE Email Nelson Lam

3.5 Neighborhood park Improvements/addition COMPLETE Seek funding to improve facilities and services at neighborhood parks - Mea sure F

1.1 Trip Reduction Ordinance COMPLETE TDM ordinance

1.2 Bikeway Redesignations COMPLETE Bicycle Plan

2.1 Employee Shuttles ONGOING Approached them and they were not interested (TDM)- continue to approach

2.2 Transit improvements ONGOING "Work with AC Transit..."

2.3 Freeway reconfiguration COMPLETE https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE080.html

2.4 Bikeway Improvements ONGOING

2.5 Bicycle Facilities ONGOING

2.6 Improvements for pedestrians ONGOING

2.7 5th St. Extension COMPLETE likely assessed and found to not be viable solution to congestion

2..8 Street System Improvements COMPLETE

3.1 Train Station Design Concept COMPLETE

3.2 Centralized Parking Demand and Cost Analysis COMPLETE Sites conveyed/developed

3.3 Aquatic Park Access Study

COMPLETE
https://aquaticpark.org/wp-
content/uploads/2024/06/APIP_Study_2008_W_TechnicalReportAndAppendices.pdf Aquatic Park Improvement Program (2008)

3.4 9th Street Connection Study COMPLETE Berkeley Bowl West did not include this.

Housing and Social
Services Miles Development Agreement Housing Programs COMPLETE West Berkeley's housing programs will generally be those adopted in the 1990 COMPLETE updated in each iteration of the Housing Element Transportation
Physical Form
ATTACHMENT 4: West Berkeley Plan Implementation Measure Assessment Table from Planning Commission meeting
March 18, 2026

Page 988 of 990 ends

Page 1312 ends

Attachment 5

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
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 (Title 23), Zoning Map, and University Avenue Strategic Plan, West Berkeley Plan, San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan, and General Plan Amendments (Plans) respond to a City Council referral and the requirements of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element to develop a San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan to increase allowed densities and/or development capacity, and study design standards, public improvements, and mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing, and implement a Priority Development Area (PDA) planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan.

The recommended Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments require conforming edits to the City’s Plans before they can be adopted by the City Council. The proposed Plan amendments include revisions to the Avenue Commercial land use description and designations, as well as technical edits to reflect the recommended Zoning Ordinance amendments.

Proposed amendments affect the following Chapters of Title 23: 23.108 (Zoning Districts and Map), 23.204 (Commercial Districts), 23.206 (Manufacturing Districts), 23.302 (Supplemental Use Regulations), 23.304 (General Development Standards), 23.312 (Live/Work), 23.322 (Parking and Loading), 23.402 (Administrative Responsibility), 23.406 (Specific Permit Requirements), and the Zoning Map.

LOCATION: The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would apply to parcels currently located in the West Berkeley Commercial (C-W), University Commercial (C-U), Mixed-Use Light Industrial (MU-LI), Multiple-Family Residential (R-3), Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2), Multi-Family (R-4), and Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) zoning districts.

The hearing will be held on September 29, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of September 17, 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 Principal Planner Justin Horner at [email protected]. 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-

Page 989 of 990 ends

Page 1313 ends

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: September 18, 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 September 17, 2026.

__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 990 of 990 ends

Page 1314 ends

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

ACTION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 70,960-N.S. to revise and update the Affordable Housing Preference Policy for new residential housing units created via the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and Below Market-Rate (BMR) programs.

SUMMARY
The Affordable Housing Preference Policy (AHPP) was adopted on July 11, 2023, to advance anti-displacement and historical justice goals. Pilot data from Maudelle Miller Shirek Community (MMSC) and several BMR lease-ups show that a simplified, ranked- tier system better supports applicants and advances policy goals. This report details data-driven updates to center equity and improve applicant experience.

Staff recommend adopting a revised, tier-based policy to better serve the community and continue the policy’s anti-displacement goals. The proposed policy would be effective November 1, 2026, for new HTF and BMR projects.

The AHPP is one of many tools the City uses to support unhoused and low-income households, including Permanent Supportive Housing, interim housing, the Shelter Plus Care program, project-based vouchers, the Housing Retention Program, the Housing Trust Fund, and the Small Sites Program.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed policy will reduce costs associated with City staff time. HHCS Homeless Services staff will no longer review and approve hundreds of preference verification applications. Meanwhile, Housing Services staff time will continue to fluctuate, peaking during new lease-ups. Staff time will also be saved by reducing technical assistance to developers and property managers to implement the policy.

Creating a streamlined, tier-based application will allow property managers to approve new leases faster. This will allow residents to move in sooner, which starts a property's cash flow and reduces interest costs on construction loans. This will also benefit new

Page 1 of 20 ends

Page 1315 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 2 ends

residents by allowing them to access their units more quickly, providing stable housing for their own finances.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed policy includes the following changes:
1) Shifting preferences from a points-based system to a ranked tier system; and
2) Consolidating preference categories to address challenges with existing categories, as well as elevate what is working well.

Applicants must meet income limits, household size rules, and other unit requirements.

Current Policy
The current policy uses a points-based system with seven preference categories. A lottery is conducted that assigns applicants a random lottery number, and then groups applicants by their total points. Within those point groups, applications are sorted by lottery rank. Applicants displaced by BART construction are prioritized first. All other preferences are worth one point each. To claim these points, applicants must provide separate verification documents for every preference selected.

Table 1. Preference Point System (Current Policy)
Points Preference
First priority Displacement due to BART construction
1 Displaced due to foreclosure
1 Displaced due to eviction
1 Families with children
1 Homeless OR at-risk of homelessness
1 Ties to redlined areas
1 Ties to redlined areas – historical
Updated Policy Proposal: Ranked Tiers
The proposed tier system groups applicants by priority, with all applicants in a higher tier considered before units are offered to the next tier. Under this system, applicants only provide verifying documentation for their highest qualifying preference. Standard affordable housing documentation can be administratively overwhelming for applicants.

Reducing this verification burden is an important goal.

Page 2 of 20 ends

Page 1316 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 3 ends

Table 2. Ranked Tier Preference Point System (Proposed Policy) Tier Preference
Tier 1 (first priority) Displaced due to construction of BART stations in Berkeley Tier 2 (second priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households with children under 18
Tier 3 (third priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households without children
Tier 4 (fourth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households with children under 18
Tier 5 (fifth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households without children
Tier 6 All other applicants
The proposal consolidates categories based on the following lessons from the pilot period:
 Removes homeless priority: A significant majority of homeless applicants did not income-qualify for available units. This severe income mismatch resulted in relatively few housing placements while creating false expectations. Promoting structurally unavailable housing may exacerbate applicant housing trauma. The administrative burden was also disproportionate to outcomes with staff spending significant time on verifying homeless applicants who did not ultimately receive housing placements.
 Streamlines displacement categories: Consolidates the eviction and foreclosure categories into a single displaced from Berkeley category. This better reflects a multitude of displacement circumstances, reduces policy complexity, and eliminates applicant confusion regarding out-of-city eligibility.  Consolidates redlining categories: Prioritizes the redlined neighborhood descendant category given substantial overlap with the redlined neighborhood resident category. The pilot revealed that nearly two-thirds of verified redlined neighborhood residents were also verified descendants of redlined neighborhood residents.

The revised policy establishes a sequential tier system that honors historical justice while supporting families with children:

1. Historical justice (Tier 1): Eminent domain for BART construction directly displaced Berkeley families and stripped intergenerational wealth. Community engagement determined this group warrants highest priority. This has not changed from the current policy.

2. Equity and redlining (Tiers 2 and 3): The pilot demonstrated that redlined preferences provided a pathway for displaced, long-term residents to return.

Page 3 of 20 ends

Page 1317 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 4 ends

Families with generational roots in Berkeley’s redlined neighborhoods of South and West Berkeley are harmed by decades of redlining, disinvestment, and subsequent gentrification and displacement. The updated tier system elevates this group directly.

3. Families with children first (Tiers 2 and 4): Within categories of descendants of Berkeley redlined neighborhood residents and current/displaced Berkeley residents, the policy prioritizes families with children. Families with children may be most vulnerable to and impacted by displacement. National research underscores that low-income single mothers with young children are at the highest risk of eviction.

4. Current/displaced Berkeley residents (Tiers 4 and 5): Supports Berkeley residents in staying stably housed and assists displaced community members to return.

Staff will revise Administrative Guidelines and coordinate with the regional online housing portal, Doorway, to implement the tiers.

Pilot Outcomes
The first project to implement Berkeley’s AHPP was the 87-unit Maudelle Miller Shirek Community. MMSC applications were open in January and February 2024, and lease- up was completed in June 2025. MMSC is located at 2925 Adeline Street, in the heart of South Berkeley, and the Healthy Black Families (HBF) offices are on the ground floor.

HBF in co-developed the community-driven AHPP. This included leading targeted engagement and organizing a cohort of community advisors to shape policy development. They continue to provide implementation support, including tenant research and outreach.

Staff worked with research partners HBF and Street Level Advisors to conduct qualitative and quantitative assessment of the preference policy pilot. This mixed- methods research involved the participation and insights of:
 MMSC applicants and residents;
 MMSC developer Resources for Community Development (RCD) and leasing staff at John Stewart Company;
 Doorway managing agency Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and portal platform developer Exygy;
 HHCS Homeless Services staff and local homeless service providers;  HHCS Asset Management and Preservation staff (re: BMR properties); and  Staff and partners in San Francisco and East Palo Alto who implement preference policies.

Data from the MMSC lease-up revealed operational successes alongside systemic constraints. Table 3 outlines verification outcomes from the pilot.

Page 4 of 20 ends

Page 1318 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 5 ends

Table 3. MMSC Preference Application Outcomes
Preference % of Verified
Applications1
% of Verified
Applicants
Under-Income
Tenants
Moved In w/
preference
BART displacement 1% 0% 1
Eviction 26% 66% 1
Foreclosure 35% 56% 1
Redlined neighborhood
resident
22% 25% 11
Redlined neighborhood
resident descendant
29% 35% 13
Homeless/at-risk of
homelessness
18% 69% 21
Family with children 55% 19% 23
Tenant households with at least one preference occupy 59% of preference units at MMSC, while non-preference households occupy the remaining 41%. The numbers in Table 3 provide insight into how applicants qualified for specific preferences; some households are represented across preference categories as applicants may qualify for more than one preference.

Table 4 details the specific preference points held by these households. These numbers reflect applicants’ various combinations of verified preferences.

Table 4. MMSC Tenants in Preference Units, by Number of Preferences Number of Preferences Number of Tenants Moved
into Preference Units
% of Total
Total Tenants with No Preferences 23 41%
Total Tenants with at Least One
Preference 33 59%
One Preference 9 16%
Two Preferences 14 25%
Three Preferences 6 11%
Four Preferences 4 7%
As shown in Table 4, four points was the highest number of preferences for households moving into MMSC preference units. Redlined neighborhood descendants are highly represented in the highest point categories. Specifically, descendants comprised all 1 Shows percentage of processed applications that were verified. “Processed” means application was reviewed (at least one preference was verified or denied). “Verified” means leasing staff confirmed eligibility.

Page 5 of 20 ends

Page 1319 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 6 ends

households with four points, two-thirds of those with three points (representing 80% of all households with three or more points), and half of all households with two or more points.

MMSC Lessons Learned by Preference Category
BART Displacement
The City verified three BART displacement preference certificates out of 205 applicants who claimed the preference. One moved into MMSC. Reviewing hundreds of unqualified applications created a bottleneck that delayed the leasing process. This highlights the need for clear response timelines. San Francisco gives applicants to their first priority Certificate of Preference five business days to respond to verification requests before they lose their priority status. The City of Berkeley does not centrally manage affordable housing applications like San Francisco, but does verify BART preference certificate applications. Staff plan to work with affordable housing developers to coordinate reasonable verification timelines for any policy revisions adopted by Council.

The City maintains an open BART displacement preference certificate application.

Individuals can apply at any time and staff review on a rolling basis. These certificates can be used at any new affordable housing opportunity. The MMSC lease-up faced immediate timeline constraints because it launched the same month the new preference policy took effect. BART certificate numbers have grown since that initial rollout. As of July 2026, the City has issued sixteen BART certificates, which cover five impacted families. The City is also planning additional targeted outreach prior to future affordable housing lease-ups to improve certificate applications. People with BART certificates will be able to use these certificates for first priority in future affordable housing lease-ups.

Foreclosure and Eviction
The foreclosure and eviction preferences were both underused compared to other preferences. Only two households moved in, one from each category. The primary barrier was a financial mismatch: 66% of qualified eviction applicants and 56% of qualified foreclosure households had incomes below the minimum limit required for the available units.

Beyond income barriers, geographic rules confused many applicants. By July 2026, the City issued certificates to thirteen people who lost housing in Berkeley because of foreclosures. Over half of certificate applications lacked basic information or listed addresses outside city limits. MMSC leasing staff confirmed that many applicants did not understand that foreclosures, evictions, or BART displacements must have occurred inside Berkeley.

Redlined Neighborhood Ties
The redlined neighborhood preferences were the most effective categories in the MMSC lease-up, yielding a total of 17 household move-ins. Within this group, 13

Page 6 of 20 ends

Page 1320 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 7 ends

households qualified as descendants of a redlined neighborhood resident, and 11 qualified as direct residents, with a high overlap of 65% of verified residents also qualifying as verified descendants. In contrast to the homeless, foreclosure, and eviction categories, only 35% of verified redlined neighborhood descendants were under-income for the available units. Additionally, leasing staff reported that these categories were among the most straightforward to verify administratively.

Families with Children
At MMSC, 41% of all applicants claimed the families with children preference. Of the applications reviewed, 55% were successfully verified, resulting in 23 families moving into the building.

Notably, 70% of these applicants claimed no other preference categories. The preference required only that applicants have children, with no mandatory connection to Berkeley. This outcome underscores the need to explicitly couple the category with local residency or displacement requirements to effectively prioritize families with existing Berkeley ties.

Homeless/At-Risk of Homelessness
Verifying this preference created a heavy administrative workload. Due to complex eligibility rules, the HHCS Homeless Services team had to manually review nearly 900 verification forms.

Only 18% of applicants reviewed for the homeless/at-risk preference were able to be verified; this is the lowest approval rate of any category outside of BART displacement.

The primary barrier to housing placement was financial mismatch: 69% of the verified households in this category had incomes below the minimum limit required for the available MMSC units. Other reasons applicants did not qualify for this category included lack of ties to Berkeley or already being prioritized for Permanent Supportive Housing.

A total of 21 households used this category to successfully move into units. However, leasing staff reported that most of the households that moved in qualified under the broad at-risk of homelessness definition rather than experiencing active homelessness.

Three-quarters of the households that successfully leased up through this category also held other preferences.

BMR Properties Pilot
As of July 2026, two BMR properties have completed lease-up with a total of five preference units. Another nine BMR properties are currently leasing up with preferences.

At one property, three units used preferences: one household qualified with two points for redlined neighborhood ties and foreclosure, another with two points for redlined

Page 7 of 20 ends

Page 1321 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 8 ends

neighborhood ties and children, and a final household moved into a BMR unit with zero points. At the second property, both units were filled by households with children who qualified with one point each. Some BMR units are reserved for Housing Choice Voucher-holders; those units have a smaller pool to draw from and may be more challenging for preference implementation.

BMR property managers and City staff identified administrative challenges. Property managers reported verification delays from contacting applicants and explaining preferences, and processing unverifiable preference claims. City staff who work directly with BMR property managers emphasized the administrative burden of explaining the policy to leasing staff, especially given frequent staff turnover at BMR properties.

BMR property managers do not have the same institutional knowledge as the nonprofit managers at HTF projects. They do not typically have experience verifying income and preferences. This has also led to inconsistent data tracking related to preferences.

Reporting
Staff will continue to monitor the policy to understand how it is working, including administration and populations served. The City will collaborate with Doorway on data collection. Staff will provide an annual report to Council documenting the policy’s impact. Staff will conduct an evaluation of the policy every five years, requesting any policy amendments to better serve the anti-displacement goals as needed.

Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation
July 2, 2026, the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) supported the proposed preference policy updates with the following vote:

Action: M/S/C (Shere/Simon-Weisberg) to recommend City Council adopt a resolution to establish an updated affordable housing preference policy with the following preference categories organized into ranked tiers:
 Displaced due to BART construction
 Generational ties to redlined neighborhoods (families with children prioritized)  Current/displaced Berkeley resident (families with children prioritized) Vote: Ayes: Bell, Haycox, Shere, Simon-Weisberg, Twu, and Vaughn Scott. Noes:

None. Abstain: None. Absent: Micael (excused) and Mirvish (excused).

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the preference policy on July 11, 2023. The policy became effective on January 1, 2024.

Page 8 of 20 ends

Page 1322 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 9 ends

The City partnered with HBF and with Street Level Advisors on the following research efforts to better understand the impact of the policy at MMSC and BMR properties, as well as challenges and opportunities. Research efforts include:
 MMSC applicant experience survey administered by Exygy (developer of the housing portal platform)
 Analysis of MMSC leasing data by Street Level Advisors  Research on MMSC resident experiences led by HBF:
o MMSC resident survey
o In-depth MMSC resident interviews
 Stakeholder interviews led by City staff with the following groups:
o Homeless service providers, Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and Women’s Daytime Drop-In Center (WDDIC)
o City of Berkeley Asset Management and Preservation team (BMR properties)
o City of Berkeley Homeless Services team
o MTC-Doorway staff
o RCD and John Stewart Company
o City staff in San Francisco
o City staff, nonprofit, and community development corporation in East Palo Alto
 Stakeholder meetings to discuss revised policy proposals with the following groups (including a joint meeting):
o HBF
o John Stewart Company
o MTC-Doorway
o RCD

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Displacement can lead to commutes into Berkeley as displaced people continue to return to their community of origin for school, work, faith institutions, healthcare, and/or social networks. A preference policy can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from these longer commutes by reducing or reversing displacement.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Lessons from the pilot suggest that simplifying the policy to a ranked tier system and consolidating categories is necessary to better support applicants. The updated policy proposal builds on strengths of the existing policy and addresses its challenges.

Policy Strengths
Redlined Preferences
Redlined neighborhoods experienced decades of disinvestment that promoted gentrification and displacement. The outcomes of the redlining preferences, combined

Page 9 of 20 ends

Page 1323 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 10 ends

with HBF’s MMSC tenant survey data, suggest that these preferences provided a pathway for displaced long-term residents to return to the community. In the tenant survey, 65% of those answering indicated that they applied to MMSC because they “wanted to return to South Berkeley.”
21 out of 25 respondents agreed that the policy successfully met its goal to “prioritize displaced families from Berkeley.” This impact is particularly meaningful for long-term community ties; of the 22 surveyed residents with previous Berkeley residency, nine households had lived in the city for over 20 years. One survey respondent highlighted the profound personal impact of the policy: “It was fair, and truly a blessing. Affordability in Berkeley had been out of reach for me since I left my mom's house in 1984.” BART Database, Certificates, and Library Partnership
Staff used Public Records Act (PRA) requests to BART to compile a database of property owners who were displaced by the construction of BART in the 1960s. Staff also established a BART Construction Displacement Certificate application on the City website. City staff work with applicants on verification; this pre-verification reduces burden for leasing staff.

Twelve of the sixteen BART certificates issued traced back to ancestors in the database. Other certificate holders were able to provide their ancestors’ addresses, but the ancestors did not appear in the database since they were renters. In those cases, applicants were required to provide proof of address for their ancestors.

HHCS Staff established a partnership with the Berkeley Public Library (BPL) historian, who supports applicants in looking for proof of address documentation for ancestors.

BPL has institutional accounts for Ancestry.com and other directories with historical records. When an applicant’s ancestor did not appear in the BART database, the library was able to support them in locating proof of address for their ancestors. BPL also supported applicants looking for proof of address for the redlined neighborhood descendant preference.

Challenges & Constraints
Policy Complexity
The seven-point system was difficult to implement and monitor, and challenging for applicants to understand. In-depth HBF resident interviews indicated that some MMSC residents are not aware of the preferences. Information overwhelm may have contributed to confusion about the requirement for preferences to tie back to Berkeley.

Many applicants apply to listings on their phones in a short amount of time. The ease of the online application also makes a layered, complicated policy difficult to convey.

The updated policy proposal consolidates eviction and foreclosure category into the displaced from Berkeley category. This consolidation better reflects varied displacement

Page 10 of 20 ends

Page 1324 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 11 ends

circumstances, reduces overall policy complexity, and cuts down on applicant confusion regarding out-of-city eligibility.

Conversations with partner organizations about innovative outreach methods noted that a consolidated policy could support more effective outreach. A policy with seven preferences and a points-based formula was also challenging for leasing staff to implement and made tracking challenging. A more streamlined policy lends itself to improved data systems and reporting, in order to best understand policy outcomes.

Unverified Preference Claims
The majority of preferences that applicants claimed were not verified. The children preference was the only preference that more than half of applicants were able to verify (see Table 3). The BART preference had the lowest verifiable rate; only 1%, or three out of 205 applicants, were able to verify the preference. The homeless preference had the second lowest verification rate; 18% of applications processed were able to be verified.

This preference had broad, subjective criteria for the at-risk of homelessness category; the rate of applicants who verified as actively homeless was likely much lower.

It is common with preference policies for applicants to select preferences they later cannot verify. This delays the leasing process and pushes back move-in dates.

Simplifying preferences will clear up confusion for applicants, which may reduce unverifiable preference claims. Some unverified claims will always happen, but simpler rules and clear deadlines for paperwork will reduce processing delays.

Income Mismatch
Many people who qualify for preferences have incomes that are below income minimums for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) affordable housing. LIHTC housing is the primary way to fund affordable housing. Most City-funded affordable housing projects use LIHTC and have to follow LIHTC income requirements. For eviction, foreclosure, and homelessness preferences, the vast majority of applicants were screened out because their incomes were too low to qualify.

Alameda County Housing Portal data showed that about 46% of MMSC applicants reported incomes below 20% Area Median Income (AMI). It is important to note that these are self-reported incomes. This large group of extremely low-income applicants likely applied because the building offers project-based vouchers (PBVs), which limits a tenant’s rent to 30% of their income. This lease-up aligns with broader Bay Area trends, where housing portals receive the most applications from extremely low-income households and fewer as income levels go up.

Ultimately, preferences only work if qualified applicants meet income and other requirements for the available affordable housing units.

Page 11 of 20 ends

Page 1325 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 12 ends

Homeless and At-Risk of Homelessness Verification Realities Creating a homeless preference for LIHTC units without deep rental subsidies creates a structural mismatch. LIHTC buildings usually combine different funding sources to serve different income levels. Often, developments reserve specific units for extremely low- income and homeless households through Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs outside the standard lottery. PBVs and special funds such as the No Place Like Home program are common examples that were used at the MMSC project.

However, the minimum income requirements for the unrestricted LIHTC units financially disqualified the majority of homeless/at-risk applicants applying through the general lottery. Because tax-credit housing relies on tenant rent payments to cover operating costs, units without deep rental subsidies require a minimum monthly income that many extremely low-income applicants cannot meet.

The policy was designed to target people with lower supportive service needs who did not qualify for PSH. The goal of this targeting was to mitigate this income mismatch, and expand options for people who are not prioritized for other housing programs. This approach aimed to help people keep their housing without putting high-need households into units that lack proper support services. However, many applicants did not understand this complicated rule for individuals who were homeless but not prioritized for PSH.

Interviews with homeless service providers emphasized that promoting housing people cannot actually qualify for creates false hope. It can also add to the trauma unhoused people face with housing searches.

The "at-risk of homelessness" category was too broad to work well in a region where so many people struggle with housing. Service providers noted this broad rule made eligibility hard to verify and undermined efforts to prioritize people with the most urgent needs.

The effort required from staff and applicants for this category did not match the actual housing outcomes. Preferences cannot replace dedicated, fully funded supportive housing systems. The City and the Berkeley Housing Authority serve homeless people more effectively through programs built specifically for people with extremely low incomes. These include Permanent Supportive Housing, project-based vouchers, the Shelter Plus Care program, interim housing, the Housing Retention Program, and wraparound support services.

These specialized systems provide the necessary support and subsidies that affordable housing preferences cannot. Homeless households will still qualify for priority under the new proposed current/displaced Berkeley resident category, but they will no longer face the heavy paperwork required by a homeless preference.

Page 12 of 20 ends

Page 1326 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 13 ends

Opportunities
Honoring Intersectionality
The current points system tried to account for households facing multiple displacement- related challenges. However, it required applicants to prove each of these preference claims with paperwork. The proposed tier system honors these overlapping challenges by creating a right of return for people harmed by decades of redlining, disinvestment, and gentrification in Berkeley, without burdening applicants with heavy documentation.

Pilot data supports this design: 80% of households with the highest preference points (three or four preferences) were descendants of redlined neighborhood residents.

Prioritizing generational roots in redlined neighborhoods lifts up households facing the most layered displacement circumstances. This approach directs Berkeley's affordable housing to the community members most impacted by systemic discrimination.

Integration with Doorway
City staff collaborated with Exygy and the Alameda County Housing Portal on a post- application survey of 855 MMSC applicants. Over 80% said application instructions were clear and easy to follow. Since that pilot, the Alameda County Housing Portal was integrated into Doorway, a regional affordable housing platform with over 500,000 active users.

Switching to a tier-based system is necessary to integrate with Doorway because the platform does not currently support points systems. Currently, Doorway cannot automate or audit Berkeley’s lotteries, forcing Doorway staff to run them manually. This means applicants receive their lottery number in an emailed document instead of in their portal profile. Lottery positions also keep changing as staff check paperwork, which confuses applicants, creates extra work for leasing teams, and makes long-term tracking difficult.

A tier system allows Doorway to automate and audit Berkeley's lotteries so they align with regional standards. Automation and audits reduce human error and keep the process fair. For example, an audit in another city recently caught a technical glitch that left non-English preference responses blank. This allowed staff to reach out to applicants and fix the issue quickly.

Standard Doorway listings give applicants direct, reliable access to their lottery rank.

Under a tier system, applicants hold a stable rank within a clear tier. If they cannot prove a preference, they simply drop to their position in the next qualifying tier without requiring the entire applicant pool to be re-sorted.

Doorway is currently designed to support preferences via tiers. Other jurisdictions that implement preferences via Doorway also use tiers. Aligning Berkeley's policy with nearby cities creates a consistent experience and reduces confusion. Doorway offers the best way to reach applicants and keep the application process simple.

Page 13 of 20 ends

Page 1327 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 14 ends

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative actions include:
 Keep the existing policy.
o Maintaining the homeless preference could lead to ongoing false expectations, which can cause more harm than good in a population with housing trauma. Keeping this preference would also lead to ongoing heavy administrative burden for HHCS Homeless Services team. o Keeping the points system along with the foreclosure and eviction preferences could continue to delay building lease-ups without proportional policy impact.
 Keep the points system, but reduce the number of categories to reflect pilot lessons (for example, remove the homeless category, and combine displacement circumstances into one displacement category). This option has substantial limitations:
o Keeps the heaviest documentation burden on applicants who qualify for the most preferences.
o Prevents current full integration with Doorway, which means listings in Berkeley could not use automated lotteries or lottery audits. This leaves more room for human error in ensuring that qualified applicants receive preferences.
o Limits transparency for applicants. In a points system, applicant rankings constantly shift as files are checked, and applicants receive limited information on these changes. These lists are emailed instead of clearly appearing in an applicant’s Doorway profile like other jurisdictions’ listings.

Opportunities for Future Exploration
Lessons from the MMSC pilot point to systemic housing challenges that go beyond the scope of a preference policy. The biggest challenge is the gap between LIHTC rent amounts and what applicants actually earn.

Deeply Affordable Housing
High demand for extremely low-income housing at MMSC highlights Berkeley's urgent need for deeply affordable units. This includes Permanent Supportive Housing as well as deeper affordability for independent households with lower supportive service needs.

Meeting minimum income requirements is hard in high-income areas like Alameda County. Over the past decade, Alameda County’s median income increased by 24% after adjusting for inflation, reaching $162,800 for a family of four in 2026. Affordable housing built using federal tax credits (LIHTC) mostly targets households making 50% and 60% of that median income. To qualify, a family’s income must be at least double their rent. About 64% of applicants to MMSC reported making 30% of median income or

Page 14 of 20 ends

Page 1328 ends

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 15 ends

lower, which means they would not qualify for the 50% or 60% area median income (AMI) LIHTC units.

Staff identified three areas for future exploration to bridge these gaps:
 Targeted Voucher Integration: San Francisco addresses this income mismatch by partnering with its housing authority to place lower-income preference- qualified applicants into project-based voucher units (where rent is tied to income).
 Social Housing Planning: The 2025 Berkeley Social Housing Study recommended developing an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. This plan would map out specific income targets and sub-populations, with a goal of designing a social housing system that addresses long-term structural gaps.  Guaranteed Income Pilots: City Council referred to staff research on guaranteed income programs, which could supplement baseline earnings so extremely low- income households can meet minimum income requirements.

Holistic Support for Returning Berkeleyans
Displaced residents returning to Berkeley may need help with housing navigation, mental health care, and support services that standard property managers cannot provide. Future strategies should build on work with existing community partners for upcoming large affordable housing lease-ups that use the preference policy. Community partnerships can help applicants collect required paperwork and connect returning residents to culturally relevant support networks.

CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5403 Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981- 5114
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Preference Categories
2: Comparison Between Current and Proposed Preference Policy 3: Proposed Displacement Criteria

Page 15 of 20 ends

Page 1329 ends

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

AMENDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PREFERENCE POLICY FOR

AFFORDABLE UNITS DEVELOPED WITH CITY SUBSIDY AND THROUGH THE

BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 70,960-N.S.

WHEREAS, City Council adopted Resolution No. 70,960-N.S. on July 11, 2023 “Adopting a Housing Preference Policy for Affordable Units Developed with City Subsidy and through the Below Market Rate Program”, with an effective date of January 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Housing Preference Policy, as adopted in 2023, was subject to a pilot evaluation at Maudelle Miller Shirek Community and several Below Market Rate properties; and
WHEREAS, in the 1960s and 1970s, Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) bought blocks of homes, in some cases invoking eminent domain, in order to build BART stations in Berkeley, displacing residents of South Berkeley and North Berkeley in the process.

Those who lost their homes due to BART construction forewent intergenerational wealth- building; and
WHEREAS, redlining led to patterns of disinvestment in Berkeley’s redlined neighborhoods, which were predominantly populated by people of color. Redlining limited homeownership and housing stability in these neighborhoods, with compounding generational effects. These patterns continue to enable gentrification; approximately 83% of today's gentrifying areas in the East Bay were rated as "hazardous" (red) or "definitely declining" (yellow) by the government-sponsored corporation that introduced redlining; and
WHEREAS, families with children may be most vulnerable to and impacted by displacement. National research underscores that low-income single mothers with young children are at the highest risk of eviction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”) provides funding to support affordable housing development through the Housing Trust Fund program; and WHEREAS, the City creates affordable housing via the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements (Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.328), requiring new market-rate residential developments to include Below Market Rate affordable housing units; and WHERAS, the amended policy is consistent with Berkeley's General Plan Housing Element goals; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, the City of Berkeley and BART adopted the City and BART Joint Vision and Priorities for Transit-Oriented Development at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations that included a shared priority for displacement prevention that states that “affordable housing should provide a preference for residents of Berkeley who

Page 16 of 20 ends

Page 1330 ends

Page 2 ends

are facing displacement, or who have been displaced from Berkeley in the past due to economic or discriminatory reasons”; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill (SB) 649 was adopted by the State of California in September 2022 to establish that it is the State’s policy that lower-income individuals residing in neighborhoods and communities experiencing significant displacement, as specified, need access to housing that is affordable and assists in avoiding displacement, and that a local tenant preference adopted pursuant to the bill’s provisions is subject to the duty of public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley:

1. Adopts the amended Affordable Housing Preference Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference, that applies to new affordable housing units created by the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to approve guidelines to administer the Housing Preference Policy as amended, and take any other action with respect to the policy consistent with this resolution and its purpose;

3. Establishes that this Affordable Housing Preference Policy shall be applied only to the extent allowed by Fair Housing law and other government agency funding sources; and

4. Establishes the Affordable Housing Preference Policy, as amended by this resolution, shall take effect November 1, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Resolution No. 70,960-N.S. is hereby rescinded and is of no force or effect on any applicable Housing Development Project that obtains City approval of its required Marketing Plan submission after the effective date of this resolution.

Exhibits
A: Exhibit A. Preference Categories

Page 17 of 20 ends

Page 1331 ends

Exhibit A. Preference Categories, as Amended (2026)
Tier Preference
Tier 1 (highest priority) Displaced due to construction of BART stations in Berkeley Tier 2 (second priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households with children under 18
Tier 3 (third priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households without children
Tier 4 (fourth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households with children under 18
Tier 5 (fifth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households without children

Page 18 of 20 ends

Page 1332 ends

Attachment 2: Comparison Between Current and Proposed Preference Policy Current
Preference
Pilot Implementation
Lessons
Proposed Changes
BART
construction
• Underutilized, but
timing challenge
with pilot
Tier #1
Eviction • Underutilized
• High % under-
income
Consolidate into current/displaced
Berkeley resident
Foreclosure • Underutilized
• High % under-
income
Consolidate into current/displaced
Berkeley resident
Redlined
neighborhood
resident
• Redlined
preferences most
effective
Combine into current/displaced
Berkeley resident, and Berkeley
redlined neighborhood descendant
where applicable
Redlined
neighborhood
descendant
• Redlined
preferences most
effective
Tier #2 and Tier #3
Homeless or at-
risk of
homelessness
• High % under-
income
• High burden &
false expectation
Combine into current/displaced
Berkeley resident (includes unhoused
applicant with former address in
Berkeley)
Families with
children
• Preference well-
utilized, but often
not connected to
Berkeley ties
Tier #2 and Tier #4 (combined with
Berkeley redlined neighborhood
descendant preference, and
current/displaced Berkeley resident
preference)

Page 19 of 20 ends

Page 1333 ends

Attachment 3: Proposed Displacement Criteria
(For inclusion in Administrative Guidelines)
Displacement may include moving out of Berkeley due to:
 City Code Enforcement activities or building condemnation  Property foreclosure
 Domestic violence situations
 Natural disaster or other emergency
 Economic displacement
o Rent increase
o Personal financial shocks or changes in household income  Evictions and forced move-outs, including those related to:
o Formal or threatened eviction (legal eviction, including no-fault eviction, such as owner move-in; or a formal landlord notice terminating tenancy) o Constructive eviction (forced to leave a unit due to unlivable housing conditions, a severe loss of housing services, or documented harassment, discrimination, or retaliation by a landlord or neighbors)

Page 20 of 20 ends

Page 1334 ends

Page 1 ends

ACTION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for Mutual Aid Air Support, Pursuant to Council Action of July 14, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy (BPD Policy 1308) for Mutual Aid Air Support, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter 2.99.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On July 14, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 51,408-N.S. (1982) and establishing a modernized framework under which the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) may request and deploy helicopter assistance from external law enforcement agencies with whom mutual aid agreements exist. The framework limits requests to seven enumerated purposes; requires pre-deployment approval by the on-duty Watch Commander; requires written notification to the City Manager within 72 hours of any deployment; requires documentation of every deployment in the originating incident report; and requires an annual public report to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.

The aircraft operated by the Department’s regional air support partners are equipped with camera systems, typically gyro-stabilized electro-optical/infrared (“EO/IR”) sensors capable of magnified daylight video and thermal imaging and, in some cases, encrypted video downlink to ground personnel. These systems are surveillance technology within the meaning of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance (STO). Under the STO, no surveillance technology subject to B.M.C. Chapter 2.99 may be acquired, used, or made the subject of an agreement to share or otherwise use such technology or the information it provides until the City Council has accepted a Surveillance Acquisition Report and approved a Surveillance Use Policy for that technology. This item completes that step for Mutual Aid Air Support so that the framework adopted on July 14, 2026 can be implemented.

The attached documents govern the conduct of BPD: the purposes for which air support may be requested, and the Department’s receipt, viewing, retention, and sharing of air support data.

The aircraft and sensors remain owned, operated, and maintained by the assisting agencies, whose own policies and oversight bodies continue to govern their equipment.

Page 1 of 16 ends

Page 1335 ends

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND
The STO requires the City Manager to submit a Surveillance Acquisition Report and obtain Council approval of a Surveillance Use Policy prior to acquiring, using, or entering into agreements involving surveillance technology. Each Surveillance Use Policy must address the twelve elements set forth in B.M.C. 2.99.020(4): purpose; authorized use; data collection; data access; data protection; civil liberties and rights protection; data retention; public access; third- party data-sharing; training; auditing and oversight; and maintenance.

Mutual Aid Air Support
BPD does not own or operate aircraft. Air support is obtained exclusively through mutual aid from regional partners operating air support units- including the Oakland Police Department’s Air Support Unit (“Argus”), the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department, and the California Highway Patrol- and, where necessary, through the statewide law enforcement mutual aid system. Partner aircraft typically carry gyro-stabilized EO/IR camera systems providing daylight and thermal video, searchlights, and public-address capability; some offer encrypted video downlink to ground personnel.

The Surveillance Use Policy addresses each of the twelve elements required by B.M.C.

2.99.020(4). It limits requests to the seven purposes enumerated in the July 14, 2026 resolution and prohibits the use or sharing of air support data in support of federal civil immigration enforcement or of out-of-state laws restricting reproductive rights or the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care.

Policy History and Committee Review
Resolution No. 51,408-N.S. (July 15, 1982) permitted helicopter mutual aid only for disaster response, rescue efforts (excluding hostage rescue), and locating missing persons, and required pre-deployment approval by the City Manager. The Public Safety Policy Committee reviewed the proposed modernization on March 23, 2026 and sent it to Council with a qualified positive recommendation. The Police Accountability Board (PAB), by letter dated March 17, 2026, opposed replacing City Manager pre-approval with post-deployment notification and opposed expanding the list of permissible helicopter uses, citing the absence of demonstrated need, reduced oversight, and overlap with the Department’s proposed Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) program. The Council adopted the modernized framework on July 14, 2026.

The attached documents are drafted with the PAB concerns in view. The Surveillance Use Policy confines requests to the seven Council-enumerated purposes; preserves sworn supervisory pre-approval, City Manager notification, and annual public reporting to both the Council and the PAB; adds an Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) audit of every deployment; and distinguishes the air support role from that proposed for UAS, which remains subject to its own separate STO process.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION

Page 2 of 16 ends

Page 1336 ends

Page 3 ends

Adoption of the recommended Resolution completes the STO process for Mutual Aid Air Support and permits implementation of the framework the Council adopted on July 14, 2026.

The technology has been described, and its use constrained, in the attached documents to meet the civil liberties and rights protections required by B.M.C. Chapter 2.99, including the prohibition on Face Recognition Technology, restrictions on use in support of federal civil immigration enforcement consistent with the California Values Act and BPD Policy 423, and restrictions on use in support of out-of-state laws restricting reproductive rights or the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care. Approval does not expand air support use beyond the purposes the Council has enumerated and does not limit Council’s ability to make edits to the use policy or acquisition report.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or climate impacts associated with the act of adopting this resolution. Aircraft operations occur under the authority and control of the assisting agencies; at approximately four to five deployments per year, no material change in aircraft activity is anticipated.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None as a direct result of this action. Mutual aid air support is generally provided on a reciprocal basis without charge; where costs are incurred, they are managed through established reimbursement agreements.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700

ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Surveillance Acquisition Report- Mutual Aid Air Support • BPD Policy 1308: Surveillance Use Policy- Mutual Aid Air Support

Page 3 of 16 ends

Page 1337 ends

Page 4 ends

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

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SURVEILLANCE ACQUISITION REPORT AND

APPROVING THE SURVEILLANCE USE POLICY FOR MUTUAL AID AIR SUPPORT WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is committed to leveraging technology to enhance public safety while ensuring transparency, oversight, and the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, as codified in the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter

2.99; and
WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance requires the City Council to accept a Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve a Surveillance Use Policy prior to the acquisition or use of any surveillance technology subject to the ordinance, or to entering into an agreement to acquire, share, or otherwise use such technology or the information it provides; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 51,408-N.S. and authorizing the Berkeley Police Department to request and deploy helicopter assistance from external law enforcement agencies for enumerated purposes and subject to pre-deployment Watch Commander approval, post-deployment written notification to the City Manager within 72 hours, incident documentation, and annual public reporting to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board; and
WHEREAS, the aircraft operated by the Department’s mutual aid air support partners are equipped with camera systems, including thermal imaging systems, that constitute surveillance technology within the meaning of B.M.C. Chapter 2.99, and the Department’s receipt and use of information from those systems is subject to the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has prepared and submitted a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for Mutual Aid Air Support addressing each of the twelve elements required by B.M.C. 2.99.020(4); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Surveillance Acquisition Report for Mutual Aid Air Support is hereby accepted, and the Surveillance Use Policy for Mutual Aid Air Support (BPD Policy 1308) is hereby approved, pursuant to B.M.C. Chapter 2.99.

Page 4 of 16 ends

Page 1338 ends

Page 1 ends

Berkeley Police Department BMC 2.99 Acquisition Report- Mutual Aid Air Support
Background
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to implement the mutual aid air support framework adopted by the City Council on July 14, 2026, which rescinded Resolution No. 51,408-N.S. and authorized the Department to request and deploy helicopter assistance from external law enforcement agencies for enumerated purposes, subject to pre-deployment Watch Commander approval, post-deployment written notification to the City Manager, incident documentation, and annual public reporting to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.

BPD does not own or operate aircraft. Air support is obtained through mutual aid from regional partners operating air support units- including the Oakland Police Department’s Air Support Unit (“Argus”), the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department, and the California Highway Patrol- and, where necessary, through the statewide law enforcement mutual aid system.

Partner aircraft are typically equipped with camera systems, including thermal-infrared sensors, that constitute surveillance technology under BMC Chapter 2.99. This report accordingly addresses the Department’s request for, and receipt and use of, air support and associated data.

Nothing in this report or in the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy modifies the policies of any assisting agency, whose aircraft, sensors, and recordings remain governed by that agency’s own policies and oversight bodies. This report and the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy govern the conduct of BPD personnel and do not authorize any collection, retention, sharing, or use of data beyond that described herein.

To the extent that it might be required, this document satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.99 for “publicly-released written report produced prior to acquisition... that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, location, impact, mitigation, data types and sources, data security, fiscal cost, third party dependence and access, alternatives, and experience of other entities.

1. Description
Information describing the Surveillance Technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers
Description:

Mutual Aid Air Support consists of helicopters and, where applicable, fixed-wing aircraft operated by external law enforcement agencies and deployed to Berkeley at BPD’s request under mutual aid agreements. The surveillance technology at issue is the sensor equipment carried by those aircraft: gyro-stabilized electro-optical/infrared (“EO/IR”) camera systems that provide magnified daylight video and thermal (heat-signature) imaging; searchlights; moving- map systems that associate imagery with location; and, on some aircraft, encrypted video

Page 5 of 16 ends

Page 1339 ends

Page 2 ends

downlink that permits ground personnel to view the camera feed in real time. The aircraft and sensors are owned, operated, and controlled by the assisting agency; BPD neither operates the equipment nor controls what it records.

How it Works:

When an incident falls within one of the purposes enumerated by the City Council and the on- duty Watch Commander or designee approves, BPD requests air support from a partner agency through established dispatch channels. The assisting agency’s flight crew operates the aircraft and its sensors, relays observations to BPD ground units by radio, and- where downlink is available- may transmit live video to authorized BPD personnel for the duration of the incident. If recorded imagery is relevant to a BPD case, the Department obtains it from the assisting agency through a documented evidence request, and it is stored in the Department’s digital evidence management system.

Manufacturers’ Descriptions:

The following describes representative sensor systems in use on regional air support aircraft.

Capabilities vary by agency and aircraft; the identification of representative systems is descriptive only and does not express a preference for, or a decision to use, any particular equipment or assisting agency.
• Teledyne FLIR markets its Star SAFIRE 380 series to airborne law enforcement units, stating that the multi-spectral cameras "provide clear and detailed imagery of thermal activity on the ground." The manufacturer states that the systems can be configured with a range of color and infrared sensors for patrol, search-and-rescue, and surveillance missions, and that their long-range performance allows crews to remain at a distance while still imaging accurately.
• L3Harris describes its WESCAM MX-10 airborne electro-optical/infrared system as "ideal for low-altitude tactical surveillance and reconnaissance missions from manned and unmanned airborne platforms." The manufacturer states that four-axis stabilization and multi-spectral sensors give the MX-Series imaging across multiple wavebands, supporting both day and night operation in varied weather.

2. Purpose
Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the Surveillance Technology The purposes for which air support may be requested are limited to the seven purposes enumerated by the City Council on July 14, 2026:
• To assist in disaster response;
• To assist in rescue efforts;
• To locate missing persons;
• When the safety of law enforcement personnel is in jeopardy and aerial presence may reduce that hazard;

Page 6 of 16 ends

Page 1340 ends

Page 3 ends

• To aid in the apprehension of a suspected fleeing felon whose continued freedom represents an ongoing threat to the community;
• To locate a person who is missing and whose continued absence constitutes a serious health or safety hazard; and
• To provide aerial coordination during a vehicle pursuit, where such coordination can reduce collision risk to bystanders and improve incident resolution.

Each request must, in addition, receive pre-deployment approval from the on-duty Watch Commander or designee.

3. Location
The general location(s) it may be deployed and reasons for deployment Deployments are incident-driven and may occur anywhere within the City of Berkeley- and, in pursuit or search contexts, contiguous areas- for the purposes stated above. No hardware is installed in Berkeley: aircraft are based at, and operate from, assisting agencies’ facilities.

Where live downlink is used, it is viewed by authorized BPD personnel at the incident or in the Communications Center. Based on historical request volumes, the Department anticipates approximately four to five deployments per year.

4. Impact
An assessment identifying potential impacts on civil liberties and civil rights including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups Although BPD neither owns nor operates the aircraft or sensors, aerial observation over an urban area raises civil-rights and civil-liberties considerations that warrant transparent acknowledgment and specific safeguards. The Department identifies the following potential impacts and addresses each through the mitigations described in Section 5 and through the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy.
• High-definition aerial video could, in principle, be processed with Face Recognition Technology. BMC 2.99.030(5) prohibits the City from obtaining, retaining, requesting, accessing, or using Face Recognition Technology.
• Deployment patterns could concentrate in particular neighborhoods and fall unevenly across communities. Mitigations include the enumerated-purpose limitation, Watch Commander pre-approval, per-deployment documentation, OSPA audit of all deployments, and annual public reporting of aggregate counts by category to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.
• Helicopter noise and low-altitude overflight impose real community burdens- a concern that contributed to the original 1982 restrictions. The low anticipated frequency of approximately four to five deployments per year, the life-safety-driven purposes, and annual public reporting are the principal mitigations.

Page 7 of 16 ends

Page 1341 ends

Page 4 ends

• Air support data could, if unrestricted, be sought for federal civil immigration enforcement or for out-of-state prosecutions targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care. The accompanying Surveillance Use Policy prohibits such use and sharing, consistent with the California Values Act.
• The assisting agency retains its own recordings under its own policies, which the City does not control. The accompanying Surveillance Use Policy addresses the Department’s side of this relationship- what BPD may request, receive, retain, and share- and requires that a copy of the policy be provided to each air support partner.

5. Mitigations
Information regarding technical and procedural measures that can be implemented to appropriately safeguard the public from any impacts identified in subsection (d) The Department will implement the following technical and procedural mitigations, each of which is also embodied in the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy:
• Air support may be requested only for the purposes enumerated by the City Council, and only with documented pre-deployment approval of the on-duty Watch Commander or designee.
• The Department shall receive and retain only imagery relevant to the incident or a specific case, obtained through a documented evidence request and stored in the Department’s CJIS-compliant digital evidence management system. • Every deployment shall be documented in the originating incident report and reported in writing to the City Manager within 72 hours.
• The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) shall audit all deployments at least twice per year, and an annual public report of aggregate deployment data shall be transmitted to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.

6. Data Types and Sources
A list of the sources of data proposed to be collected, analyzed, or processed by the Surveillance Technology, including "open source" data
The data types associated with Mutual Aid Air Support that BPD may receive are:
• Live video downlink (visual and/or thermal), where offered by the assisting agency, viewed during the active incident.
• Recorded video, thermal imagery, and still images obtained from the assisting agency in connection with a specific BPD case.
• Flight-crew observations relayed by radio and documented in CAD and incident reports. • Associated metadata (date, time, location) accompanying imagery received.

Page 8 of 16 ends

Page 1342 ends

Page 5 ends

7. Data Security
Information about the steps that can be taken to ensure adequate security measures to safeguard the data collected or generated from unauthorized access or disclosure Air support data obtained by the Department shall be protected through a multi-layered security architecture:
• Data is transferred agency-to-agency through secure evidence-transfer methods. • Recorded imagery is stored in the Department’s digital evidence management system, which complies with CJIS standards and requires secure login credentials with Multi- Factor Authentication (MFA).
• Access is restricted to authorized personnel and audited for compliance. • Evidentiary data is retained according to state law.

8. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal costs for the Surveillance Technology, including initial purchase, personnel and other ongoing costs, including to the extent practicable costs associated with compliance with this and other reporting and oversight requirements, as well as any current or potential sources of funding.

The costs below represent estimates.

Initial Purchase:
 None. The Department acquires no equipment. Air support is provided by assisting agencies.

Personnel and Other Ongoing Costs:
 Mutual aid air support is generally provided on a reciprocal basis without charge.

Personnel time associated with requesting and coordinating air support is absorbed within existing salaries, as is training on the Surveillance Use Policy, which is delivered within regular in-service training hours. No maintenance, storage, transportation, or upgrade costs accrue to the City; aircraft and sensor systems are maintained by the assisting agencies, and imagery received is stored within the Department's existing digital evidence management system.

Costs Associated with Compliance and Oversight:
 Compliance obligations consist of the 72-hour written notification to the City Manager following each deployment, documentation in the originating incident report, the semiannual audit conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability, and the annual report to the City Council and Police Accountability Board. At the anticipated deployment volume, these are estimated to require on the order of 20 to 40 staff hours annually across Department and OSPA personnel, absorbed within existing salaries. No new position or appropriation is required.

Page 9 of 16 ends

Page 1343 ends

Page 6 ends

Current or Potential Sources of Funding:
 Any reimbursable costs and all compliance and oversight costs are funded through the Berkeley Police Department's existing operating budget within the General Fund. No dedicated funding source, grant, or outside contribution is associated with this technology, and none is currently anticipated.

9. Third Party Dependence and Access
Whether use or maintenance of the technology will require data gathered by the technology to be handled or stored by a third-party vendor on an ongoing basis, and whether a third party may have access to such data or may have the right to sell or otherwise share the data in aggregated, disaggregated, raw or any other formats
Mutual Aid Air Support is inherently dependent on third parties: the assisting agencies own and operate the aircraft and sensors, and retain their own recordings under their own policies and oversight structures. For example, Oakland Police Department helicopter camera systems are governed by an Oakland City Council-adopted use policy, with annual reporting to Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission.

Air support data held by the Department is not handled or stored by a commercial third-party vendor beyond the Department’s existing digital evidence management system, and no third party has any right to sell or otherwise share Department-held air support data. The Department’s receipt of air support data creates no independent sharing authority; sharing is governed by the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy, including the prohibitions on sharing in support of federal civil immigration enforcement and of out-of-state reproductive-rights or gender-affirming-care enforcement, the 10-day reporting requirement for federal immigration access requests, and the 72-hour federal-disclosure reporting consistent with Policy 351.6.

10. Alternatives
A summary and general assessment of potentially viable alternative methods (whether involving the use of a new technology or not), if any, considered before deciding to propose acquiring the Surveillance Technology
Declining air support entirely involves the least aerial observation, but leaves searches, pursuits, and officer-safety incidents to ground resources alone, which the Council found inadequate in the incidents for which air support is actually requested.

Acquiring and operating a Department helicopter would cost several million dollars to acquire and on the order of a million dollars or more annually to operate- grossly disproportionate to approximately four to five deployments per year- and would present the same surveillance considerations without the benefit of shared regional infrastructure.

A Department UAS program is the subject of a separate STO process. UAS may over time absorb some air support functions, but small UAS have limited flight endurance, range, and weather tolerance and cannot perform rescue support or sustained wide-area pursuit

Page 10 of 16 ends

Page 1344 ends

Page 7 ends

coordination. The Police Accountability Board’s March 17, 2026 letter noted the overlap between the two capabilities; the accompanying documents confine air support to the Council- enumerated purposes so that the two capabilities remain separately governed.

The Department could request air support while declining all imagery. This would preserve some operational benefit but forfeit evidentiary value, and would not change what the assisting agency’s systems record under that agency’s own policies.

11. Experience of Other Entities
To the extent such information is available, a summary of the experience of comparable government entities with the proposed technology, including any unanticipated financial or community costs and benefits, experienced by such other entities Receiving air support through mutual aid is the norm for cities of Berkeley’s size: most East Bay cities own no aircraft and rely on regional partners. The Oakland Police Department has operated camera-equipped patrol helicopters for over a decade. Oakland adopted a City Council-approved use policy for its helicopter thermal-imaging cameras in 2015- a process that preceded and helped shape Oakland’s Surveillance Technology Ordinance and files annual reports on the technology with its Privacy Advisory Commission. Oakland’s recent reporting reflects both active regional support, with its air unit documented assisting neighboring agencies’ investigations, and years of limited use, with its 2024 annual report stating that the reported camera system was used only for training that year and that no data was retained.

Publicly available reporting has also documented community costs where aerial surveillance exceeded incident-based use: a fixed-wing wide-area persistent surveillance program in Baltimore was held unlawful by the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021, and aerial monitoring of demonstrations in other jurisdictions has drawn sustained criticism. The mitigations in this report and the accompanying Surveillance Use Policy- incident-based deployment for enumerated purposes only, the prohibition on wide-area persistent surveillance and public reporting- are designed specifically to address these documented concerns.

Page 11 of 16 ends

Page 1345 ends

Page 1 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Policy 1308
Surveillance Use Policy- Mutual Aid Air Support
1308.1 PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the request, receipt, and use of Mutual Aid Air Support by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). The Department does not own or operate aircraft. Air support- helicopters and, where applicable, fixed-wing aircraft- is obtained through mutual aid from external law enforcement agencies pursuant to the framework adopted by the City Council on July 14, 2026, which rescinded Resolution No. 51,408-N.S. Aircraft operated by assisting agencies are typically equipped with camera systems, including gyro-stabilized electro-optical and thermal-infrared (“EO/IR”) sensors and, in some cases, encrypted video downlink. Those systems are surveillance technology within the meaning of BMC Chapter 2.99, and this policy governs the Department’s conduct with respect to them: the purposes for which air support may be requested, and the receipt, viewing, retention, and sharing of air support data by BPD.

The aircraft, sensors, and recordings of an assisting agency remain owned by that agency and governed by that agency’s own policies and oversight bodies; nothing in this policy modifies an assisting agency’s policies. This policy binds BPD personnel. This policy expressly prohibits the use or sharing of air support data for the purpose of supporting federal civil immigration enforcement or for the purpose of supporting the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights, abortion, or the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care. 1308.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Air support may be requested only with the pre-deployment approval of the on-duty Watch Commander or their designee, only in connection with an active incident documented in the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, and only for the following purposes enumerated by the City Council:
a. To assist in disaster response;
b. To assist in rescue efforts;
c. To locate missing persons;
d. When the safety of law enforcement personnel is in jeopardy and aerial presence may reduce that hazard;
e. To aid in the apprehension of a suspected fleeing felon whose continued freedom represents an ongoing threat to the community;
f. To locate a person who is missing and whose continued absence constitutes a serious health or safety hazard; and

Page 12 of 16 ends

Page 1346 ends

Page 2 ends

g. To provide aerial coordination during a vehicle pursuit, where such coordination can reduce collision risk to bystanders and improve incident resolution.

Every deployment shall be documented in the originating incident report. Within 72 hours of any deployment, the Chief of Police or a designee shall notify the City Manager in writing of the date, time, and location of the deployment; the requesting BPD supervisor and the assisting agency; the operational purpose; and a brief summary of the outcome.

Where an assisting agency offers a live video downlink, viewing is limited to personnel assigned to the incident, the Watch Commander, and Communications Center staff, for the duration of the incident. Recorded imagery may be obtained from the assisting agency only when relevant to a specific BPD case, through a documented evidence request.

Prohibited Uses
The following uses of Mutual Aid Air Support are prohibited:
• Use to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against any individual or group, or any use premised on a person’s or group’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristic.
• Use or sharing of air support data for the purpose of supporting federal civil immigration enforcement.
• Use or sharing of air support data with law-enforcement agencies from other states for the purpose of supporting the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights, abortion, or the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care. • Any request that an assisting agency deploy force from the air, or any use of a weaponized aerial platform.
• Any use for personal, political, commercial, or non-law-enforcement purposes. 1308.3 DATA COLLECTION
BPD does not operate the sensors on assisting agencies’ aircraft and does not control what those systems record. The categories of air support data that BPD may receive from supporting agencies are limited to:
• Live video downlink (visual and/or thermal), where offered by the assisting agency, viewed in connection with the active incident.
• Recorded video, thermal imagery, and still images obtained from the assisting agency in connection with a specific BPD case through a documented evidence request. • Observations relayed by the flight crew by radio, which are documented in CAD and incident reports in the ordinary course.
• Associated metadata (date, time, location) accompanying imagery received.

Page 13 of 16 ends

Page 1347 ends

Page 3 ends

The Department shall not request, receive, or retain air support imagery unrelated to the incident or case for which the deployment occurred.
1308.4 DATA ACCESS
Access to air support data received by the Department shall be limited to BPD personnel with a need to know in connection with the incident or case. Recorded imagery obtained by the Department shall be stored in the Department’s digital evidence management system, with role- based access controls, and access shall be logged and auditable. 1308.5 DATA PROTECTION
This program shall utilize a multi-layered security architecture to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the data:
• Air support data obtained by the Department shall be transferred agency-to-agency through secure evidence-transfer methods.
• Access shall be restricted to authorized personnel.
• Evidentiary data shall be stored in the Department’s digital evidence system. 1308.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION
To protect against use of Mutual Aid Air Support in ways that would violate or infringe upon civil rights or civil liberties, including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any community or group, the following safeguards apply:
• Requests are confined to the purposes enumerated by the City Council and require documented pre-deployment approval by the on-duty Watch Commander or designee. • The Department receives and retains only imagery relevant to the incident or a specific case.
• Every deployment is documented, reported in writing to the City Manager within 72 hours and included in an annual public report to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.
• All other access, retention, sharing, training, and audit provisions of this policy serve to protect against unauthorized use of air support data.
1308.7 DATA RETENTION
Air support imagery that the Department does not obtain remains with the assisting agency and is governed by that agency’s retention schedule. Imagery obtained by the Department in connection with a specific case shall be stored in the Department’s digital evidence management system and retained in accordance with state law and existing Departmental evidence-retention protocols. Imagery received in error, or determined to have no evidentiary value, shall not be retained.

Page 14 of 16 ends

Page 1348 ends

Page 4 ends

1308.8 PUBLIC ACCESS
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law. Requests for records derived from Mutual Aid Air Support that are held by the Department shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804. Records that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process. Records held only by an assisting agency are subject to that agency’s public-records processes.
1308.9 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
The Department’s receipt of air support data creates no independent authority to share that data with any third party. Air support data held by the Department may be shared only in accordance with Departmental evidence and records policies- for example, with a prosecuting agency in discovery or pursuant to a court order. Sharing for the purpose of supporting federal civil immigration enforcement is prohibited consistent with BPD Policy 423, the California Values Act, and the City’s sanctuary policies; any federal immigration access request shall be reported to the Chief of Police and to Council within 10 days; and any instance in which a federal agency obtains air support data held by the Department shall be reported consistent with the 72-hour federal-disclosure requirement of Policy 351.6. Sharing with out-of-state agencies for the purpose of supporting the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights, abortion, or the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care is prohibited.

The Department shall provide a copy of this policy to each mutual aid air support partner. 1308.10 TRAINING
All Watch Commanders and other BPD members authorized to request air support or to access air support data shall receive appropriate training before such authorization. 1308.11 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) shall audit all air support deployments at least twice per year. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD has not entered any direct data-sharing arrangements inconsistent with this policy.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of Mutual Aid Air Support pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints, or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any prohibited use of air support data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to BMC Section 2.99.020 2. d., and published on the City of Berkeley website. The annual public report on air support deployments required by the July 14, 2026 resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council and the Police Accountability Board.

Page 15 of 16 ends

Page 1349 ends

Page 5 ends

1308.12 MAINTENANCE
BPD owns and maintains no air support equipment. Aircraft and sensor systems are maintained by the assisting agencies. Department systems used to store air support data are maintained under the Department’s existing systems contracts.

Page 16 of 16 ends

Page 1350 ends

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report

INTRODUCTION
On July 10, 2024, the City Auditor submitted an audit report1 on the status of Restaurant Inspections to the City Council, including recommendations to improve the overall delivery of services for the food safety inspection program. This is the fourth status report updating the City Council on the implementation of those recommendations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The audit included nine recommendations. Since our last update on February 24, 2026, the implementation progress is as follows:
 Fully Implemented: Three recommendations are complete.  Partly Implemented: Four recommendations are underway.  Started: Two recommendations have commenced.

The full implementation of the four “partly implemented” recommendations depends on new technological solutions and adequate staffing. Progress has been significantly impacted by delays in the upgrade and conversion to the Accela database; the anticipated go-live date for the new database is January 2027. This database conversion has grown increasingly complex as the technical integration has progressed.

There was also a month delay in our fee proposal which has delayed the integration of these fees into the new database.

Once active, the new database will allow operators to make direct payments. Although this feature is a convenient option for the public, configuring the system to align with existing City financial processes and current transactional workflows has proven challenging. Nonetheless, staff are working in close collaboration with the City’s Finance and IT Departments and are making progress with the database vendor.

Additionally, food facility inspection reports will become accessible to the public via the new Accela database. EHD has been unable to publish these inspection reports online 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_Restaurant_Inspections_- _Chronically_Understaffed_Program_Did_Not_Meet_Targets.pdf

Page 1 of 8 ends

Page 1351 ends

Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 2 ends

due to 1) City’s shift away from attaching PDFs to web pages due to accessibility requirements, and 2) several reports are outdated or incomplete.

One of the recommendations is to establish a restaurant placarding system. Because a low placard score can directly and severely impact a business's revenue and reputation, the Environmental Health Division (EHD) is committed to ensuring absolute fairness, consistency, and accuracy before launching the system. To get this right, all food inspectors have completed formal “classroom” standardization training earlier in the year, which will be followed by field shadowing alongside a state-certified inspector.

Additionally, EHD is establishing clear checks and balances, documented administrative appeal procedures, and an automated inspection scoring system within the new database to ensure objective and reliable evaluations. The new placarding program will not begin until the new database is on-line stably and staff are confident it is functioning properly. The anticipated launch date for the placarding program is early Spring 2027.

Please see Attachment 1 for a detailed table outlining the audit recommendations, corrective action plans, and implementation progress. The next status report to Council is scheduled for presentation in the Fall of 2027.

BACKGROUND
This report represents the fourth status update provided to the City Council since the City Auditor released the Berkeley Restaurant Inspections audit report on July 10, 2024.

The audit highlighted how historical staffing shortages, pandemic emergency reassignments, and statewide hiring challenges created a backlog in routine food safety inspections. This update highlights key operational milestones achieved through the audit's recommendation framework:
 High-Risk Backlog Cleared: Addressing core audit findings regarding inspection delays, the EHD implemented revised policies to adapt to periods of understaffing while maintaining a baseline of at least one inspection per year.

EHD has now successfully inspected all high- and very-high-risk food facilities that were overdue from 2023.
 Enhanced Complaint Response: EHD updated its internal intake workflows to ensure all public and customer complaints regarding alleged foodborne illnesses are formally cataloged within 24 hours or one business day for rapid inspector prioritization.
 Technology Modernization & Public Transparency: While full execution of remaining audit items depends on the rollout of the new inspections database, now scheduled for launch in January 2027, the upgraded system is being built with a public-facing portal. While inspection data is not currently available through the City’s former Open Data portal, the Accela database implementation is intended to restore online public access to full inspection histories for all permitted food facilities in Berkeley through a new public facing portal.

Page 2 of 8 ends

Page 1352 ends

Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR September 29, 2026

Page 3 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects associated with the subject of this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Council could approve funding for two additional FTE Environmental Health inspector staff. Adequate program staffing is necessary to ensure the full implementation of the Auditor’s recommendation.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Implementation of the remaining audit recommendations may have fiscal impacts associated with staffing, database implementation, and a future placarding program.

Council previously directed staff to return during the FY 2027 Annual Appropriations Ordinance #1 process regarding the request for two additional Environmental Health FTEs. Any additional appropriation or staffing authorization will be presented to Council as part of that process.

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services (510) 981-5100 Attachments:
1: Food Inspections Recommendations Status Update Table – August 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

Page 1353 ends

Attachment 1
Audit Title: Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets
Issue Date: July 10, 2024
Table: Audit Recommendation Statuses
Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status
Update
Current Status Update
The
Division
was
significantly
behind on
inspections
in 2023,
increasing
health risk.

1.1 Develop a plan to
improve coverage of
routine inspections
throughout the City, which
may require the Division to
prioritize health and safety
duties over other
responsibilities. As part of
this process: (a) Evaluate
inspection targets to
determine if current
inspection frequencies are
achievable, or establish
different temporary targets
to adapt to periods of
understaffing. (b) Establish
a baseline of inspection
coverage for all permitted
food facilities in the City
and prioritize inspection of
facilities with high risk and
very high-risk designations
that were not inspected in
2023.

HHCS Implemented Implemented. The
Division developed new
policies that include
revised inspection
targets for periods of
short staffing and a
baseline of at least one
inspection per year.

According to the
Division, all high and
very high-risk facilities
that were not inspected
in 2023 have now been
inspected.

The
Division
was
significantly
behind on
inspections
in 2023,
increasing
health risk.

1.2 Develop a plan to
ensure timely response to
complaints involving
alleged foodborne illness,
which may require the
Division to prioritize health
and safety duties over
other responsibilities.

HHCS Implemented Implemented. The
Division has
strengthened its internal
policy for addressing
complaints in a timely
fashion. Policy
improvements include
documented
responsibilities for staff
to ensure complaints
are received by admin
staff and/or other
designated staff and
prioritized by inspectors
within 24 hours or one
business day.

Page 4 of 8 ends

Page 1354 ends

Page 2 ends

Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status
Update
Current Status Update
The
Division did
not track
spending
and left
critical
positions
vacant.

2.1 Work with the Budget
Office to track how the
food inspection program
revenues are used.

HHCS Partly Implemented Implemented. The
Division is able to track
and produce reports
comparing revenues
and expenditures
related to food facility
inspections for several
fiscal years.

The
Division did
not track
spending
and left
critical
positions
vacant.

2.2 Take the following
steps to fill positions and
assess program staffing:
(a) Open recruitment for
the supervisor position.
(b) If the recruitments for
the supervisor and food
inspector positions do not
yield qualified candidates,
work with the Human
Resources Department
(HR) to develop targeted
recruitments for the
inspector and supervisor
roles. This may include
conducting an analysis of
compensation or other
factors that affect
recruitment.
(c) Develop a trainee
program to build a pipeline
into the Division’s inspector
positions.
(d) Work with HR as
needed to identify staffing
resources needed to meet
inspection targets.

HHCS Partly Implemented Partly Implemented. In
June 2026, City Council
approved a new fee
schedule for food facility
permits that is expected
to increase revenue.

According to the
Division, Council
agreed to revisit their
request for 2 additional
FTEs to help meet
inspection targets
during the FY 2027
Annual Appropriations
Ordinance #1 process.

In a future update, the
Division will need to
show that it pursued
Council approval for
these 2 additional
FTEs. We will also
follow up on the
Division’s plans to
develop a training
program once staffing
stabilizes.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Page 1355 ends

Page 3 ends

Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status
Update
Current Status Update
The
Division did
not track
spending
and left
critical
positions
vacant.

2.3 Make the following
updates to the inspection
data:
(a) Add a risk designation
to all food facilities in the
Envision database.
(b) Correct the date of last
inspection in the Envision
software that inspectors
use during inspections, or
develop a workaround to
ensure inspectors have an
accurate list of facilities
prioritized by last
inspection date.
(c) Develop a process to
regularly verify that the
Envision database includes
all food facilities that
should be permitted and
inspected.

HHCS Partly Implemented Partly implemented.

The Division postponed
the release date of the
new inspections
database from summer
2026 to fall 2026 to
complete the
preparation needed for
it to go live. To mark
this recommendation as
implemented, the
Division would need to
confirm the new
database can produce
an accurate list of
facilities prioritized by
the last inspection date.

The
Division did
not track
spending
and left
critical
positions
vacant.

2.4 Work with the
Department of Information
Technology (IT) to develop
list of database
functionalities and/or data
points needed to help meet
the Division’s targets and
produce reports. If the
current database cannot
provide this functionality,
document the limitations of
the current database and
include these requirements
in the future request for
proposals for a new
database.

HHCS Partly Implemented Partly implemented.

The Division postponed
the release date of the
new inspections
database from summer
2026 to fall 2026 to
complete the
preparation needed for
it to go live. We will
reassess the status of
this recommendation
once the new database
is in place.

Page 6 of 8 ends

Page 1356 ends

Page 4 ends

Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status
Update
Current Status Update
The
Division did
not track
spending
and left
critical
positions
vacant.

2.5 Identify performance
metrics and report them to
the public at least annually.

HHCS Partly Implemented Partly implemented.

The Division has
finalized the
performance metrics for
the Food Safety and
Inspection program.

However, the Division
will wait until the new
database goes live to
track and report these
measures. We will
reassess the status of
this recommendation
once the new database
is in place.

Public
information
about food
safety was
limited.

3.1 Work with Department
of Information Technology
(IT) to update the online
system for sharing
information on food
inspections. As part of this
process:
(a) Develop internal
guidance informed by state
code that details what
information the Division will
share with the public online
and defines responsibility
for managing the data.
(b) Make inspection history
available online for all
permitted food facilities in
Berkeley. This could
include sharing a copy of
the most recent inspection
report.

HHCS Not Started Started. Since our last
follow up, the Division
has not returned to
publishing food
inspections information
online after it removed
this information from the
City’s Open Data Portal.

According to the
Division, they have
started to work with IT
and Finance to prepare
to launch the new
inspections database
with a public facing
portal. The estimated
launch date for the new
inspections database
has been delayed from
summer 2026 to fall
2026.

Page 7 of 8 ends

Page 1357 ends

Page 5 ends

Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status
Update
Current Status Update
Public
information
about food
safety was
limited.

3.2 Develop a plan to
implement placarding in
Berkeley once staffing
levels are stable. As part of
this process:
(a) Assess resources
needed to implement
placarding.
(b) Consider adding
elements such as
community engagement for
designing and
implementing evidence-
based, equitable
placarding.

HHCS Started Started. Since our last
follow up, all of the
Division's food
inspectors completed a
training on food
inspection
standardization, which
is the first step in the
inspection
standardization
process. The next
training step will be
shadowing with certified
inspectors. Additionally,
according to the
Division, the new
database will be set up
to work with a
placarding program and
will include a scoring
system for inspections.

To mark this
recommendation as
implemented, the
Division would need to
develop a documented
plan or procedures for a
future placarding
process.

Page 8 of 8 ends

Page 1358 ends

Office of the City Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources Subject: UPDATE: HR Response: Audit Recommendations for Comprehensive Domestic Violence Policy to Support City Employees

INTRODUCTION
This report is an informational update on the implementation of recommendations from the City Auditor report titled “Domestic Violence Response: Berkeley Needs a Comprehensive Policy to Support City Employees,” issued on October 10, 2019. The audit recommended revisions to the City’s domestic violence policy and implementation of best practices to support employees experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. This is Human Resources’ fifth status report regarding this audit and all recommendations are now implemented.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The audit included six recommendations. All six recommendations are now implemented. Five recommendations were implemented through Administrative Regulation 2.21, Domestic Abuse, which became effective September 2, 2025 and is available to City employees through the City’s intranet. Those revisions broadened the scope and title of the policy; updated pertinent definitions; clarified factors considered when evaluating workplace accommodations; addressed documentation supporting leave and accommodation requests; and incorporated best practices for an inclusive, trauma-informed response.

Human Resources has also completed training materials supporting A.R. 2.21 and the City’s response to domestic violence affecting employees, satisfying the remaining recommendation.

The self-directed NEOGOV Learn course provides employees an opportunity to review A.R.

2.21 and complete a knowledge check. The course materials remain available as a training resource. Departments may assign the course based on the needs of their work, and Human Resources will use the materials for targeted training. The City Auditor has reviewed the implementation evidence and marked Recommendation 3.1 implemented.

Attachment 1 provides the final status of the audit recommendations and corrective actions as recorded in Missionmark.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 1359 ends

Domestic Violence Policy Audit Status Report Information Calendar September 29, 2026

BACKGROUND
The City Auditor’s Office issued the audit report on October 10, 2019. Human Resources provided its first informational update on November 3, 2022, its second on May 14, 2024, its third in December 2024, and its fourth in 2025. This report is Human Resources’ fifth and final informational update for the audit.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

Attachments:

1. Audit Findings, Recommendations, and Final Status Updates (Missionmark)

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1360 ends

Attachment 1
Audit Title: Domestic Violence Response: Berkeley Needs a Comprehensive Policy to Support City Employees
Issue Date: October 10, 2019
Table: Audit Recommendation Statuses
Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status Update Current Status Update Policy does
not
completely
reflect state
requirements.

1.1 Define and include
sexual assault, stalking,
and witnesses’ rights.

Human
Resources
Implemented Implemented. The new
domestic violence
response policy
includes definitions for
sexual assault, stalking,
and witness rights.

Policy does
not
completely
reflect state
requirements.

1.2 State that when
assessing safety
accommodations, Human
Resources takes into
consideration danger to
the employee and undue
burden to the employer.

Human
Resources
Implemented Implemented. The
updated policy takes
into consideration
danger to the employee
and undue burden to
the employer.

Policy does
not
completely
reflect state
requirements.

1.3 Revise the policy title
to reflect the
comprehensive scope of
the policy.

Human
Resources
Implemented Implemented. The
updated policy is now
titled "Leave Policy for
Absence Related to
Acts of Violence".

Policy does
not
completely
reflect state
requirements.

1.4 Clarify that
requirements for
employees to document
their use of leave or
request for
accommodations are at
the discretion of Human
Resources and may
include self‐certification
when appropriate. We also
recommend that Human
Resources clarify that
employees are
encouraged to come to
Human Resources for
assistance even if they do
not initially have the
documentation that may
be requested.

Human
Resources
Implemented Implemented. The
updated policy includes
information about
self‐certification and
encourages employees
to come to Human
Resources for
assistance.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 1361 ends

Page 2 ends

Finding Recommendation Department Previous Status Update Current Status Update Policy does
not address
key
workplace
Domestic
violence
issues.

2.1 Incorporate the model
policy and all best practice
elements described in this
finding, and communicate
this guidance to city staff.

Human
Resources
Implemented Implemented. The
updated policy includes
model policy elements
and has been uploaded
to Sharepoint for
citywide employee
access.

Berkeley
needs to
prepare all
staff to
comply with
the policy.

3.1 Implement best
practices, including:
‐ Training supervisors and
Human Resources staff
about their role in
responding to employees
experiencing domestic
violence and providing
information for employees
about the domestic
violence response policy;
‐ Conducting periodic
outreach to employees to
inform them about the
policy, encourage them to
come forward, and provide
general information about
domestic violence;
‐ Facilitating collaboration
among city staff who have
a role in implementing the
policy, and convening a
domestic violence
response team to advise
on policies, ongoing
outreach and education,
and Human Resources’
implementation of
recommendations from
this audit; and
‐ Adopting a trauma-
informed and inclusive
approach.

Human
Resources
Partly Implemented Implemented. The HR
Training unit developed
training materials for
distribution which
provide staff with the
Administration
Regulation 2.21 and
tests knowledge that
the employee has read
and understands the
policy. This training is
now available on
NeoGov Learn.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 1362 ends

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jamie Parks, Director, Public Works
Subject: Response to City Council’s Motion Regarding Refinements to the Telegraph Multimodal Corridor Project Design Approved at the October 28, 2025 Meeting of the Berkeley City Council

SUMMARY
On October 28, 2025, the City Council approved Concept Design 3B for the Telegraph Multimodal Corridor Project (Dwight Way to Woolsey Street). Concept 3B was selected for its balance of safety, transit benefits, loading needs, and community preference. As part of the action to approve Concept Design 3B, Council provided three specific directives to ensure the design prioritizes transit and creates new public open space.

The Council directives are: 1) develop a final design that prioritizes decreasing transit travel time; 2) create a possibility for the City to eventually change course to replace parking with dedicated bus lanes; and 3) provide multiple designs that would close the Dwight Triangle slip lane.

Based on further design refinements and subsequent analysis, staff has refined the approved Concept 3B into a final concept design (referred to herein as “Concept 3C”).

This memo addresses the three City Council directives and describes the changes made to Concept 3B in response. Staff plan to move forward with Concept 3C.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
DIRECTIVE 1: PRIORITIZE TRANSIT
Develop a final design that prioritizes decreasing transit travel time within the Concept 3B framework.

The initial Concept 3B design was modeled to result in a 4% increase in transit travel time compared to existing conditions. Put differently, it would take a transit vehicle 5.2-6.0 minutes to travel the 0.85-mile corridor compared to 4.8-6.1 minutes under existing conditions, depending on time of day and direction of travel. In response to Council’s directive, the consultant team analyzed further refinements—specifically extending the length of bus-only lanes and adding more queue jumps to allow buses to bypass stopped traffic at intersections. The revised analysis that produced Concept 3C shows that extending bus-only lanes for two additional blocks and adding queue jumps at Stuart

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 1363 ends

Response to City Council’s Motion Regarding Refinements to the INFORMATION CALENDAR Telegraph Multimodal Corridor Project Design Approved at the September 29, 2026 October 28, 2025 Meeting of the Berkeley City Council

Page 2 ends

Street in addition to Ashby Avenue results in a modeled 10% reduction in transit travel times compared to existing conditions. For example, under Concept 3C, transit vehicles would travel the project corridor in about 4.5-5.4 minutes, depending on time of day and direction of travel. These treatments recover significant transit travel time by allowing buses to bypass general traffic at key bottlenecks, shifting from a predicted transit delay to a net gain in transit speed and reliability.

The new Concept 3C design would remove 74 more parking spaces than Concept 3B to construct the extended bus-only lanes. These 74 parking spaces are in addition to the approximately 33 parking spaces already estimated for removal under Concept 3B, for a total net reduction of about 107 parking spaces on Telegraph Ave between Dwight Way and Woolsey St. There are currently about 257 existing parking spaces along this stretch of Telegraph Ave.

Based on the 2024 total parking revenue of $251,346 collected across the 257 parking spaces on this stretch of Telegraph Avenue, the baseline average generates approximately $978 per space annually. If a simple linear calculation were applied, eliminating 107 parking spaces would project a gross loss of $104,646 in parking revenue per year. However, data from May 2026 indicates that parking occupancy on this stretch was only 45%, revealing a high vacancy rate of 55%. Because this substantial vacancy capacity allows the remaining parking supply to absorb the existing demand, this linear calculation is highly conservative and represents the maximum potential revenue loss to the Parking Meter Fund.

DIRECTIVE 2: FUTURE-PROOFING FOR BUS LANE CONVERSION
Create a possibility for Berkeley to eventually change course to replace parking with dedicated bus lanes.

With regard to a flexible design, Concept 3C that staff plan to implement includes safety features like concrete islands at intersections and medians, where feasible. While this design would be more costly to remove and replace in the future than a “quick-build” design featuring temporary materials, permanent concrete islands offer more safety benefits, reduced maintenance costs, and offer opportunities for green infrastructure to allow the City to comply with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Water Board) Municipal Regional Permit. The permit requires the City of Berkeley to include Low Impact Development features on public streets—such as bioswales, rain gardens, and permeable pavement—to capture and filter pollutants from stormwater runoff before it reaches the San Francisco Bay. These features are only possible with concrete islands.

Staff’s plan is based on the experience of the City of Oakland on the southern portion of the Telegraph Avenue corridor between 20th Street to 29th Street. Oakland initially implemented "quick-build" protected bike lanes on Telegraph Avenue using plastic bollards, paint, and planters, which are typically more flexible and less costly to remove.

However, the City of Oakland replaced these temporary features with concrete curbs

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 1364 ends

Page 3 ends

and islands due to several documented findings from a multi-year evaluation of the corridor:
 Maintenance Challenges: OakDOT's progress reports documented that the flexible plastic posts were frequently struck and destroyed by vehicles. This created an ongoing, resource-intensive burden for maintenance staff who had to repeatedly replace the posts to maintain the integrity of the bike lane buffer.  Parking and Loading Encroachment: The plastic bollards failed to physically prevent vehicle encroachment. The evaluation showed that delivery drivers and private vehicles frequently ran over or parked between the plastic posts to load, compromising safety and forcing cyclists to merge into mixed traffic.  Merchant and Community Feedback on Aesthetics: In public surveys and business outreach coordinated by the Koreatown Northgate (KONO) Business Improvement District, local merchants expressed strong dissatisfaction with the "interim" quick-build aesthetic. The community feedback indicated that the plastic posts looked cluttered and cheap, and businesses actively petitioned the city for permanent concrete curbs and landscaped planters to elevate the corridor’s visual appeal.

DIRECTIVE 3: CLOSE THE DWIGHT TRIANGLE SLIP LANE
Provide multiple designs that would close the Dwight Triangle slip lane.

Staff developed two implementation options in response to this directive: 1) Option A, a "Tactical" approach, which has lower costs and can be constructed more quickly; and 2) Option B, a “Capital-intensive” approach, which has higher costs to transform the open space into a high-quality public plaza with opportunity for programming. Both options require modification to the intersection of Dwight/Telegraph, including the traffic signals, to provide for emergency vehicles (primary route) and AC Transit Buses turning right onto Telegraph from eastbound Dwight Way.

Given the immediate safety needs at this intersection, staff plan to implement Option A.

With Option A, the City will make improvements faster than Option B. Option A also provides a "proof of concept" for the closure and opportunity to engage the community prior to committing to a permanent solution. Option A has a lower implementation cost, which is an important factor for obtaining grant funding for construction and delivering the overall Telegraph project on schedule.

Option A will use temporary materials like movable planters and decorative street painting to close the slip lane. This option allows for relatively quick implementation and affords the opportunity to "test" the configuration, engage the community with iterative design, and assess use patterns before designing a permanent solution. The estimated construction cost for Option A is $1,200,000-$1,300,000.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 1365 ends

Page 4 ends

Option B would raise the slip lane to sidewalk grade, resolve impacts to stormwater flow, and install all curb and gutter closures creating a level area to develop as a plaza.

The estimated construction cost for Option B is $2,000,000-$3,000,000.

The Telegraph Multimodal Corridor Project advances the Strategic Plan goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities; create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city; and, be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
Aligned with past Council actions to address one of the City’s top high-injury streets, the Telegraph Avenue project delivers on key local and regional plans. It advances the 2020 Vision Zero Action Plan by proactively building safer streets, fulfills the Bicycle Plan's call for a high-priority Tier 1 project, and aligns with the Pedestrian Plan and the General Plan’s Transit-First Policy. Additionally, regional studies from AC Transit and the Alameda County Transportation Commission highlight Telegraph Avenue as a critical corridor with high potential for transit ridership growth, noting that redesigning the corridor could ultimately improve bus speeds and reliability beyond current conditions.

During the May 21, 2026 meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission, staff presented an informational update on the refined Concept 3C design, including the plans and responses above, and previewed upcoming project phases. Following the presentation, commissioners expressed their strong appreciation for the update and thanked City staff for integrating Commission and City Council feedback directly into these Concept 3C design modifications.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Installation of protected bikeways and improving pedestrian crossings is anticipated to increase walking and biking, which is consistent with the 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan Policy that calls for expanding and improving the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Installation of bus boarding islands, bus-only lanes, and queue jumps improve bus reliability and decrease travel times, making on-street transit a more attractive mode of transportation. The 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan sets targets of reducing transportation emissions 33% below year 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050. The Plan further states that transportation modes such as public transit, walking, and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling the City’s mobility needs to meet these targets.

Environmental review per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be conducted in the subsequent phase of the Project. It is anticipated that the Project will be statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15304(h) – Minor Alterations to Land, 15301 – Existing Facilities, 21080.20 – Transportation Plans, Pedestrian Plans, and Bicycle Transportation Plans, or 21080.25.

Staff anticipate filing a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this Project.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 1366 ends

Page 5 ends

If the Project receives federal funding in the future, the Project would be subject to environmental review per the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Based on recent similar projects such as the Southside Complete Streets Project, staff anticipate that the Project would be Categorically Excluded from significant environmental impacts under NEPA, but that determination would be made as part of a subsequent environmental phase if federal funding for construction is awarded.

FUTURE ACTION
The City will be initiating a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a qualified consultant to assist staff with engineering Concept 3C to the 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the project.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF FUTURE ACTION
The PS&E phase is funded with $1,011,000 from Measure BB Fund 135 and Vehicle Registration funds Fund 133 from the Alameda County Transportation Commission (approved by the Berkeley City Council on October 15, 2024 [Resolution No. 71,538- N.S.], and the Alameda County Transportation Commission on May 8, 2025).

Construction of the project remains unfunded.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Helmbrecht, Transportation Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6403 Elliott Schwimmer, Senior Planner, Public Works, 510-981-7066

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 1367 ends

Page 1368 ends

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Planning Commission
Submitted by: Emily Marthinsen, Chair, Planning Commission Subject: Planning Commission Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan

INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley Planning Commission (PC) hereby submits a work plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27. The spreadsheet within Attachment 1 identifies the specific items prioritized.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
At its meeting on July 1, 2026, the Commission reviewed and approved its FY 2026-27 Work Plan (Attachment 1).1 The Commission also provided additional guidance for Council referrals that staff identified that could be started without additional funding, prioritizing the Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH), Neighborhood-serving retail in residential zones (particularly in areas where these non- conforming uses already exist), and to develop an Efficiency Unit Ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is providing this informational report about its FY 2026-27 Work Plan pursuant to the City Council’s 2016 formal action to require commissions to annually submit a work plan to Council in this format. At the July 1, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission considered information prepared by staff, including actions completed to date from the previous work plan, available staff resources, and the proposed work plan for FY 2026-2027.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Planning Commission’s work plan advances the City’s sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals by focusing on creating housing and business opportunities in areas of high resources and frequent transit. 1 Planning Commission vote to approve workplan and send to Council: Motion/Second: Kahn/Sanderson.

Ayes: Bechtolsheim, Marthinsen, Kahn, Owens, Sanderson, Twu. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:

Hauser, Oatfield, Wang [6-0-0-3].

Page 1 of 12 ends

Page 1369 ends

FY 2026-27 PC Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 29, 2026

Page 2 ends

The FY 2026-27 Planning Commission Work Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that it is solely administrative in nature and would have no adverse effect on the environment.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Based on recommendations received from PC, City Council may refer additional work to the City Manager.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
As identified by staff, some referrals already adopted by Council would require additional funding prior to starting work. Future new referrals to the City Manager may require additional staff and/or funding.

CONTACT PERSON(S)
Alisa Shen, Co-Secretary to the Planning Commission, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7489.

Justin Horner, Co-Secretary to the Planning Commission, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7476.

Attachment:

1. Staff report regarding FY 2026-27 Planning Commission Work Plan (Planning Commission Meeting of July 1, 2026)

Page 2 of 12 ends

Page 1370 ends

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 1, 2026
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Alisa Shen, Principal Planner
Subject: FY 2026 – 2027 Planning Commission (PC) Work Plan RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the Planning Commission review and approve the proposed Planning Commission Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 - 2027.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
This report provides background information about the work plan, including an update about work from the previous work plan completed to date, available staff resources, and the proposed work plan for FY 2026-2027.

In 2016 the City Council took formal action directing all boards and commissions to submit a work plan to the City Council in the form of an informational report. A Commission's work plan should contain the Commission's mission statement, goals, and resources. Pursuant to the City Charter, the mission of the Planning Commission is as follows:
“The Commission recommends modifications to the City of Berkeley General Plan and related policy documents. All Zoning Ordinance amendments are developed through this Commission and recommended to the City Council. Other purviews include subdivision map consideration and review and comments on substantial projects from surrounding jurisdictions.”
FY 2025-2026 Work Plan Update
The following projects included in the FY 2025-2026 workplan have been completed:
• ADU State Law Compliance (Planning Commission: March 3, 2025; City Council:

July 27, 2025)
• Middle Housing Zoning and General Plan Amendments (Planning Commission:

February 27 and October 9, 2024; City Council June 26, 2025) Item 10C: FY2026-27 PC Work Plan
Staff Report
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3 of 12 ends

Page 1371 ends

FY 2026-2027 PC Work Plan July 1, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

• Assembly Bill 1033 Implementation: ADU Condominium Ordinance (Planning Commission: May 7, 2025: City Council: September 16, 2025) • Amendments to Allow the Retail Sale of Alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) Zoning District (Planning Commission: November 5, 2025; City Council December 2, 2025)
• Senate Bill 684 Implementation: Amendments to Title 21 Subdivisions and Title 23 Zoning (Planning Commission: October 8, 2025; City Council February 24, 2026)
• Amendments to Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Landmarks Preservation Commission: February 5 and April 6, 2026; City Council April 14, 2026)

Staff Resources
The policy team currently consists of four full-time employees: two Principal Planners and two Associate Planners. From 2023 through 2026, the team consisted of eight full- time employees (FTE). However, over the past year, one temporary, grant-funded Senior Planner position expired, and three additional positions (a Senior Planner, an Associate Planner and an Assistant Planner) became vacant. Due to the City’s current budget shortfall, the Planning and Development Department anticipates filling only two of the vacant positions within the policy team—a Senior Planner and Assistant Planner—and plans to share an Associate position with the project planning team. Once these recruitment efforts are complete, the policy team will consist of 6.5 FTE. The policy team is funded through the City’s General Fund and from the Permit Service Center Fund and may receive additional funding from outside grants.

FY 2026-2027 Planning Commission Work Plan
The proposed FY 2026-2027 Planning Commission work plan, summarized below, reflects existing staffing levels and other resources (Attachment 1). • Ongoing Annual Reporting, Implementation and Administration. Staff have ongoing administrative responsibilities, including staffing the zoning counter at the Permit Service Center, staffing the Planning Commission, and internal administration, including staff meetings, supporting interdepartmental and interagency planning efforts, professional development, and other related activities. In addition, the Planning and Development (PDD) Department regularly provides support to other City Departments and/or needs to respond to outside agencies, which require detailed policy analysis, the preparation of formal responses, and oftentimes consultation with the City Attorney, the City Council, and other staff.

PDD also has an ongoing requirement to produce General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports for the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD), the Department of Finance (DOF) and Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). Staff also periodically prepare staff- initiated zoning amendments and/or General Plan amendments that are necessary to ensure consistency with new State laws and/or clarify or correct non-substantive errors.

Item 10C: FY2026-27 PC Work Plan
Staff Report
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 4 of 12 ends

Page 1372 ends

FY 2026-2027 PC Work Plan July 1, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

In addition, several recently completed projects referred by City Council require substantial staff time to train staff and inform the public about new processes, such as ministerial permit pathways for SB 684-compliant small-lot subdivisions and middle housing zoning applications.
• Active Projects Continuing in FY 2026-2027. There are several complex, multi- year planning projects underway that implement State mandates and/or Housing Element policies and programs. Projects in this category include the update to the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan, the preparation of the City’s first Environmental Justice Element, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Ashby BART station area planning, and the Corridors Zoning Update. Staff also anticipate completing other smaller projects including requirements for undergrounding utilities and reporting back on Home Occupation amendments (enacted in February 2021).
• Projects Anticipated to Start in FY 2026-2027. Staff have identified the projects listed below that can be started with existing staff and budget resources in FY 2026-2027 as staff capacity becomes available with completion of active projects and the filling of vacant positions.
o State-mandated Projects:
▪ Historic Context Statement pursuant to the City’s 2023 -2031 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report.
▪ Update to the General Plan Open Space Element.
o Projects Implementing City Plans:
▪ Local Density Bonus for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area. o City Council-referred Projects:

The following projects were ranked by the City Council as part of their referral prioritization using “Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV), adopted on February 10, 2026:
▪ Neighborhood Scale Commercial in Residential Zones (RRV #8). ▪ Affordable Housing for Artists: AB-812 Implementation and Cultural District Statutory Standardization (RRV #12).
▪ Efficiency Unit Ordinance: study and propose standards for Efficiency Units (RRV #24).

The City Council also approved the following Council referral on March 10, 2026, and recommended funding it through the FY27 budget process on June 16, 2026: the Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning (Attachment 2).
➢ Question for the Planning Commission: Given that PITCH has been budgeted by the City Council, how should this project be prioritized relative to the other Council-referred projects?

• Projects to Be Started, Pending Additional Funding. Staff have determined that several outstanding referrals cannot be initiated without budgeted funding for consultant services for legally required environmental review, specialized design Item 10C: FY2026-27 PC Work Plan
Staff Report
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 5 of 12 ends

Page 1373 ends

FY 2026-2027 PC Work Plan July 1, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

activities, and other technical work that we do not have the capacity to implement at current staffing levels. These projects include:
o Rezoning Gilman from San Pablo Avenue to I-80 for Commercial Uses (RRV #4).
o Explore zoning modifications for added density as way to help offset costs added to projects by new HARDHATS ordinance (RRV #5).
o Objective Design Standards in Middle Housing zoning districts (RRV #21).

CONTACT PERSON
Alisa Shen, Co-Secretary to the Planning Commission, Principal Planner [email protected], (510) 981-7409.

Attachments:

1. Proposed FY 2026-2027 Planning Commission Work Plan

2. Council Referral: Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning, approved March 10, 2026.

Item 10C: FY2026-27 PC Work Plan
Staff Report
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 6 of 12 ends

Page 1374 ends

Item 10C: FY 2026-27 PC Work Plan
ATT 1: FY 26-27 Work Plan
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026
Planning Commission n/a
Permit Service Center and Other Planning and Zoning Support n/a Implementation & Research n/a
Source Annual Reporting/Recurring Projects RRV 2026 Ranking State Law State General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report n/a State Law State Law Technical Edits to Zoning Ordinance n/a Source Active Projects RRV 2026 Ranking
State Law General Plan: Update Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element, New Environmental Justice Element, and Climate Resilience Metrics n/a
Housing Element
(Program 28) BART Station Area Planning: Ashby and North Berkeley BART n/a Housing Element
(Programs 27 & 33) Corridors Rezoning (College, Solano, North Shattuck Avenues) n/a Housing Element
(Program 27) San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan n/a
Council Referral to the Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission to research and recommend policies to prevent displacement and gentrification of Berkeley residents of color n/a Council Report back on Home Occupation amendments enacted in February 2021 n/a Source Projects Anticipated to Start in FY 2026-2027 RRV 2026 Ranking HE EIR Mitigation
Measure Cul-1 Historical Context Statement n/a
HE (Program 27) General Plan Open Space Element Update n/a San Pablo Avenue
Specfic Plan Local Density Bonus for the SPASP n/a
Council Neighborhood-scale Commercial in Residential Zones 8 Council Affordable Housing for Artists: AB-812 implementation and Cultural District statutory standardization 12 Council Efficiency Unit Ordinance: study and propose standards for Efficiency Units 24 Council Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) ** Source Projects Requiring Additional Funding to Start RRV 2026 Ranking Council Rezone Gilman for commercial uses from San Pablo Ave to I-80 to maximize revenue generation 4 Council Explore zoning modifications for added density as way to help offset costs added to projects by new HARDHATS ordinance 5
Council Objective Design Standards in Middle Housing zoning districts 21 *City Council Referral Ranking using the Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV) system, approved February 10, 2026. **City Council-referred on March 10, 2026 and recommended for funding through the FY27 budget process on June 16, 2026.

Source Core Responsibilities RRV 2026 Ranking*
Administration

Page 7 of 12 ends

Page 1375 ends

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Item Number: 13
Item Description: Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning
Submitted by: Councilmember Humbert, Mayor Ishii, Councilmember Bartlett
The attached revises Item 13, Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning, to add flexibility to the proposed goal base height along Telegraph Avenue in order to explore base height options that optimize for the provision of inclusionary affordable housing units. It also revises the item to specify that any necessary General Plan amendments would be part of the planning process. 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7180 Fax: 510.981.7188 E-Mail: [email protected]
Item 10A: SB 79 and AB 893
ATT 2: Supplemental Agenda Material from
March 10, 2026 Council Meeting
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 8 of 12 ends

Page 1376 ends

ACTION CONSENT CALENDAR
January 27March 10, 2026
To: Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert (Author);
Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Author);
Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Co-Author)
Subject: Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) as a standalone rezoning effort to proactively and equitably increase housing stock in southeast Berkeley’s high-resource areas. This project would seek to:

1. Rezone the Telegraph Avenue corridor south of Parker Street to the Oakland border at Woolsey Street from the current C-C (Commercial-Corridor) district to the C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial) district (or similar), allowing for taller mixed-use housing development, with a goal of base zoning of 8 stories/85 feet, potentially adjusted to optimize production of affordable inclusionary units.

2. Identify and upzone specific auto-oriented C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) parcels in the Claremont and Ashby area (near Domingo Avenue) from their current 2–3 story limits to 4–6 stories using existing or new zoning districts.

3. Allocate funding from the District 8 office budget to begin required planning, General Plan amendments, and/or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the proposed zoning changes.

SUMMARY
This item proposes a new, targeted rezoning effort to deliver a substantial and equitable increase in zoned housing capacity in District 8 (and limited portions of District 3 along Telegraph). The Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) focuses on the under-utilized Telegraph Avenue corridor, which offers significant capacity (estimated up to 5,700 new units), excellent transit access, and larger, more easily developable parcels.

By simultaneously applying targeted upzoning to auto-o
riented sites in the highest-resource
Claremont neighborhood, the project would fulfill Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and other Housing Element goals by expanding housing opportunities into the highest-resource parts of Berkeley. This strategic approach ensures a significant and geographically equitable Item 10A: SB 79 and AB 893
ATT 2: Supplemental Agenda Material from
March 10, 2026 Council Meeting
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 9 of 12 ends

Page 1377 ends

contribution to Berkeley's housing goals, while potentially relieving pressure on more commercially and architecturally sensitive areas.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The estimated cost to execute the necessary initial planning, staff time, any General Plan amendments, and comprehensive environmental review (CEQA) for PITCH is $250,000. To ensure the viability and timely commencement of this project, Councilmember Humbert commits to funding:
● $ 100,000180,000 from his Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 office budget. ● $ 50,00070,000 from his FY 2027 office budget.

The total contribution of $1250,000 helps make the project viable for immediate launch, allowing theany unexpected balance or contingency to be secured from other general City fundsthe City’s general fund and/or grant opportunities in FY 2027/2028.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Telegraph Avenue, from Parker Street south to the Oakland border, is currently zoned C-C, which sets a base zoning for development of 3-story mixed-use or residential buildings. This represents a severe under-utilization of a key corridor located in a High Resource zone (slated to be upgraded to a Highest Resource area by 2026 TCAC maps) and which features wide street sections (~66’ of traffic lanes) and large parcels ideal for higher-density housing.

Furthermore, new housing production has been disproportionately low in the highest-resource neighborhoods of District 8, such as Claremont. Although certain portions of the Claremont area have recently seen their housing capacity increase due to the City’s Middle Housing efforts, fire risks and a limited number of underutilized non-residential parcels mean that, absent this project, this area is unlikely to contribute appreciably to the creation of new homes in Berkeley.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a State mandate and made local commitments to increase housing production in high-resource, transit-rich areas. Telegraph Avenue's length, infrastructure, and under-developed parcels present an excellent opportunity for high-density housing. The State of California's new law (SB 79) will already require upzoning near Ashby BART (District 3) and the adjacent Telegraph/Alcatraz area, making a comprehensive upzoning of the entire Telegraph corridor both a logical and proactive step.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This project is an effective approach to better meeting Berkeley’s housing and equity goals:

Item 10A: SB 79 and AB 893
ATT 2: Supplemental Agenda Material from
March 10, 2026 Council Meeting
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 10 of 12 ends

Page 1378 ends

● Increasing Housing Capacity on Telegraph: Rezoning Telegraph to C-T (8-s tories) is
projected to create a zoned housing capacity of up to around 5,700 units—a vital contribution to Berkeley’s housing stock.
● Equitable Development:
○ The Telegraph corridor is located in a High Resource area and the project will better satisfy Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals. ○ Including the Claremont area (targeting auto-oriented uses near Ashby and Domingo) creates new housing opportunities in one of Berkeley’s highest resource neighborhoods, diversifying housing options and providing walkable retail access to residents.
● Infrastructure Alignment: The project aligns new development with the City's investment in the Telegraph Multimodal Corridors project, which includes bus lanes and a protected cycletrack to improve transit and cycling infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project promotes environmental sustainability and climate action by increasing housing development along the high-frequency 6-Telegraph AC Transit bus route, which also features good access to jobs, shopping, and other urban amenities. This location encourages car-free or car-lite living and would serve to reduce the carbon footprint associated with auto use relative to housing in other areas of Berkeley and especially outside Berkeley.

Encouraging infill development also has the effect of reducing development pressure on agricultural and wildland areas, helping preserve them as natural and working lands.

Subsequent completion of any required General Plan amendments and/or CEQA review will ensure all environmental impacts are fully assessed and, if necessary, mitigated before zoning changes are enacted.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This referral represents the first step in a longer process that would involve substantial additional staff work, public engagement, subsequent Council input, environmental review, and subsequent Council votes to approve any rezoning, General Plan amendments, and associated CEQA documentation.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The project is made more fiscally viable by the immediate financial commitment from Councilmember Humbert's office. Subsequent fiscal impacts include increased property tax revenue from new housing development, increased sales tax revenue from more residents and subsequent foot traffic, and increased transit ridership on the 6-line, which will help AC Transit address its fiscal shortfall.

Item 10A: SB 79 and AB 893
ATT 2: Supplemental Agenda Material from
March 10, 2026 Council Meeting
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 11 of 12 ends

Page 1379 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Mark Humbert — [email protected], 510-981-7180

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Preliminary Buildout Analysis
Item 10A: SB 79 and AB 893
ATT 2: Supplemental Agenda Material from
March 10, 2026 Council Meeting
Planning Commission
July 1, 2026

Page 12 of 12 ends

Page 1380 ends

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

Berkeley City CouncilSeptember 29, 2026

Berkeley City Council
September 29, 2026