Berkeley City Council
September 29, 2026

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 19 of 50 Land Use Planning Policies and Gaps
Existing Land Use Policies and Standards
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation along the entire San Pablo Avenue frontage is Avenue Commercial. The land use designations for properties adjacent to the corridor include Manufacturing, Manufacturing Mixed-Use, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. The Study Area, beyond the Specific Plan Area, includes a broader range of land uses including Neighborhood Commercial , Institutional, Open Space, and Low Density Residential in addition to those above. See Figure 12.

Figure 12. Berkeley General Plan. Source: City of Berkeley, 2023.

2023-2031 Housing Element Update
The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (as amended on February 17, 2023) identifies the City’s specific housing needs and outlines goals, policies, and programs to address them, including housing affordability and diversity. The City also provides annual reports on its progress toward meeting Housing Element Program objectives.

Some key 2023-2031 Housing Element Update goals and programs include:

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 20 of 50 Housing Element Goals:
• Goal A Housing Affordability: Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of housing options and prices. Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, especially those with extremely low income, and City resources should focus on this area of need. • Goal B Housing Preservation & Improvement: Existing housing should be maintained and improved. The City should promote efficiency in new and existing housing to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy and water use and costs, provide quality and resilient housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements that will prepare buildings for a major seismic event should be encouraged. • Goal C Housing Production: Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs, including coordinating with the UC and other agencies. New housing should be developed to expand opportunities and choices to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient. • Goal D Special Needs Housing & Homelessness Prevention: Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes. • Goal E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley. • Goal F Mitigate Governmental Constraints: Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing.

Housing Element Programs:
• Program 27 – Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors. In 2022, the City initiated the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan project to increase allowed densities, study design standards, public improvements, and mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing. The plan will also coordinate with other PDAs and commercial corridors to expand opportunities along transit corridors. 28 • Program 1 - Affordable Housing Berkeley. The Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) established Affordable Housing Berkeley Inc., as a non-profit entity to act as the development arm of the BHA and produce affordable housing units in Berkely. In October 2023, the BHA approved a strategic plan for Affordable Housing Berkeley Inc., which is geared towards small housing purchase of up to seven building units. • Program 2 – Housing Choice Vouchers. The City assists up to 2,000 households by providing Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-based Section 8 Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation (SROs), Emergency Housing Vouchers, Mainstream Voucher Program, and Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. In 2024, BHA ho used an average of 1,759 households and is continuously issuing new vouchers to families on the waitlist. • Program 4 – Housing Trust Fund. Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) pools funds for affordable housing construction from a variety of sources with different requirements, and makes them available to developers through a single application process.
• Program 5 – Preservation of At-Risk Housing. The City will monitor and assist in preserving deed -restricted housing.
• Program 10 - Housing Preference Policies. In July 2023, Berkeley adopted a policy to provide a preference for current residents and descendants of residents of the city’s historically redlined areas. Households with ties to redlined areas receive priority in leasing new City funded or regulated affordable units. • Program 11 – Rental Assistance. The City utilizes CDBG and local Measure P funding to contract with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to provide supportive services. These services help stabilize households in rental assistance programs and to move unhoused community members into permanent supportive housing.
• Program 12 – Workforce Housing. Support local efforts to expand the construction of workforce housing that is affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI). In March

28 City of Berkeley, 2025. Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Report. Available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03- 28%20%20%20Housing%20Element%20and%20General%20Plan%20Annual%20Progress%20Reports.pdf

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 21 of 50 2023, the City achieved its goal of entitling 110 affordable units, with a preference for Berkeley Unified School District employees.29
• Program 14 – Housing for Homeless Persons with Disabilities. provide local subsidy to Resources for Community Development (RCD) for a 119-unit very low income development for households earning between 10 and 50 percent AMI (Supportive Housing in People’s Park) with at least 50 percent of the units dedicated to previously unhoused residents with mental health conditions.

The full list of Goals, Policies and Programs is available in the City’s Housing Element Update. However, as illustrated here, between current State Law and the City’s Housing Element, there is a strong foundation for affordable housing production throughout Berkeley, including within the Specific Plan Area.

Zoning
As noted above, properties fronting San Pablo Avenue are predominantly zoned West Berkeley Commercial (C-W).

See Figure 13. The City’s zoning also delineates Commercial Designated Nodes along San Pablo and University Avenues. The West Berkeley Commercial Designated Nodes are located in areas around major intersections along San Pablo Avenue with Gilman Street, Cedar Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue. The intent of these nodes is to intensify retail, commercial, and mixed-use activity to support a strong commercial and pedestrian- oriented environment by requiring that ground floors be activated with select commercial uses. A University Commercial District Node Area is located on the east side of the University and San Pablo intersection. This designation requires that new residential uses be integrated with non-residential uses. The existing characteristics of the nodes are discussed below in the existing land use section.

Development Standards
The development standards and ground floor uses, as of November 2023, for the zoning districts within the Plan Area are outlined in Appendix A1.

Within the C-W and C-U zoning districts, which make up the majority of the Specific Plan Area, key standards include:
• Non-residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR)s of 2.2-3.0.
• Maximum height in the C-W district of three stories and 40 feet for residential- or commercial-only development, and four stories and 50 feet for mixed-use and live-work developments. • Maximum height in the C-U of three stories and 36 feet for single use and mixed-use development outside the nodes, and four stories and 48 feet for mixed-use within the nodes. Residential-only development in the nodes requires a use permit.
• Ground floor commercial uses in the C-W zone are only required in the designated nodes. Outside the nodes, ground floor uses are permitted in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) 23.204 -1. Unpermitted uses in the C-W designated include open air markets, vehicle rentals and washes. Within both the C -U zone nodes and non-nodes areas, ground floor residential uses require a Use Permit.

29 Ibid.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 22 of 50

Figure 13. Zoning Map with designated nodes in the Specific Plan and Study Areas. Source: City of Berkeley

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 23 of 50 Permit Review Process
Ministerial and Discretionary Review Ministerial review is a process for development approval involving little or no personal judgement by the zoning officer or Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). The zoning officer or ZAB ensures that the proposed development meets all the “objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards” in effect at the time that the application is submitted but uses no special discretion or judgement in reaching a decision.

In contrast, Discretionary Review is a process for development that is subject to public notice to neighbors, and in some cases, a public hearing.

Residential and Mixed-Use Review within the Specific Plan Area – As shown in the Table 2 below, most of the residential and mixed-use development within the Specific Plan Area, which is predominantly zoned C-W, requires an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or Use Permit (UP), which require discretionary review. Design Review is also required for projects in any non-residential zone, such as the C-W zoning district.

Recent state legislation has established and expanded eligibility for streamlined and/or ministerial review and approval for projects (see the overview of recent state laws below). Legislation includes changes to the development review process timeline and requirements, as well as limitations on the City’s discretion regarding project approval, imposing certain development standards, and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Existing Land Use
The Study Area has a mix of existing land uses with a significant amount of single and multi -family residential that vary significantly in density and scale ranging from 6 du/acre for R-1 single-family to 75 du/acre for R-4 multi-family. Other uses include light industrial, commercial, including retail, vehicle repair, offices and food and alcohol service, personal and household services, retail financial services, and public and quasi-public uses.

Ground Floor Uses vary throughout the corridor. See Figure 14. Residential uses include multifamily, mixed-use, live-work, and a few single-family homes. Live-work spaces are a built space used or designed to be used both as a workplace and as a residence by one or more persons, and a mixed -use space is a use of a lot or building with two or more different land uses.30 There are a variety of existing commercial ground floor uses, however the main uses include services, retail, and auto. A more detailed overview of the existing commercial uses is provided in the Commercial Risk Displacement section below.

Upper Floor Uses are primarily residential with some commercial office uses.

Table 2: Typical Permits Required, by Housing Type31 (Orange indicates design review required) Housing Type R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A R-3 R-4 C-U C-W MU-LI MU-R Duplex NP UP UP UP UP UP UP 1 UP NP UP 2
Multi-family NP NP UP UP UP UP UP 1 UP NP AUP/UP
2,3
Mixed-Use
Projects
NP NP UP UP UP UP UP 1 ZC/AUP/UP
4 NP AUP/UP
2,3
Live-work ZC AUP/UP 5 AUP/UP
6 AUP/UP
6 Group Living
Accommodation
NP NP NP NP UP UP UP 1 UP NP UP 2
ZC = Zoning Certificate, AUP = Administrative Use Permit, UP = Use Permit, NP = Not Permitted

30 City of Berkeley, 2023. Municipal Code section 23.502.020 Defined Terms. 31 City of Berkeley, 2023. 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, pg. 81-82.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 24 of 50 1 Residential uses must be part of a mixed-use development within University Avenue Node Areas; outside of Node Areas exclusively residential projects are permitted with a use permit.
2 UP required within 150’ of M or MM district or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. See BMC Section.

23.206.090.B.8.
3 AUP required for 3-4 units; UP required for 5 or more units. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.7. For mixed use projects, see also Section

23.206.090.B.9.
4 Permit required dependent on project size and other factors. See BMC Section 23.204.140.B.2. 5 AUP required when a project has 9 or fewer live/work units and does not involve conversion of an existing dwelling unit. All other live/work projects require a use permit. See BMC Section 23.312.030.C.3.
6 Permit required dependent on floor area, number of units, and other factors. See BMC Section 23.312.030.D.

Clusters of Related Uses – As seen in Figure 14, a mix of uses are distributed throughout San Pablo Specific Plan Area without distinct pattern or clustering of related uses. Many of the predominant land uses, such as auto, manufacturing, and services, are dispersed along the street , with the exception that retail uses are mostly located within the designated commercial nodes. Many businesses including a diverse range of restaurants, grocers, and retailers are distributed throughout the corridor (see Commercial Displacement Risk section below for additional detail on the existing commercial uses within the Specific Plan Area).

Designated Nodes – The West Berkeley Plan adopted in 1993 identified Commercial Nodes along San Pablo Avenue.

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance identifies these nodes as “Designated Nodes” within the C-W zone. Overall, the existing uses within the Designated Nodes are consistent with the C-W zoning allowed-uses.

The Gilman Node currently includes a substantial
amount of retail including two clusters of commercial
chain stores, some auto-oriented businesses, and
restaurants, and other businesses. It lies adjacent to
mixed-use light industrial zones to the west and
residential neighborhoods to the southwest and the
east. The 55-year-old KC’s BBQ restaurant closed
their location in this node in April 2023.

Gilman intersection looking east.

The Cedar Node includes the Jones, a mixed-use
project. The node accommodates small retail
businesses, food establishments, and auto-related
ventures. In 2022, the nearby former motels—Golden
Bear Inn and Quality Inn were converted to
permanent housing for persons experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Retail
queues, such as for Acme Bread, add to pedestrian
activity in the area. A long-time business, Animal
Farm Discount Pet Foods and associated Wild Bird
Annex closed in 2023.

Jones building to the northwest of the Cedar
intersection.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 25 of 50 The University Node has historically been an active
area. In recent years the northern portion of the node
has experienced business closures with several
larger retail spaces and the former Wells Fargo Bank
remaining unoccupied, while the southern section
experiences more consistent use and pedestrian
activity, thanks to its collection of restaurants, bars, and services. The eastern and western parts consist
of a blend of South Asian businesses situated amidst
surface parking lots. The Specific Plan boundary
includes an adjacent University Avenue Node to the
east of San Pablo Avenue.

University intersection looking northeast.

The Dwight Node is a walkable center of mixed
commerce. Aside from the auto-oriented businesses
in the northwest portion of the node, much of the
node features restaurants, offices (including several
non-profit organizations), and retail, as well as some
multifamily buildings. The southern end of the node
includes a Housing Element opportunity site
(opportunity site #32).

Café Chiave at southwest corner of Dwight intersection.

The Ashby Node is characterized by two new housing
developments that incorporate mixed-use retail
spaces on their ground floors (3015 and 3006 San
Pablo Avenue). The northern side of the node
includes the historic Heinz building which features a
substantial setback (approximately 32 feet) and a
narrow sidewalk (approximately 6 feet). It includes
office and institutional uses, such as the Kala Art
Institute. Ashby Plaza includes Looking Glass Photo &
Camera, which has been based in Berkeley for over
50 years. The former Walmart building on the
northeast corner has been vacant since 2021.

Looking south towards Ashby intersection from in front
of the historic Heinz Building.

There are other areas not defined as nodes that
provide neighborhood serving commercial retail,
such as the intersection at Bancroft Avenue and
south of Delaware Street.

Storefronts on the southeast corner of Delaware Street.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 26 of 50 Figure

14. Ground Floor Use based on Land Use Codes. Source: City of Berkeley, 2023. Alameda County Assessor, 2023.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 27 of 50 State Legislation and Regional Policies
Several state laws and regional policies have been approved since the adoption of the City’s General Plan in 2002.

Many of these laws have made changes to the development review process, timeline, and requirements, as well as defined limitations on the City’s discretion regarding project approval, conformance with certain development standards, and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Berkeley Municipal Code continues to be updated to remain consistent with the laws and policies . The following provides an overview of relevant legislation and policy to the Specific Plan.

State Legislation
• Senate Bill 375 (2009): This legislation requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting reduction targets, preparating regional Sustainable Communities Strategies, and aligning land use, housing, and transportation planning processes. As a Priority Development Area, the Specific Plan Area is part of the Bay Region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, which could help qualify Specific Plan implementation projects for funding.
• Housing Accountability Act (HAA): This legislation limits cities’ ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects or emergency shelters that are consistent with the City’s objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. The HAA was first enacted in 1982 and is continually amended to expand and strengthen its provisions. This effects how the Specific Plan’s standards can be written and enforced.
• Senate Bill 330 (2019): This legislation limits cities’ ability to impose restrictions on housing developments . SB 330 seeks to expedite the housing approval process, enhance housing supply, and ensure predictability for developers by reducing regulatory uncertainty and potential obstacles to new housing construction. This also effects how standards can be written and enforced.
• Senate Bill 35 (2017): SB 35 streamlines the housing approval process for qualifying multifamily residential projects with certain minimum affordable housing. This allows such projects to move more quickly through the City’s review process and restricts the City’s ability to reject these proposals to encourage the development of affordable housing. See more at the Housing and Community Development SB 35 Guidelines . • Assembly Bill 1397 (2017): AB1397 requires that sites identified under the 5th RHNA cycle for development that were unused be incorporated into the 6th cycle, with by -right approval for developments that include at least 20% affordable units for lower incomes.
• Density Bonus (Gov Code 65915): State density bonus provisions have changed frequently and significantly in recent years to further incentivize certain types of housing, including but not limited to various levels of affordability, senior, transitional, veterans, and student. In exchange for a commitment to build the specified housing type or meet a specified level of affordability, the City must allow a density bonus — an increase over the maximum allowable residential density. In addition to increasing density under density bonus law, developers can use “waivers” and “concessions” to reduce, modify, or waive development standards. The City cannot deny a requested concession or incentive unless they can make a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the requested incentive or concessions: 1) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, 2) would have a specific adverse impact on public health, safety or on property which is listed on the state Register of Historical Resources and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the specific adverse impact without making the project unaffordable to the affordable households; or 3) would be contrary to state or federal law. The use of concessions can limit the applicability of development standards and other requirements for projects that quality for a density bonus.
• Assembly Bill 2011 (2022): AB 2011 allows for by-right approval of one-hundred percent affordable and mixed- income housing projects in zones where office, retail, or parking are the principally permitted use. This allows for the development of housing along commercial corridors when projects meet specific development standards, with one-hundred percent affordable projects facing the fewest requirements.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 28 of 50 • Senate Bill 6 (2022): SB 6 passed alongside AB 2011 and also allows for the development of housing where office, retail, or parking are the principally permitted use. SB 6 does not contain any explicit affordability requirements, nor does it allow for by-right approval. Should project applicants choose to adhere to the affordability requirements of SB 35, they may receive a streamlined approval process. • Assembly Bill 2097 (2022): This legislation prohibits parking requirements on most residential, commercial, and industrial development projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, unless the local agency makes certain findings. Stops along San Pablo Avenue have AC Transit bus service that qualifies them as major transit stops. Findings that could necessitate minimum parking requirements include: the project advances the City towards meeting its lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), it fulfills specific housing needs, such as housing for people with disabilities, or it is within one-half mile of existing residential or commercial parking.
• Assembly Bill 101 (2019): AB 101 requires that Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) receive by -right approval in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. LBNCs are housing first, low barrier, service-oriented shelters that aim to help people experiencing homelessness find permanent housing. • Assembly Bill 2162 (2018): This legislation requires that supportive housing be considered an allowed use by - right in zones where multi-family and mixed-uses are permitted, provided that the proposed project meets specified criteria.

Regional Policies
• Plan Bay Area and Priority Development Areas: Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range regional plan developed by MTC and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that integrates strategies to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment with a focus on the region as a whole. The pla n utilizes a combination of regulatory measures, funding mechanisms, community engagement, and ongoing assessment to implement these strategies. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are designated areas that align transit access with opportunities of increased density of development. The majority of the San Pablo Specific Plan Area is a PDA.
• Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy: In 2022, MTC adopted a regional TOC Policy. The potential application of the TOC Policy to the San Pablo Specific Plan is discussed in the Reslience and Climate Adaptation section of the document below.

Existing Policy Capacity Assessment
As of 2020, there were 2,588 existing housing units in the Specific Plan Area. The majority of existing housing units, 2,018 homes, are in multi-family housing with 5 or more units. See Figure 15.

The Housing Element sites inventory analysis identifies 75 sites for potential housing development within the
Specific Plan Area (representing 20% of all the sites
identified citywide). Based on existing land use and
zoning regulation, the Housing Element demonstrates
capacity for approximately 3,700 units on the 75 sites
(representing 28% of the total capacity of the Housing
Element sites inventory citywide). See Figure 16 and
Appendix B.

The Housing Element Update sites inventory identifies
sites under three categories: likely sites, pipeline sites, and opportunities sites. Likely sites and pipeline sites include housing projects that have either already been approved or are actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. The Housing Figure 15. Distribution of Existing Housing Units in the Plan Area by Type. Source: City of Berkeley, 2023.
242
328
2018
Plan Area Existing Housing Units
Single Family
Multifamily (2-4 units)
Multifamily (5+ units)

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 29 of 50 Element Update identifies 51 opportunity sites, 9 likely sites, and 15 pipeline sites within the Plan Area. Opportunity sites are vacant or underutilized sites with near-term potential for residential or mixed-use development. A range of land uses exist on opportunity sites. See Table 3. The majority of opportunity sites within the Plan Area are commercial uses at 35%, followed by vacant or parking lots at 27%.

Table 3: Existing Use of Specific Plan Area Housing Element Opportunity Sites Existing Use # of SPA Boundary
Opportunity Sites
% of SPA Boundary
Opportunity Sites
Auto-related uses (auto-body shops, car
washes, smog shops, one gas station)
8 16%
Commercial uses (incl. storage facilities and
one laundromat)
18 35%
Retail/restaurant uses 9 18%
Vacant/parking lot 14 27%
Single-family/parking lot 1 0.02 %
Public Lands 1 0.02%
Source: Street Level Advisors and Gordon Consulting, 2023.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 30 of 50 Figure

16. Plan Area Housing Element Update Housing Sites Inventory. Source: City of Berkeley. “Housing Element Update 2023-2031”,

02.17.26

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 31 of 50 The Housing Element sites inventory shows capacity for an additional 3,700 units within the Specific Plan Area, based on existing zoning regulations. However, actual housing production relies on a number of factors including the housing development community (both private and non-profit) market conditions, construction costs, the decisions of individual property owners, and other factors that are not controlled by the City. In addition, and as outlined above, developers may use Density Bonus state law, which would allow for additional units. However, higher construction costs and increases in financing costs could reduce the anticipated housing production.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 32 of 50 Affordable Housing Policies and Potential
Production
Recent and Current Production
Citywide income restricted affordable units made up approximately 12.6% of housing units completed between 2015 and 2022.32

Potential Production
• As of 2022, there were 11 housing development projectsthat had been entitled along San Pablo Avenue but not yet issued Certificates of Occupancy. These buildings will provide 589 housing units, including an estimated 111 restricted affordable units (19.7%). An additional 2,029 units are under plan review.33 • The City’s Housing Element identifies an additional 51 opportunity sites in the Study Area that could accommodate 2,023 housing units. If these projects use state density bonus at the rate that has been typical of recent projects in Berkeley, the City may see development of over 2,700 housing units . • The approved and anticipated sites along San Pablo Avenue could accommodate approximately 5,349 housing units including 824 deed-restricted affordable units (15.4% of the total). See Table 4. • If a regional housing bond is approved in November 2024, a higher share of Study Area sites are likely to be developed as 100% affordable housing projects.
• In addition to onsite affordable units, this level of development c ould generate roughly $20 million in in lieu fees which is sufficient to fund about one-third of the local subsidy needed to support the projected number of 100% affordable buildings in the Specific Plan Area.

Table 4: Potential Housing Production
Total Units 100% Affordable Onsite Affordable % Affordable Approved 589 63 52 19.7%
Permit Applications, etc 2,029 110 192 14.9%
Housing Element
Opportunity Sites
(including potential
density bonus units)
2,731 148 258 14.9%
Total All Sites 5,349 321 503 15.4%
Source: City of Berkeley, Annual Progress Reports 2018-2022 and 6th Cycle Housing Element, Street Level Advisors calculations.

Berkeley Affordable Housing Preference Policy – In July 2023, Berkeley adopted a policy to provide a preference for current residents and descendants of residents of the city’s historically redlined areas. Households with ties to redlined areas receive priority in leasing new City funded or regulated affordable units.

32 CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 5th Cycle RHNA Progress Report. 33 City of Berkeley Annual Progress Reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development 2018-2022.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 33 of 50 Commercial Displacement Risk
Existing Commercial Conditions
Local and Regional Commercial Tensions – Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development’s (OED’s) 2016 Economic Development Work Session identified two primary commercial tensions on San Pablo Avenue. • Local and regional interests for transportation and land use compete for space. • Demand for housing development in the area threatens the existing concentration of auto businesses along San Pablo Avenue.

Local interests for the corridor emphasize better walkability, multi -modal transportation options, a broad range of businesses, and housing infill development. Regional interests support car access, street parking, and clusters of specialized businesses not widely available in other parts of Berkeley. This assessment suggests that those tensions continue in the Specific Plan Area.

Pandemic and Broader Economic Impacts – Nationally, small businesses closed at unprecedented rates from February to April of 2020. African-American, Latinx, Asian, immigrant, and women business owners were disproportionately affected, with African-American businesses owners most impacted.34 Since then, many small businesses have re-opened or opened for the first time. During 2023, business owners cite inflation, supply chain effects, and filling open jobs as among their primary concerns. 35 Given this context, locally owned businesses on San Pablo Avenue are likely facing a baseline of vulnerability to displacement and/or closure given the pandemic, supply chain shifts, and inflation; businesses owned by people of color, immigrants, and women are likely feeling these pressures more acutely.36
Vacancy Rates – According to OED data, San Pablo Avenue’s ground floor commercial vacancy rate (by square footage) doubled from 5.5% in 2017 to 10.8% in 2022. This rate increased most significantly, by three percentage points, from 2020 to 2021 and then again from 2021 to 2022, likely due to the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic.

This vacancy rate was notably higher than other commercial corridors such as Solano (3.7%), Elmwood (7.7%), and North Shattuck (4.4%), but similar to University (12.8%), Downtown (11.9%) and South Berkeley (11.8%) neighborhoods. By November 2024, the citywide ground floor commercial vacancy rate decreased from previous years, specifically San Pablo Avenue’s vacancy rate dropped to 7.1%, which was lower compared to Downtown Berkeley (10.8%) and Telegraph Avenue (9.9%)
37 Figure 17. High-profile commercial closures include, from left to right, Ohmega Salvage and Albatross Pub.

34 Fairlie, Robert. “The Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey.” 05, 2020.
35 National Federation of Independent Business. Small Business Optimism Index, October 2023. 36 Fairlie, Robert. “The Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey.” 05, 2020.
37 City of Berkeley. Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update. Special Meeting – City Council Work session, Feb 26, 2025, page 3. Accessed August 29, 2025

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 34 of 50 Locally Owned, Brick and Mortar Businesses and Associated Displacement Risks The inventory of businesses on San Pablo Avenue was constructed based on the City of Berkeley’s Business License database and a site visit conducted on August 3, 2023, along San Pablo Avenue. Because the scope of this analysis is limited to displacement risk and is not a broad market analysis, the inventory focuses on the narrower universe of businesses that are more likely to face consequential displacement pressures: locally owned businesses with brick - and-mortar storefronts on the corridor. These businesses were then classified according to type (see Figure 20 for a map of these ground floor businesses) and according to displacement risk (dependence on car access and street parking; key business-owner demographics; historic and cultural significance; and accessibility to lower-income residents). A summary of key findings is below.

Locally Owned38, Brick and Mortar Business Characteristics: Because the City does not collect demographic data about local business owners, this inventory used business-owner information from the active business license dataset, business websites, news articles, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Yelp to make exploratory con clusions about business-owner demographics; this assessment did not include a survey that asked business owners to share their demographic characteristics. Preliminary findings include:
• 90% of brick and mortar businesses on the corridor are likely locally owned businesses; • 21% of those businesses are likely owned by women;
• 41% are likely owned by people of color; and,
• 28% likely hold some form of historic or cultural significance.

Given that a significant number of businesses on the corridor are likely owned by women and/or people of color and they may be facing baseline pressures coming out of the pandemic and due to inflation and additional structural barriers to capital, contracts, and market access, there is an opportunity during the Specific Plan process to d irect additional time and attention to these businesses to understand how to best support their success and longevity on the corridor.

Commercial Parking Needs – Businesses along the street rely on customers being able to access the corridor via car and street parking. Several local businesses, such as Tokyo Fish Market, Emerald City Gowns, East Bay Nursery, and Cafe Leila, have small parking lots specific to those businesses, but most do not. Prior City assessments have identified auto and home improvement businesses as particularly dependent on street parking. Based on active business license data, auto businesses comprise 20% of b rick and mortars and home improvement businesses make up 12% of brick and mortars. This assessment also estimates that businesses that A) are specialized and may need to attract customers from a broader geographic radius or that B) may be particularly difficult to shift to a customer base that relies on walking, biking and/or public transit (e.g., a customer base of families with children) are especially dependent on car access and street parking. All told, this category of businesses that are likely to be especially reliant on car access and street parking includes 35% of locally owned, brick and mortar businesses on the corridor.

38 Whether businesses were locally owned was determined primarily according to owner information in the City's business license database and business websites and social media platforms. Local ownership means that the owner is based anywhere in the nine-county Bay Area.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 35 of 50

Figure 18. Examples of businesses with small off-street parking lots, from left to right, Tokyo Fish Market and East Bay Nursery.

Auto Businesses – Auto businesses are prevalent and dispersed across the corridor. Many of these businesses opened in the 1970s and 1980s, although one appears to go back as far as 1946. There is an opportunity for the Specific Plan to evaluate the desire and needed policies for auto businesses to remain on the San Pablo corridor, particularly as auto technology continues to evolve.

Figure 19. Example auto businesses include, from left to right, Patti’s Auto Care, Car Craft Collision Specialists, and Used Car Sales.

Businesses potentially accessible to low-income residents – This inventory anecdotally identified businesses that meet the criterion of offering a lower relative price point for their goods or services and finds that approximately 10% of locally owned brick and mortar businesses may be particularly accessible to low-income residents in the area.

These businesses were identified because they a) are a type of business that typically markets to lower-income residents (e.g., laundromat, corner store, to-go restaurant); b) they were described in online reviews as offering lower prices than their competitors; or c) they offer lower prices than similar businesses on the corridor (e.g., a vegetarian egg breakfast costs $10.95 vs. $19). The businesses identified include retail stores, a laundromat, restaurants, grocery stores, beauty salons, and several corner stores. As more market-rate housing is built on San Pablo Avenue, these businesses may face increased displacement pressures if the overall population becomes higher-income and rents and property taxes increase.

Potential Future Changes to Supply of Commercial Space
Current zoning does not require ground floor commercial space outside of commercial nodes. But the zoning code does allow extra height for mixed-use buildings along the corridor, and this appears to be encouraging developers to propose mixed-use projects along the corridor, with a few exceptions. The zoning code requires and encourages ground floor commercial space at the intersection of major transit corridors within commercial nodes . Discussions with developers, leasing agents, and real estate professionals indicate that a combination of rental costs, general retail and business conditions, and physical design of spaces (e.g., configuration and size of spaces, service and utility design) constrain the ability to lease these new commercial spaces.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 36 of 50

Figure 20. Mix of ground floor locally owned, brick and mortar businesses. Source: Street Level Advisors and Gordon Consulting, 2023.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 37 of 50 Public Realm Assessment
The public realm along San Pablo Avenue is defined by the qualities of streetscape - the sidewalk area within the public right of way and the improvements and activities that take place there. The context along the street affects the quality and experience of the public realm. The context includes the buildings, parking lots, and other frontages next to the street and the activities that occur there. Also, the conditions and quality of the roadway, median, and parking/loading lanes of San Pablo Avenue have an impact on the quality and experience of the public realm.

The public realm along San Pablo Avenue varies in quality and character See Figure 21. The Specific Plan process will explore options for common elements throughout the corridor, such as trees, and the potential for segment or district improvements. Places could have distinct decorative features like pedestrian lighting, artwork, and planting to create an inviting atmosphere. Currently, some uses and buildings provide distinct features that enhance the public realm, such as restaurants, cafes, and small businesses. These create a more engaging and active public realm.

Stretches with poor sidewalk conditions and landscaping that is not maintained, paired with vandalized or vacant building frontages or high fencing, contrast with the areas of activity. Those locations have less foot traffic and fewer parked cars.

Figure 21. The public realm along San Pablo Avenue varies in quality and character.

Streetscape Conditions
Landscape
The street trees along the sidewalks and landscaped medians are an asset for San Pablo Avenue’s public realm. See Figure 22. However, there are gaps in the tree canopy and maintenance issues with trees and tree wells along the sidewalks.

Figure 22 Mature London Plain trees define the character of San Pablo Avenue.

In addition, there is limited landscaping along most of the sidewalks. See Figure 23. Some other major streets in Berkeley have business improvement districts that manage installation and maintenance of landscape, but San Pablo Avenue does not have any improvement districts.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 38 of 50

Figure 23. The condition of tree wells varies throughout the corridor.

Lighting
Existing lighting along the street primarily illuminates the roadway and intersections. Nighttime sidewalk lighting levels tend to be low between intersections, unless storefront uses, buildings, or pedestrian lights at bus stops illuminate the sidewalk. See Figure 24. The 2004 Improvement Plan identified this issue and set new lighting standards. While there has been some implementation of the standards in front of new development, there have not been recent publicly funded pedestrian lighting improvements along San Pablo Avenue. The Alameda CTC Safety Enhancement Project will upgrade lighting at some improved bus stops and pedestrian crossings.

Figure 24. Existing roadway and pedestrian lighting.

Street Furnishings
Street furnishings such as benches and trash receptacles are almost exclusively at bus stops. There are some businesses that provide outdoor “café” seating for their patrons. See Figure 25.

Figure 25. Existing private outdoor “café” seating.

Sidewalk
Sidewalk conditions are variable. There are locations where adjacent parcels are vacant, underutilized, or for other reasons trash, leaf, and debris clutter the sidewalk. There are also places where the sidewalk needs repair. Typically, when development occurs adjacent sidewalks are reconstructed by the developer. See Figures 26, 27, and 28. There are several locations along the street where the sidewalks are new and are in good condition. The two Alameda CTC

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 39 of 50 projects will be making some sidewalk improvements, including widened sidewalks with bus bulbs into the parking lane at bus stops served by AC Transit Rapid service, see further discussion in the Mobility section.

Figure 26. Existing 13 ft. wide
sidewalk.

Figure 27. Many existing sidewalks
are in poor condition.

Figure 28. Some buildings provide
additional sidewalk space.

Building and Site Frontages
There is a wide variety of frontage conditions along San Pablo Avenue today from tall fences or blank facades to active “storefront” restaurants and sidewalk tables.

There are older buildings that are vacant, several of which appear to not be actively on the market to be leased. Some, but not all, older buildings along the street have articulation, building form, and materials that are visually engaging and include murals. Figure 29.

Figure 29. Painted storefronts with murals provide visual interest when the building does not allow for windows and can represent the culture and values of the local community.

Some new developments have contributed to the landscape character of the street by setting back the ground level of the building to provide additional sidewalk and space of landscape, such as the landscape planters at The Jones north of Cedar Street. Figure 30. Others like Aquatic at Ashby have a small seating area and a bench and rain shelter built into the additional sidewalk level space. Figure 31.

Figure 30. Ground floor setback and planters
at The Jones.

Figure 31. Semi-public space with seating and bus stop integrated in the Aquatic at Ashby frontage.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 40 of 50 Parking Lots and Gas Stations
There are locations with larger parking lots or other auto circulation, such as the Solar Car Wash, the REI shopping center parking lot, and the McDonald’s, which cater to vehicular movement, as opposed to pedestrians. The sidewalk frontages of these sites are typically not supportive of pedestrian activity along the street.

Activity and use of underused spaces. In some locations food trucks and trailers utilize former and current gas station locations as semi-permanent locations, which include makeshift outdoor seating. Figure 32. These illustrate the potential for active use of underutilized parking lots even if the parking is more heavily used on particular days or seasons.

Figure 32. Food trucks and trailers use underutilized parking and sites.

Safety
Conditions along the street can create an environment that feels unsafe. Assessment of crime data from the Berkeley Police Department from August 2022 to August 2023 shows a total of 578 incidents in the Specific Plan Area, which makes up 5 percent of the overall crime incidents in Berkeley during that time. Improved lighting at night, improvements to the general condition of the public realm, and development that supports activity along the street can change the impression that San Pablo Avenue is a particularly unsafe place.

Community Life along San Pablo Avenue
Community life describes the condition of people being in a public space and feeling part of and having the opportunity to interact with other community members who use the space. The physical constraints of the street and development patterns along San Pablo Avenue restrict public space to the typical 13 -foot-wide sidewalks along the street.

Designated Nodes and Clusters of Activity
San Pablo Avenue features clusters of retail and other uses adjacent to five major intersections—Gilman Street, Cedar Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue— these are nodes of activity, each presenting a distinct mix of businesses and urban form that supports that activity. See Figure 34 (Method of assessment, see Table 5). The 1993 West Berkeley Plan identified these locations as Commercial Nodes, and other public policies and regulations have been shaped to reinforce these nodes. The current zoning ordinance also provides some special standards, as discussed in the Land Use Planning policies section above. These have been successful to a greater or lesser extent in each node, and the extent of success has been affected by economic realities and property owner decisions.

Semi-Public Spaces
While there are no public parks along San Pablo Avenue, there are small enclaves of semi -public space, often as private outdoor spaces associated with restaurants and cafés. Also, some parking lots or other paved areas are used by adjacent businesses. Some new developments have included public benches or other elements in ground floor setbacks that are also semi-public.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 41 of 50 Table 5: Methodology of assessing frontage activity along San Pablo.

Source: CD+A, 2023

Community Events and Social Engagement
There are existing organizations in the area that do provide community gathering venues, like Brasarte and Ashkenaz.

Also, there are existing models for short term use of streets as public spaces – the SF Bay Brazilian Day & Lavagem festival, Figure 33, events during street closures in the Gilman District, and neighborhood street parties on blocks of streets that cross San Pablo Avenue.

Figure 33. 1901 San Pablo Avenue houses Brasarte and other Brazilian culturally oriented groups. The center and left photos show the 2023 Brazilian Day & Lavagem event on the block of Hearst St just east of San Pablo Avenue.

Study Area Community Spaces
The limited sidewalk or other public space within the San Pablo Avenue right of way make it make it difficult to create community gathering spaces within the Specific Plan Area. While opportunities may exist to create some smaller community spaces on side streets, residents and users of the Specific Plan Area are likely to rely on community space in the surrounding Study Area. The Specific Plan process can define ways to improve connections between the Specific Plan Area and surrounding parks, schools, and other community spaces can be improved.

Sidewalk Building Frontage Other
Frontages that activate the
sidewalk
Maintained and
landscaped if any
Well maintained brick-and-
mortar with pedestrian engaging
features, such as storefront
windows, murals, etc.

Inactive Frontages that
support some aspects of a
comfortable walking
environment
Maintained and
landscaped if any
Landscape buffered setback,
murals with minimal or no visible
activity.

Maintained, landscaped
buffered parking lots, or
yards of auto-oriented
uses.

Inactive Frontages Poorly
maintained and
landscaped if any
Poor maintained, visibly
damaged and/or looks
unoccupied/ abandoned.

Parking lots and yards
without landscape buffer.

Fenced vacant land

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 42 of 50 Figure 34. Observation of Frontage Activity along the corridor. Source: City of Berkeley. CD+A. 2023.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 43 of 50 Resilience and Climate Adaptation Conditions and
Plans
Existing Plans
Local-Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), 2019 – The LHMP serves to assess current hazards and vulnerabilities, outlines a five-year Mitigation Strategy to reduce vulnerabilities through various actions, and ensures eligibility for pre-disaster mitigation grants and post-disaster federal and state recovery funding by meeting Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements39.
• Risk of Liquifaction: During a major earthquake event, much of the study area and westernmost parts of the city are at risk of liquefacation. Liquefaction can destroy pavements and dislodge foundations. • Potentially Seismically Vulnerable Buildings: The LHMP discusses the Retrofit Grants Program and the updating of the city’s inventory of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings in 2018. The update added 1,047 potentially vulnerable building that had not been previously identified. This increase was mainly due to the expansion of building construction types that were considered at risk. A number of the seismically vulnerable buildings are in the San Pablo Specific Plan Area, see Figure 35. This map reflects properties that are eligible for the Cal OES/FEMA Grant Program.
• Floods: Creek flooding in Berkeley has the potential to affect about 675 structures, mainly in the western, industrial area of the city. Storm drain overflow creates localized flooding in many intersections in Berkeley .

FEMA flood risk maps illustrate the risks in the western industrial area. While this is within the Study Area, the flood risk maps indicate a very smail area of flood risk potential on two properties in the Specific Plan area adjacent to Codornices Creek and the city of Albany. The LHMP also describes areas of the city that are at risk to localized flooding from storm drain overflow. San Pablo Avenue within the Potter Watershed between Ward and Murry Street has the potential to experience storm drain overflow. 40 • Hazardous Materials Transportation: San Pablo Avenue is one of the streets in Berkeley that is a hazardous materials transportation route. Collisions with trucks carrying dangerous materials have occurred and can be expected to occur in the future.
• Climate Change: Like regions across the globe, the San Francisco Bay Area is experiencing negative impacts of climate change. Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan identifies the City’s plan for emissions reductions, known as climate change mitigation.
• Hazardous Material Release: The City has identified 15 facilities in Berkeley with sufficiently large quantities of toxic chemicals to pose a high risk to the community. Eleven of those 15 facilities are distributed in the most western parts of the Study Area, with 10 located south of University Avenue. Natural hazards identified in the plan could trigger the release of hazardous materials and put nearby residents at risk of exposure.

Climate Action Plan (CAP) – The plan, adopted in 2009, represents key strategies for achieving a sustainable future in Berkeley. Within transit corridors such as the San Pablo Avenue corridor, the City’s CAP advocates for smart growth and increased ‘walkability’, ‘bikeability’, and public transit ridership. • General Plan Open Space and Recreation:
o As part of the City of Berkeley’s General Plan, the City adopted the Open Space and Recreation Element in 2002. The Open Space and Recreation Element applies the following policies to the various parks and other natural areas in the Study Area, which include Strawberry Creek Park, George Florence Park, and San Pablo Park.

39 See Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulations and Guidance for further information. 40 City of Berkeley. “2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan”, 12.10.2019, p.9. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Local-Hazard- Mitigation-Plan-2019.pdf

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 44 of 50 o Policy OS-4 Working with Other Agencies: Work with the Berkeley Unified School District, the University of California, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the East Bay Regional Park District to improve, preserve, maintain, and renovate their open space and recreation facilities.

Figure

35. Updated Inventory of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings (2018). Source: 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

o Policy OS-7 Serving Disadvantaged Populations: Within the context of open space resource allocations for new or expanded facilities, give high priority to providing additional facilities for populations that are disadvantaged or underserved.
o Policy OS-10 Access Improvements: Improve transit, bicycle, disabled, and pedestrian access to and between open space and recreation facilities.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 45 of 50 Urban Tree Canopy – Berkeley’s tree canopy encompasses approximately 38,000 trees. The Climate Action Plan recognizes an inequitable distribution of urban tree canopy in Berkeley, with fewer trees located in the West and South Berkeley neighborhoods, which includes the Study Area. This disparity in the tree canopy is graphically represented in Figure 36. The 2023 Climate Action Plan Update report recognizes this existing condition and states that the city will plant 1,000 new street trees along streets in West and South Berkeley neighborhoods over the next two years.

In contrast to the overall distribution throughout the city, San Pablo Avenue displays a relatively even distribution and dense tree coverage when compared to other corridors like University Avenue. This is due to three rows of trees (along both sidewalks and in the median of San Pablo Avenue) that are relatively consistent throughout the corridor. This is the result of efforts over the past 10 or so years to fill in gaps in the tree canopy along San Pablo Avenue.

Figure 36. Urban Tree Canopy - percent coverage per Census Tract. Source: EarthDefine, USDA Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018.

Potential Future Opportunities
Transit-Oriented Community (TOC) Designation – In 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted a TOC Policy to boost the overall housing supply and increase residential densities in transit- rich areas of the Bay Area; spur commercial development near transit hubs; promote bus transit, walking, biking and shared mobility; and foster partnerships to create transit-oriented communities where people of all income levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, ages and ability levels can live, work and thrive. Future MTC One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles will consider funding revisions to prioritize investments in TOCs.

Although not currently designated, the San Pablo Specific Plan Area is a potential future TOC given its mix of land uses including housing, jobs, services, and shopping with close proximity to transit. While only a small portion of the

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 46 of 50 Specific Plan area is within proximity to the types of existing transit that meet the requirements for TOC designation, see Figure 37, the City could choose to “opt in” the area as a TOC. The intersection of University and San Pablo Avenues is within ½ mile of the Berkeley Capitol Corridor Station (Tier 4 TOC designation). Should AC Transit implement bus rapid transit (BRT) service on San Pablo Avenue, the Specific Plan Area would qualify as a Tier 3 TOC.

This designation could provide opportunities for the City to receive targeted funding for public improvements in the Specific Plan Area. To be eligible for OBAG 4 and other discretionary MTC funds that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, the City would need to demonstrate compliance with TOC requirements prior to the adoption of OBAG 4 funding requirements which is expected to occur in 2026. 41 Figure 37. Transit Oriented Community (TOC) Designation. Source: City of Berkeley, MTC, 2023.

41 More information about MTC’s TOC policy can be found at https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-u se/transit-oriented-communities-toc-policy.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 47 of 50 Appendix A.1
Table 1: Residential District Development Standards
Zoning District Min Lot
Area (sq.
ft.)
Density (sq. ft.)
Min Lot Area Per
Unit Height Limit Yard3 Maximum Lot Coverage
Usable Open
Space Per
Unit (sq. ft.)
Density Assumption for
Housing Element
Update (du/acre) 7
Avg.

Height
Max. Height
(height
overlay)
Stories
(#) Story Front Rear Side Street
Side
Building
Separati
on
Main Building
Height
(stories)
Interior and
Through Lots
(%)
Corner
Lots (%)

R-1 Single Family 5,000 __ 28' 1 35' 3 All 20' 20' 4' 4’ __ 1 to 3 40 40 400 6 R-1A Limited Two
Family
5,000 __ 28' 1 35’ 3 1 20' 20' 4' 4’ 8’ 6 1 40 45 400
2 20’ 20’ 4’ 4’ 12’ 6 2 40 45 15
3 20’ 20’ 4’ 4’ 16’ 6 3 40 45
R-2 Restricted
Two Family 5,000
2,500 28' 1 35' 2 3 1 20' 20' 4' 10' 8' 1 45 50 400
2 20' 20' 4' 10' 12' 2 40 45 20
3 20' 20' 6' 10' 16' 3 35 40
R-2A Restricted
Multiple Family
5,000 1,650 28' 1 35' 2 3 1 15' 15' 4' 6' 8’ 1 45 50 300 2 15' 15' 4' 8' 12' 2 40 45 25
3 15' 15' 6' 10' 16' 3 35 40
R-3 Multiple
Family
5,000 __3 35' 35' 10 3 1 15' 15' 4' 6' 8' 1 45 50 200 5 2 15' 15' 4' 8' 12' 2 45 50 40
3 15' 15' 6' 10' 16' 3 30 45
R-4 Multi Family
5,000 __3 35' 8 35’ 9 3 4 1 15' 15' 4' 6' 8' 1 45 50 200 5 2 15' 15' 4' 8' 12' 2 45 50
3 15' 15' 6' 10' 16' 3 40 45 75
4 15' 17' 8' 12' 20' 4 35 40
5 15' 19' 10' 14' 24' 5 35 40
6 15' 21' 12' 15' 28' 6 35 40
1 Up to 35’ allowed with an AUP.
2 May exceed with an AUP.
3 No minimum lot area per unit except for Group Living Accommodations (GLA). 1 GLA room for every 350 sq. ft; additional room allowed for any remaining lot area of more than 200 sq. ft. 4 Main Buildings may exceed 35 ft. and three stories in height, to a height of, but not exceeding, 65 ft. and six stories subject to obtaining a Use Permit. 5 200 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit, 90 sq. ft. for each person in a Group Accommodation Room. 7 As noted on page C-17 of the housing element. These Average Densities are conservative estimates of the number of units that could be developed. Table C-7 in the HEU demonstrates the Average and Maximum Density. 8 Main Buildings may exceed 35 ft. and three stories in height, to a height of, but not exceeding, 65 ft. and six stories subject to obtaining a Use Permit. 9 Up to 35’ allowed with an AUP, 65’ and six stories allowed with Use Permit. 10 Residential Additions max. 16’ or 35’ with an AUP.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 48 of 50 Ta ble 2: Commercial and Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards Zoning
District
Max. FAR
(Non-Res/MU
only)
Max.

Height
(Com-Res-
Only/MU)
Max. Stories
(Com-Res-
only/MU)
Open Space
(SF/unit)
(MU/Res.
only)
Max.

Coverage
(Com-Res-
Only/MU)
Setbacks3 Main Building
Separation
Min. Lot Area
(SF)
Density
(DU/acre)
Density
Assumption for
Housing
Element Update
(du/acre) 7
C-U
University
Avenue

2.2-3.0/None 36-48’ 1/36’ 3-4 1 200 100%/40-50% Res/Non.

Res. Uses
Front/street (non-res. fronting on University Avenue):
• Avg 2'
• 2 ' at all sidewalk pedestrian entries.

Front/street (res. fronting on University A
venue):
• Avg 2'
• Max 10'5
Front/street (not fronting University Avenue and confronting a non-res. district): No minimum.

Rear (south side of University Avenue; abutting res. district): Min 10' or 10% of lot depth, whichever is greater, and average of 20'6 Rear (south side of University Avenue not abutting res. district): No minimum.

Rear (north side of University Avenue): per section 23.204.060.D.5, must not cast a shadow at noon more than 20' onto any lot in a residential district as calculated when the sun is at a 29-degree angle above the horizon (winter solstice).

Interior side: No Minimum
Street side: 2' average
Res. only projects:
• 1st story: 8'
• 2nd story: 12'
• 3rd story: 16'
None/5,000 2 None 150
Res. Only
Uses8
Front9:
• Avg 2'
• M ax 10'
Rear: 15'

Interior:
• 1st story: 4'
• 2nd story: 4'
• 3rd story: 6'
Street side:
• 1st story: 6'
• 2nd story: 8'
• 3rd story: 10'
C-W West
Berkeley

3.0 40-50’ 3-4 4 40 100% None 3 None None 150
1 3rd floor and above residential only.
2 Standards included are for residential or mixed use. Standards differ slightly for live/work project. 3 Lots abutting/confront a residential district: same as required front and street side setback in adjacent residential district, 5 ft interior side, and 10 ft or 10% of the lot depth, whichever is less, rear setback. See Section 23.304.030.C.2. 4 50 ft. and 4 stories allowed for mixed-use projects. The 4th floor must be residential or live/work. 5 A maximum setback of 10 ft is only permitted for landscaping that enhances the streetscape and provides privacy for residential units on the first floor. 6 See 23.304.030(C)(2)(b) (Modifications in Commercial Districts) for allowed reductions. 7 As noted on page C-17 of the housing element. These Average Densities are conservative estimates of the number of units that could be developed. Table C-7 in the HEU demonstrates the Average and Maximum Density. 8 May be modified with a UP(PH).
9 Setback area must be used to accommodate landscaping that enhances the streetscape and provides a sense of privacy for residential units on the first floor.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 49 of 50 Ta ble 3: Manufacturing Districts Development Standards Zoning District Min Lot Area (sq. ft.) Min. Lot
Width Height Limit
Lot Line Setbacks
Building
Separation
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
FAR Usable Open Space Per Unit (sq.
ft.)
Density
Assumption for
Housing Element
Updates (du/acre)7
Front Rear Side Street
Side
M Manufacturing 20,000 N /a 45' No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum No Minimum 100% 2.0 N/A N/A
MM Mixed Manufacturing 20,000 N /a 45' No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum No Minimum 100% 2.0 N/A N/A
MU-LI Mixed Use-Light
Industrial No Minimum N/a 45' No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum
No
Minimum No Minimum 100% 2.0 N/A N/A
MU-R Mixed Use-Residential
District8
New Lot No Minimum
40'
Live/work 28' and 3 stories 3
5' No
Minimum 5
No
Minimum 5' No Minimum 100% 1.0/1.5 6
Per Dwelling Unit 150

24.5 Residential or
mixed-use 2 35' and 3 stories
Per Dwelling
Unit or
Live/Work Unit
1,250 1 All other uses 35' and 2 stories 4 Per Live/Work Unit 40 1 One additional dwelling unit allowed for remaining lot areas between 750 and 1,250 square feet. 2 Mixed use is defined here as a building with 50 percent or more of gross floor area used for residential (including live/work) purposes. 3 Maximum 35 ft. with a Use Permit.
4 Maximum 3 stories for arts/craft studios and light manufacturing (with no other non-residential uses) on a block without dwelling units. 5 Minimum 5 ft. if rear of lot abuts a street.
6 Maximum 1.5 for buildings with 50 percent or more residential or live/work floor area. 7 As noted on page C-17 of the housing element. These Average Densities are conservative estimates of the number of units that could be developed. Table C-7 in the HEU demonstrates the Average and Maximum Density. 8 Standards included are for residential or mixed use. Standards differ slightly for live/work project.

Table 4: Ground Floor Uses along San Pablo Avenue
Allowed Ground Floor Uses Allowed Ground Floor Uses with Use Permit
Minimum
Floor to
Ceiling Height
Minimum Floor
Area2
Minimum
Street
Frontage3
Minimum Area for Retail
Sales, Personal and
Household Services, or
Food Service4
Maximum Area for
Office Use4
C-W See Table 23.204-1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
C-W Designated
Nodes
Retail Sales, personal and household services, retail financial services (banks), food and alcohol service, lodging, entertainment and assembly uses, gasoline/vehicle fuel stations, vehicle repair, new car sales, used vehicle sales, required access to and lobbies serving upper-story uses. Prohibited Uses: Vehicle rentals, used vehicle sales when not principally in buildings, vehicle washes, tire sales and service, open air markets, circus/carnivals. Public utility substation buildings or tanks.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
C-U
See Table 23.204-1 and BMC 23.204.060.B. Residential Only Uses, Ground floor residential uses (incl. leasing and management offices and
other similar resident-serving uses).
12 ft. 15%
10% with Use Permit 50% No minimum No maximum
C-U Designated
Node
Residential uses must be integrated with non-residential uses in a mixed-use development. N/A 12 ft. 30%
20% with Use Permit 75% 75%
50% with Use Permit 25%
1 Mixed-use projects in C-W are subject to permit requirements in Table 23.204-41. 2 Calculated as percent of project land area.
3 Calculated as percent of project’s University Avenue frontage. 4 Calculated as percentage of minimum required ground floor commercial floor area.

Appendix A: Key Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft Page 50 of 50 Appendix A.2
Table 1: Housing Sites Inventory for the Plan Area and City of Berkeley

City SPA SP
Affordability Total
Extremely Low / Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
City SPA SP City SPA SP City SPA SP City SPA SP City SPA SP (sites) (sites) (% of City) (units) (units) (% of City) (units) (units) (% of City) (units) (units) (% of City) (units) (units) (% of City) (units) (units) (% of City) Pipeline Sites - Applications Under Review or Anticipated 69 15 22% 437 134 31% 142 54 38% 41 30 73% 3,991 921 23% 4,611 1,139 25% Likely Sites - Entitled Projects since 2018
48 9 19% 133 34 26% 166 0 0% 9 0 0% 1,793 486 27% 2,101 520 25% Opportunity Sites: Underutilized
158 46 29% 1,571 560 36% 1,557 555 36% 1,831 473 26% 1,205 337 28% 6,164 1,925 31% Opportunity Sites: Vacant
101 5 5% 37 0 0% 36 0 0% 36 36 100% 216 62 29% 325 98 30% Total 376 75 20% 2,178 728 33% 1,901 609 32% 1,917 539 28% 7,205 1,806 25% 13,201 3,682 28% Source: City of Berkeley, 2023. 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Tables C-3, C-6, and C-10.

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 1 of 10

Appendix B:

Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

- Final Draft –

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 2 of 10

Table of Contents

Opportunity Sites Tables ..................................................................................................................3 Opportunity Sites Key Map ...............................................................................................................7

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 3 of 10
Opportunity Sites Tables

Table 1: List of 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Opportunity Sites Within the Specific Plan Area HE Site
Number
APN Address Vacant Lot Existing Land Use Acres
12a 060
235401100
1041 GILMAN ST No Parking lot 0.19
12b 060
235401302
1233 10TH ST No Parking lot 0.32
12c 060
235401200
1031 Gilman St No Parking lot 0.15
13a 057
208801100
1071 UNIVERSITY AVE No Parking lot 0.3
13b 057
208801500
1917 10TH ST No Parking lot 0.25
15a 059
228702500
1629 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story retail (party store) 0.11 15b 059
228702400
1633 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story retail (party store) 0.11 15c 059
228702102
1639 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-2 story commercial 0.3
16 060
235401001
1049 GILMAN ST No 1-story retail (liquor, Dollar Tree) 0.61 17 059
233100200
1440 SAN PABLO AVE No 2-story freestanding furniture strip retail and parking lot (West Berkeley Commercial
Center)

0.67 18 056
198303103
2235 SAN PABLO AVE No 2-story storage facility and parking lot (Berkeley Self Storage)

0.7 19 056
193200803
2424 SAN PABLO AVE No Self-service car wash 0.73
22 056
193300602
2332 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story commercial building and open lot dedicated to plants - East Bay Nursery

1.03 32 054
178000801
2546 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story Bank of America (temporarily closed) and large parking lot

1.43 38 057
208502600
1111 UNIVERSITY AVE No 1-story commercial (Halmar Work Clothes Center)

0.47 46 056
198304001
2197 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story standalone restaurant (Jack in the Box) and parking lot

0.4 47a 060
240502100
1275 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story garage or storage facility 0.06 47b 060
240502000
871 HILLSIDE AVE No 1-story auto-related office and
parking lot (smog shop)

0.29 48a 058
212701200
1730 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story commercial (building materials store); adjacent to parking lot

0.07 48b 058
212701101
1726 SAN PABLO AVE No Parking lot for building materials store 0.14 48c 058
212700901
1724 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story retail (Cafe Leila, accessories shop) and parking lot

0.26 49a 053
166101900
1043 HEINZ AVE No Large parking lot and single family house 0.2 49b 053
166101801
2840 SAN PABLO AVE No Parking lot 0.26
50a 060
240401801
1399 SAN PABLO AVE No Chevron Gas Station 0.21

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 4 of 10
50b 060
240402000
1337 SAN PABLO AVE No Autobody shop and parking lot 0.22 51a 053
166101400
2830 SAN PABLO AVE No 1- story commercial 0.15
51b 053
166101501
2832 SAN PABLO AVE No 1- story commercial 0.31
52a 057
208901201
1011 UNIVERSITY AVE No 2-story standalone vacant commercial building (former Premier Cru wine store).

0.24 52b 057
208901500
1925 9TH ST No Public land, parking lot behind Bauman
College

0.15 53 056
192802701
2407 SAN PABLO AVE No Cement lot with storage sheds 0.36 54 056
198200201
2111 SAN PABLO AVE No Parking lot 0.42
55 057
208602903
1819 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story autobody shop and parking lot, (Nate's Green Garage, auto detailing)

0.42 56 056
193200401
2400 SAN PABLO AVE No 2-story retail and cement lot (Nu Gu Na restaurant + Ohmega Salvage)

0.44 58 056
197300601
1010 UNIVERSITY AVE No UA Homes parking lot 0.46
59 056
197800802
2040 SAN PABLO AVE No Vacant 1-story commercial building 0.46 107a 057
208500702
1187 UNIVERSITY AVE No 1-story laundromat, last sold in Oct 2016, 10 surface parking spaces, no lease or tenant
data available on CoStar, Walker’s Paradise
(97), Good Transit (65); lot owned by same
owner as adjacent lot (057 208500801)

0.08 107b 057
208500801
1181 UNIVERSITY AVE No 1-story restaurant (Eat @ Thai – tenant since Jul 2016), no sale data available on CoStar;
Walker’s Paradise (97), Good Transit (65); lot
owned by same owner as adjacent lot (057
208500702)

0.11 109 056
197900100
1198 UNIVERSITY AVE No Auto car wash 0.28
111 060
239501700
1501 SAN PABLO AVE No Vacant 1-story commercial building 0.07 112 053
166202100
2835 SAN PABLO AVE No Vacant 1-story commercial building (former BPOE Lodge - permanently closed)

0.08 113a 060
239503100
1513 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story autobody shop 0.06
113b 060
239503301
1507 SAN PABLO AVE No Vacant 1-story storefront for sale 0.15 114 060
239500100
1100 PAGE ST No Parking lot 0.11
115 060
240502401
1229 SAN PABLO AVE Yes Vacant 1-story commercial building, for sale sign

0.12 116 053
166200101
2825 SAN PABLO AVE Yes Vacant lot 0.17
117 060
240503101
1205 SAN PABLO AVE Yes Vacant lot 0.17
118 056
192602000
2309 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story commercial + parking lot (Afghan Burrito)

0.19 121 053
162901901
2959 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story commercial/auto-related use (Berkeley Star Smog)

0.25 122 057
208800400
1900 SAN PABLO AVE Yes Vacant lot 0.27

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 5 of 10
124 056
193302403
2366 SAN PABLO AVE No 1-story commercial building + parking lot (Berkeley Patients Group)

0.33 195 059
228702000
1117 VIRGINIA ST Yes Vacant lot, same owner as 1639 San Pablo 0.06

Table 2: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Proposed Opportunity Sites SP Add.

Sites #
APN Address Vacant
Lot
Existing Land Use Acres Site Criteria / Rationale
A 053
165200105
and 053
165200101
1099 ASHBY
AVE
No 1 and up to 3 story
commercial with
large surface
parking

6.32 Large property with significant surface
parking, overall low FAR. Could infill parking
lot with structured parking and new
development. Historic buildings likely a
combination of preserving some full
buildings and some only preserving street
facing facades. Have factored down site area
to assume 60% of total site being developed.

B 053
166102000
1035 HEINZ
AVE
No 1 story light
industrial

0.14 Same ownership as adjacent HE Opportunity
site parcels.

C 053
166102100
1033 HEINZ
AVE
No 1 story light
industrial

0.12 Small property surrounded by other
properties under one ownership.

D 053
162802601
2995 SAN

PABLO AVE
No 1 story commercial
and surface parking
lot

0.60 Large parcel with vacant building (former
Walgreens) and relatively low FAR
E 054
178601600
and 054
178601401
2625 AND
2641 SAN

PABLO AVE

BERKELEY
No 1 story commercial
and surface parking
lot

0.44 Two parcels with one owner, low FAR
current development
F 054
178401900
2551 SAN

PABLO AVE

BERKELEY
No 1 story commercial
with side service
and parking area

0.32 Currently a towing service, low FAR
G 056
193300500
2300 SAN

PABLO AVE

BERKELEY
No Surface Parking Lot 0.23 Different owner address from adjacent East Bay Nursery (a HE Opp Site) but both in
Moraga; suspect could be one development
project
H 57-2085-7-1 1199

UNIVERSITY
AVE
No 1-story commercial
building (Foster's
Freeze)

0.21 Same ownership as adjacent HE Opportunity
site parcels.

I 57-2085-14-
1 1101

UNIVERSITY
AVE
No 1 story 2-3 tenant
commercial building
with some parking

0.30 Has been vacant for several years, appeared
to have last sold in 2023

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 6 of 10
J 057
208901401
1001

UNIVERSITY
AVE
No 1-2 story
community building

0.48 This is the city-owned parcel at northeast
corner of 9th and University.

K 057
208800500
and 057-
2088-6
1920 and
19xx SAN

PABLO AVE
Yes 1 parcel w/ 1 story
commercial building
and some open
space other parcel
vacant

0.32 Same ownership two parcels
L 060
235401403
1235 10TH ST No 1-story commercial
building and parking

0.26 C-W zoned property about 0.6 FAR
recommending to add to Gilman Node
M 060
235400300
and 060
235400402
1212 and
1214 SAN

PABLO AVE
No 1- story vacant
commercial building
and 1-story light
industrial/auto
serving bldg

0.29 Same owner as approved project to the
north
N 060
239501600
1443 SAN

PABLO AVE
No 1-story commercial
building

0.17 HE Opp Site #114 is a parking lot that serves
adjacent building and has same property
owner.

O 1095
University
Ave
No 2-story vacant
commercial

0.11 Former Wells Fargo Bank building

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 7 of 10
Opportunity Sites Key Map

Figure B.1 Opportunity Sites Map – Part 1

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 8 of 10

Figure B.2 Opportunity Sites Map – Part 2

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 9 of 10

Figure B.3 Opportunity Sites Map – Part 3

Appendix B: Opportunity Sites
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 10 of 10

Figure B.4 Opportunity Sites Map – Part 4

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Final Draft 1 of 6

Appendix C:

Buildout Summary
Memorandum
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

- Final Draft –

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Final Draft 2 of 6

Date: April 28, 2026
To: City of Berkeley
From: Community Design + Architecture
Urban Planning Partners
Re: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPA SP) – Task 5.3 Build-out Summary Staff Memorandum The planning process considered, with feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council in November 2025 and March 2026, alternative standards for allowable height and density for the Commercial San Pablo (C-SP) Zoning District based on land-use and location, and impacts on potential residential and commercial buildout, affordable housing production, and economic development policy. This appendix outlines the finalized building height and density standards within the Plan Area and the anticipated development buildout with these standards.

Height Standard
Comparison between C-W to C-SP for maximum height, across uses, and node and outside of node areas1:
• Nonresidential-only: remains 3 stories
• Residential-only: increase from 3 to 7 stories
• Mixed-use: increase from 5 to 7 stories
Policy Implications
Developers often treat 8 stories as a practical feasibility threshold because it often represents the upper end of cost-efficient mid-rise construction (5 floors of wood-frame over three stories of concrete). Previous development proposals and approved, but yet unbuilt, projects along San Pablo Avenue have included a mix of six to eight story buildings, as going above six stories adds floor that must be concrete and the increase in construction cost can be difficult for market rents to support.

As buildings push beyond a mid-rise envelope—exceeding the 85-foot mid-rise threshold—projects typically face more stringent life-safety and structural requirements (concrete and steel with no wood structure). This transition can significantly increase both hard and soft costs, and, as a result, many developers will choose to cap project heights between 6 to 8 stories even when zoning allows eight or more and will not use the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to exceed eight stories. Still, future market conditions are unpredictable, especially in the longer-term life of the Plan, and it is possible that buildings up to 12 stories could be viable in the future. If condominium construction liability issues are addressed through state legislation, the value of condominiums could make taller buildings more feasible.

Summary of Implications
Use of State Density Bonus Law: It is likely that the percentage of development projects using the SDBL will not significantly vary across the policy options outlined above. Currently developers use the SDBL for both increasing density and to remove

1 The C-SP zoning increase the floor area ratio (FAR) for uses that have increases in height.

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Page 3 of 6 standards and regulations to improve project feasibility. So, in the future it is likely that developers will still use the SDBL to remove these standards and regulations, while not using it to increase height beyond 8 stories and/or density.

Affordable Units: Increased heights and FARs have the potential to generate more affordable housing, because the Berkeley Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements are calculated using the number of units in the base condition for a project using the State Density Bonus project.

Implications and Rationale
State Density Bonus Law and Berkeley Affordable Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Permitting 7 stories by-right reduces the incentive to use SDBL to increase density, because many projects can reach their target unit yield within the base envelope. Developers may still elect to use SDBL, but more likely to obtain concessions and waivers that help project feasibility (e.g., relief from specific development standards, parking, setbacks, open space, design constraints) rather than to add units given anticipated market demand.

This dynamic matters because SDBL benefits (density and concessions) are tied to the level and depth of affordability provided. If a project can achieve its target unit count by-right, the developer may choose to provide only the minimum affordable set-aside necessary to unlock the number of concessions they want—rather than the larger or deeper affordability unit mix that might have been offered when SDBL was the primary pathway to unlock additional height and FAR.

Berkeley’s Affordable Inclusionary Housing Requirement applies to all development projects, including those that use SDBL.

The city requires that 20% of a project’s units be affordable and provides the option to pay a fee rather than providing the units within the project. For a project using SDBL, the city requirement applies to the number of units in the “base” project (the project based on existing zoning densities) and does not apply to any additional units resulting from use of SDBL waivers.

Most recent development proposals in Berkeley use SDBL to waive both height and FAR maximums in order to unlock the optimum density for development feasibility, and to concession out of requirements that would increase the cost of development. Typically, the number of affordable units needed for the number of concessions the developer wants is a lower percentage than the 20% required by the city’s affordable housing requirements. The affordable units used for SDBL are required to be in the project and typically developers choose to pay an in-lieu fee for the additional affordable units required by the City’s requirements.

As mentioned above, th e increased height standards will reduce or eliminate the use of the SDBL for increasing density.

Developers will provide SDBL inclusionary affordable units to gain the concessions for removing City requirements that increase their development cost. The increase of maximum allowed height and FAR potentially grows the number of units in the “base” project, and, therefore, increases the total number of affordable units required in the project, because the City’s affordable housing requirement applies to this higher number of base units. It is possible that the increase in affordable units could make a project that maximizes height and number of units less feasible compared to development under an option with a lower maximum zoning height that uses SDBL to increase height. This is difficult to predict, and typically the cost over the life of a project is less for the in-lieu fee compared to providing inclusionary units with the lower rents they provide.

Buildout Assumptions
Residential Density: The starting point for the residential density assumptions and methodology used in this buildout analysis are the density assumptions and methodology used for the 2023 Berkeley Housing Element. The Housing Element states, “The City estimated development potential for the sites by calculating the average baseline density (without density bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects per zoning district.”2 For determining the buildout for the Plan Area, adjustments are made to the Baseline density assumptions in the Housing Element based the modifications to proposed zoning and development standards.

2 City of Berkeley Housing Element 2023-2031; as amended on February 17, 2023; page C-17.

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Page 4 of 6 Commercial Density: Commercial intensity refers to the net amount of commercial space anticipated in future mixed-use developments, calculated similar to how average residential density is assessed in the Housing Element.

The analysis calculates net commercial square footage by comparing existing commercial space as defined through the Assessor’s Use Codes with the average new commercial area that recent development projects have proposed. The existing commercial space area (square feet) on the opportunity sites was estimated using data from the County Assessor’s office with some adjustments made from review of aerial photographs and data included in staff reports for proposed development projects. The commercial space within new mixed-use developments was estimated based on recently constructed and proposed mixed-use projects in the Plan Area, applying an average FAR of 0.12 to the total site acreage of mixed-use projects in each development scenario. The net reduction in commercial space is derived by adding the estimate of new commercial space in mixed use developments to the estimated loss of existing commercial space due to the demolition of existing buildings on the opportunity sites.

Development B uildout: The development buildout (see Table C.1) applies the C-SP Zoning to the sites identified in the Baseline, the 15 additional housing opportunity sites identified through the Plan community assessment work (see Figure C.1), and expanded C-SP nodes compared to the existing C-W nodes. The buildout also includes the following assumptions:
o R e -zonings:
 R
ezone existing C-W zoned parcels within the Plan Area to C-SP.  Rezone existing C-U parcels within the Plan Area to C-SP.  Rezoning some parcels to eliminate existing split-zoned properties. These changes are limited to parcels fronting on either San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue. In cases where the split zoned portion of a parcel fronts on a side street, the split zone is maintained. o Housing Overlay:
 Assumes C-SP development standards for 100% affordable or family housing on MU-LI sites. • Density Outside the Nodes: The Plan increases density for residential only and mixed-use buildings by adjusting the allowable heights from 50-feet to 75-feet, and allowable FAR from 3.0 to 4.25, which permits up to 7 stories while accounting for a taller ground floor and a roof parapet. The Plan adjusts the density assumption used for the HEU opportunity sites of 135 du/ac to 215 du/ac based on the assumption that 70% of development outside of the nodes will be residential only use developments.
• D ensity in Nodes: The Plan increases density for residential and mixed-use buildings by adjusting the allowable height from 50-feet to 75-feet and allowable FAR from 3.0 to 4.25, which permits up to 7 stories while accounting for a taller ground floor and a sloping roof parapet. The Plan increases the density assumptions from the HEU opportunity sites of 135 du/ac to 210 du/ac based on an assumption that accounts for commercial space on the ground floor which is required within nodes by the C-SP zoning.

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Page 5 of 6 Table C.1. Height and Density in the C-SP Zoning District

Existing C-W Proposed C-SP
Non Res-only
3 stories
40’ max. height

3.0 max FAR
3 stories
40’ max. height

3.0 max FAR
Res-only
3 stories
40’ max. height

3.0 max FAR
7 stories
75’ max height

4.25 max FAR
150 du/ac
Mixed-use
4 stories
50’ max. height

3.0 max FAR
7 stories
75’ max height

4.25 max FAR
145 du/ac
Estimated Residential Buildout
without SDBL (units) 4,9003 6,900
Estimated Residential Buildout with
SDBL (units) 7,000-8,000 7,000-8,000
Estimated Plan Area Commercial
Space (sq. ft.) 1,202,400 1,171,000
Estimated Change in Plan Area
Commercial Space (sq. ft.) -288,200 -319,600

3 New Residential Buildout without SDBL for the opportunity sites identified in the 20 23 Housing Element Update is 3,500 units.

October 29, 2024 (Revised April 28, 2026) Page 6 of 6 Figure C.1. Addition Housing Opportunity Sites in the Plan Area

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 1 of 10

Appendix D:

Street Improvements
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan

- Final Draft –

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 2 of 10
Table of Contents
Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Comprehensive List of Existing Projects .............................................................................................. 3 City of Berkeley Projects .................................................................................................................... 3 Alameda CTC Projects ....................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Improvements .................................................................................................................... 5

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 3 of 10
Overview
This appendix provides an overview of transportation projects that are already underway at the time of the Specific Plan’s publication, along with recommended improvements at key locations identified through the planning and community engagement process. Many of these projects are expected to be implemented in the coming years and will significantly reshape travel conditions in the area. The Specific Plan’s proposed improvements are designed to build upon this ongoing work, treating these near- term changes as the new baseline for future transportation planning and investment.

Comprehensive List of Existing Projects
City of Berkeley Projects
Current Projects (2025)
Parker-Addison Mobility and Safety Improvements Project1 This project will provide a bike boulevard and associated improvements to connect the West Street multiuse pathway to San Pablo Park via Bonar and Mabel Streets. The project also includes a new bike boulevard on Parker Street from San Pablo Avenue to Mabel Street.

Addison Street Bike Boulevard Connector Project2
The Addison Bike Boulevard will provide an east-west connection between Milvia Street and Sacramento Street to connect West Berkeley to Downtown Berkeley. The Project proposes a Class III bike boulevard on Addison Street from the Aquatic Park eastward to Sacramento Street and from Martin Luther King Jr. Way through downtown to Oxford Street. It would connect to the previously-constructed (phase 1) portion of this project between Sacramento Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way, thereby creating a continuous bike boulevard from the Aquatic Park to the western edge of the UC Berkeley campus. The project also includes construction of a Class IV separated bikeway connector across San Pablo Avenue to reduce future collision risk for vulnerable users crossing the street and will address a key barrier to east -west bicycle connectivity; this connector on San Pablo Avenue will be implemented as part of the Alameda CTC Safety Enhancements Project, described below.

Street Rehabilitation - Hopkins Corridor Improvements3
This project includes Hopkins Street from San Pablo Avenue to Sutter Street. The project began in 2020 and was put on hold in 2023. As of the fall of 2025 there is no definitive timeline has been established for restarting the effort.

Other Currently Planned Projects
Ashby/San Pablo Traffic Improvements – Design is currently underway for this intersection improvement project, which includes a dedicated left-turn lane with a signal phase and upgraded curbs to enhance safety and traffic flow. Construction is anticipated in Fiscal Year 2027.

1 City of Berkeley. Parker-Addison Mobility and Safety Improvements Project. City of Berkeley. Accessed 6 May 2025.
2 City of Berkeley. Addison Street Bike Boulevard Connector Project. City of Berkeley. Accessed 6 May 2025. 3 City of Berkeley. Street Rehabilitation – Hopkins Corridor Improvements. City of Berkeley. Accessed 6 May 2025.

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 4 of 10
Alameda CTC Projects
The Specific Plan will not focus on making transportation improvements to San Pablo Avenue, because the Alameda Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) has completed a multimodal planning study for San Pablo Avenue throughout Alameda County. The study has led to three improvement projects that will result in construction of safety improvements for all users, bus stop improvements, and parallel bicycle facility improvements, as well as a short segment of bicycle and bus lanes on the southern end of San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley:

The Parallel Bike Improvement Project
This will construct bike safety and connectivity improvements and pedestrian, ADA upgrades along streets parallel to San Pablo Avenue, as well as creates safer bicycle crossings for existing or proposed bicycle routes as designated in the Berkeley Bike Plan (2017). Improvements on parallel streets will create or enhance bike boulevards consist of diverters, traffic circles, modifications to existing stop controls, speed humps, and wayfinding improvements for bicycles. This project is expected to start construction in 2026 and be completed in 2027. See Chapter 5 – Streets, Figure 5.8 Connections Map.

The Safety Enhancements Project
This will construct improvements for pedestrians and cyclists to cross San Pablo Avenue more easily and improve transit speed and reliability along San Pablo Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements on San Pablo Avenue include median islands, and crossing beacons; and the Class IV separated bikeway on San Pablo Avenue between the off-set intersections with Addison Street. This project will also include ADA upgrades to curb ramps. Transit improvements include bus stop bulb-outs for high-use stops, intersection lighting upgrades, and some bus stop relocations to improve safety and bus operations. Within Berkeley, improvements will extend between Heinz Avenue and the northern city limit. This project is expected to start construction in 2026 and be completed in 2027.

The Bus and Bike Lanes Project
This project is located primarily within the Cities of Oakland and Emeryville , and will convert one travel lane in each direction on San Pablo Avenue to a bus-only lane and convert on-street parking lanes to separated bike lanes. In Berkeley, the Project’s bicycle improvements will extend along San Pablo Avenue from the southern city limit to Heinz Avenue, approximately 0.25 miles, and the bus improvements will end at the Ashby Avenue intersection. This project will start the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase in summer or fall of 2026 and 2035 is estimated date for completion of construction.

Figure D. 1 Alameda CTC. San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Overview Map

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 5 of 10
Alameda Countywide Bikeways Network
In December 2022, the Commission adopted a resolution establishing an All Ages and Abilities (AAA) bikeways policy and standard. The policy directs that Countywide Bikeway Facilities incorporate AAA design principles, as defined by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages and Abilities Bikeways. This policy aligns with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s existing standards for the regional Active Transportation Network , of which the Countywide Bikeways Network is a subset. As San Pablo Avenue is designated as a major bus and bikeway corridor within the Countywide Network, it is subject to these design expectations.

Proposed Improvements
The Specific Plan summarizes a set of recommended improvements that are not currently addressed by existing or planned projects from the City of Berkeley and Alameda CTC. The methodology for summarizing these recommendations integrates proposals from the Pedestrian Plan (2020) and the Berkeley Bike Plan Update (2026), and was further refined through input from City of Berkeley staff and accident history. The Table D.1 List of Intersection Improvements providing an overview of these proposed improvements, listing strategies to address existing mobility gaps and plan for enhancements beyond currently planned projects. This list is intended to be a living document and updated periodically as conditions change, evolving safety needs, community input, and coordination with future planning and capital improvement efforts. For example, the city will likely be updating the Pedestrian Plan in the next couple of years. Many of intersection improvements listed below align with Policies and Standards presented in Chapter 5 – Streets, Continue to improve Intersections section of the Specific Plan.

Figure D.2: Connections & D3 Mid-Block and Side-Street Plaza Options presents a consolidated overview of potential pedestrian crossing locations based on T-P.9 Pedestrian Crossing Frequency. It also provides an overview of potential side-street plaza sites, policy PR-P.15 Create Side-Street Plazas.

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 6 of 10
Table D.1 List of Intersection Improvements
No.

Existing Project not
considered in Prop.

Improvements
Proposed Improvement Nearest Intersection Source
0 Potential Improvement to study during update to the
Pedestrian Plan: North bound bus stop is not proximate to a crosswalk and John Muir Car Center and a large sports club are on the east side of the street. Existing cross walks at the far north and south sides of intersections. Resulting in an over 380 foot distance between protected crossings of San Pablo Avenue.
67th Street and Folger
Avenue intersections
with San Pablo Ave
Public comment during
SPA SP process

0 Potential Improvement to study during update to the Vision Zero Action Plan and/or Pedestrian Plan: Public comment was made regarding bicycle and pedestrian collisions and safety concern with vehicles making turns at this signalized
intersection.

Grayson Street and San
Pablo Ave
Public comment during
SPA SP process

1 RRFB and Ped Refuge Island Folger Ave and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

2 Others Restrict Right Turn on Red, Median Refuge Island, Curb Extension, Widen Sidewalk at Bus Stop
Pedestrian Plan (2020): High-Visibility Crosswalk, Hardened Centerline
Ashby Ave and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

3 RRFB and Ped Refuge Island Burnett St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

4 Alameda CTC
And City of Berkeley
RRFB at South Leg (where Safety Enhancement Project is
implementing a Pedestrian Refuge Island)
Potential Protected Intersection improvements connecting with Separated Bike Lanes on San Pablo Ave. to Heinz St. (see Intersection 26)
Oregon St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
5 Alameda CTC RRFB at North Leg Ward St and San Pablo
Ave
City Staff

6 City of Berkeley Bike Crossing Parker St and San Pablo Ave
City Staff

7 Alameda CTC RRFB at South Leg Blake St and San Pablo
Ave
City Staff

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 7 of 10
No.

Existing Project not
considered in Prop.

Improvements
Proposed Improvement Nearest Intersection Source
8 Median Refuge Island Dwight Way and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
9 Alameda CTC Raised Crosswalk
Diverter (with PHB)
Channing Way and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
10 Alameda CTC RRFB Chaucer St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
11 Widen Sidewalk at Bus Stop, High-Visibility Crosswalk, Curb Extension, Median Refuge Island
Bancroft Way and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Pedestrian Plan (2020)
12 Alameda CTC High-Visibility Crosswalk, Consolidate Driveways, Curb Extension, Median Refuge Island, Widen Sidewalk at Bus Stop Allston Way and San
Pablo Ave
Pedestrian Plan (2020)
13 Alameda CTC RRFB, Curb Extension Cowper St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Pedestrian Plan (2020)
14 City of Berkeley Median Refuge Island on Southern Addison 2-Way Cycle track Connector
Southern Addison St
and San Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
15 City of Berkeley Bike Box for left-turning North bikes turning onto San Pablo.

Bike signal detection and RRFB/PHB for peds and bikes
coming from the northern Addison who will then turn left going SB on San Pablo and then turning right to head WB on
Addison. Raised Crossing for ped/ bikes
2-Way Cycle track Connector
Northern Addison St and
San Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
16 Restrict Right Turn on Red, Median Refuge Island, Curb Extensions
University Ave and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Pedestrian Plan (2020)
17 Ped Refuge Islands Hearst Ave and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

18 Alameda CTC Ped Refuge Islands. Tighten Intersection Delaware St and San Pablo Ave
City Staff

19 Alameda CTC RRFB Francisco St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

20 Alameda CTC Raised Intersection Virginia St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff

21 Median Refuge Island, Widen Sidewalk at Bus Stop

Cedar St and San Pablo
Ave
Bike Plan Update (2026)

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 8 of 10
No.

Existing Project not
considered in Prop.

Improvements
Proposed Improvement Nearest Intersection Source
22 Alameda CTC Raised Intersection
PHB
Camelia St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
23 Alameda CTC and
City of Berkeley
Ped Refuge Islands
Potential Protected Intersection Treatments on west side and shortening of pedestrian crossing of Gilman St
Gilman St and San
Pablo Ave
City Staff
Bike Plan Update (2026)
24 Curb Extension, Consolidate driveways, Median Refuge Curtis St and University Ave
City Staff

25 Curb Extension, Median Refuge 10th St and University Ave
City Staff

26 Alameda CTC or City
of Berkeley
2-Way Cycle track Connector either to Oregon St (Intersection 4) or Russell St (Intersection 27), Protected Intersection on west side, and Shortened Pedestrian Crossing.

Heinz St and San Pablo
Ave
Bike Plan Update (2026)
27 Alameda CTC or City
of Berkeley
2-Way Cycle track Connector to Heinz St (Intersection 26), Protected Intersection on east and west sides, and Shortened Pedestrian Crossing of Russel St, Median Refuge
Russell St and San
Pablo Ave
Bus and Bike Lanes
Project
Bike Plan Update (2026)
Ped = Pedestrian; RRFB = Rectangular Flashing Beacons; PHB = Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 9 of 10

Figure D.2: Connections & Intersection Improvements

Source: City of Berkeley, Alameda CTC, CD+A. 2025.

Appendix D: Streets Improvements

San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 10 of 10
Figure D.3: Connections & Mid-Block and Side Street Plaza Options

Source: City of Berkeley, Alameda CTC, CD+A. 2025.

F
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
Design
Standards
Document
- Final Draft -
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 2
Plan Acknowledgments
This Specific Plan was generously funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through a Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant.

City of Berkeley
City Council Members
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin, District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Shoshana O’Keefe, District 5
Brent Blackaby, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8
Planning Commission
Emily Marthinsen, Chair
Savlan Hauser, Vice Chair
Alfred Twu
Angela Wang
Blaine Merker
Charles Khan
Christina Oatfield
Darrell Owens
Jeff Vincent
Barnali Ghosh (former)
Elisa Mikiten (former)
John E. “Chip” Moore III (former)
Project Team
Anne Hersch, Land Use Planning Manager
Ashley James, Senior Planner (former)
Jordan Klein, Planning and Development Director
Justin Horner, Principal Planner
Robert Rivera, Senior Planner (former)
Technical Advisory Group
City Manager’s Office, Economic Development
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department
Public Works Department, Transportation Division
Alameda County Transportation Commission
ACT Transit
City of Albany
City of Emeryville
City of Oakland
Consulting Team
Team Leaders
Community Design + Architecture (CD+A), Team Lead and
Urban Design
Urban Planning Partners (UPP), Co-Team Lead, Planning
Policy, and Environmental Review
Collaborators
Aaron Welch Planning (AWP), Land Use Planning and
Development Standards
Diablo Engineering Group, Utilities Policy
Fehr & Peers, Transportation Planning
InterEthnica, Community Engagement
Street Level Advisors, Housing and Economic
Development Policy
Special Thanks
Marcel Pardo Ariza, Artist-in-Residence

Please note: Photographs of buildings in this document do not imply full compliance with the standards herein.

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 3
Table of Contents
Plan Acknowledgments ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4 Purpose and Applicability ........................................................................................................................... 4 Revisions ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................................................... 5 How to Use the Standards ........................................................................................................................... 5 Design Standards ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7

1. Site Design ............................................................................................................................................. 7

1. 1 Pedestrian Access ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7

1. 2 Parking and Vehicular Access ................................ ................................................................ ............. 8

2. Building Design....................................................................................................................................... 9

2. 1 Façade Modulation and Articulation ................................ ................................................................ ... 9

2. 2 Windows ................................ ................................ ................................................................ .......... 11

2. 3 Colors and Materials ................................................................ ................................ ......................... 12

2. 4 Rooftop Design Treatments ................................................................ ................................ ............... 12

2. 5 Parking Garages ................................ ................................ ............................................................... 13

3. Pedestrian-Level Design ....................................................................................................................... 14

3. 1 Ground-Floor Design ................................................................ ................................ ........................ 14

3. 2 Private Open Space Design ................................................................ ................................ ............... 18

3. 3 Public Open Space Design ................................................................ ................................ ................ 20

3. 4 Service and Utility Design ................................................................ ................................ .................. 22

3. 5 Private Parklets ................................ ................................ ................................................................ 23

3. 6 Public Art ................................ ................................ ................................................................ ......... 24

4. Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 25

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Specific Plan Area ................................................................ ................................ ........................ 4 Figure 2. Pedestrian Access Paths ................................................................ ................................ ......................... 7 Figure 3. Elevated Walkway Crossing ................................................................ ................................ ..................... 8 Figure 4. Parking Garage Entry ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 Figure 5. Building Façade with Modulation ................................ ................................................................ ............. 9 Figure 6. Building Façade with Balconies and Ornamentation ................................ ................................ .................. 9 Figure 7. Building Façade with Articulation and Vertical Rhythm ................................ ................................ ............ 10 Figure 8. Building Corner with Façade Articulation ................................ ................................................................ 11 Figure 9. Framed Windows ................................ ................................ ................................................................ .. 11 Figure 10. Building Frontage along San Pablo Avenue ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 Figure 11. Building Frontage Upper Stories and Roof Transition ................................ ................................ ............. 12 Figure 12. Ornamental Screening ................................................................ ................................ ......................... 13 Figure 13. Storefront Frontage Design ................................................................ ................................ .................. 14 Figure 14. Example of Active Frontage Design ................................ ................................................................ ....... 15 Figure 15. Elevated Individual Residential Entries ................................ ................................................................ . 16 Figure 16. Street Facing Frontage of Live/Work Unit ................................ .............................................................. 17 Figure 17. Enclosed Courtyard with Common Amenities ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 Figure 18. Balconies ................................ ................................................................ ................................ ............ 19 Figure 19. POPOS Plaza in Front of Mixed-Use Development ................................ ................................ ................ 20 Figure 20. Quick-build POPOS plaza ................................................................ ................................ .................... 21 Figure 21. Mid-block Crossing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 22 Figure 22. Utility Equipment Location ................................................................ ................................ ................... 22 Figure 23. Parking Lot with Restaurant Seating................................ ................................................................ ...... 23 Figure 24. Public Art on Walls and as Surface Treatment ................................ ................................ ....................... 24

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 4
Introduction
Purpose and Applicability
The vision of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan) is to support diverse housing options, strengthen new and existing businesses, enhance public amenities, and improve connections between the Specific Plan Area and surrounding neighborhoods and destinations.

To work towards that vision, the Specific Plan establishes community- based, context-sensitive regulations and policies.

The intent of the San Pablo Avenue Design Standards (Design Standards Document) is to work in coordination with the policies of the Specific Plan to implement its vision. The Design Standards Document provides a clear set of objective standards while allowing flexibility and creativity in design. In addition to the standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, projects must comply with the Design Standards Document.

The Design Standards Document apply within the Specific Plan Area shown in Figure 1. The area is generally comprised of parcels fronting San Pablo Avenue within the city limits, as well as some adjacent parcels in areas that have the potential to support new mixed -use development.

The Design Standards Document applies to new construction and alterations to existing buildings, with the exception of automotive uses on automotive sites.

Projects subject to the Design Standards Document are exempt from Design Review.

Revisions
The Planning Director may make minor clarification, corrections or technical changes to the text, figures and photos of the Design Standards Document.

Figure 1. Map of Specific Plan Area
Data from City of Berkeley, Alameda CTC, 2025

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 5
Guiding Principles

The design standards were developed based on the Specific Plan’s vision of San Pablo Avenue as a mixed-use district that is integrated with the neighborhoods and employment areas that surround it, and that continues to serve Berkeley’s broad range of community members and support citywide and regional needs. To achieve that vision, the Specific Plan provides several guiding principles that underpin the design standards in this document :

Increase the Diversity and Supply of Housing
 Revise Housing Development Regulations
 Encourage Engaging Buildings and Site Frontages

Increase Business Activity to Support a Thriving Community  Reduce Vacancy of Ground Floor Space
 Create Identifiable Commercial Areas with Stronger Business Presence

Enhance Interaction Between Public and Private Spaces
 Increase Public Open Space and Community Gathering Spaces

Enhance Local and Citywide Access
 Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Access

How to Use the Standards
The standards in this document are regulatory and compliance is mandatory. These standards are required in addition to the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance (BMC Title 23). This document refers to any related regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, such as development standards.

Document Structure
The Design Standards Document are organized into five sections:

1. Introduction. Describes the purpose and
applicability of the Design Standards Document, the
guiding principles, and the 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.

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.

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

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 6
Standard Structure
Each standard is assigned a specific number and is organized into the following format:
• Number and Title. Topic area
• Purpose Statement. Ties standard to the guiding
principles of the Specific Plan.
• Applicability. Describes project types that must
comply with the standard.
• Standard. Describes the design requirement.
• Specific Plan Policy Reference. Connects the
standard to the overall Specific Plan policy direction. • Recommendations. Some standards include
optional design recommendations.

Exceptions to the Standards
A project applicant may request an exception to any
design standard. The request must be made in writing as part of a Zoning Project Application for a proposed
project. The application for an exception must contain a detailed description of the design standard that is
requested to be waived; how the physical constraints or other unique situations of the project site make it
infeasible to comply with the design standard; how the
proposed project meets the design standard at issue to
the extent feasible; and how the request meets each
exception requirement.

The Design Review Committee shall consider the request
and information submitted by the applicant and make a
recommendation to the decision-maker (Zoning
Adjustments Board or City Council) regarding certain
findings to approve or deny the request. The decision - maker may only grant an exception if all the following
findings are made:

1. There is a physical constraint or unique situation that:
a. Is not created by the project applicant or
property owner; and
b. Is not caused by financial or economic
constraints.

2. Approving the exception will not create a safety
hazard in which the subject property is located.

3. The proposed project meets the intent of the design
standard to the extent physically feasible.

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 7
Design Standards
There are three types of Design Standards described below: Site Design, Building Design, and Pedestrian -Level Design.

1. Site Design

1.1 Pedestrian Access

1.1.1 Pedestrian Access: Through-Lots
Purpose Statement: To ensure pedestrian comfort, security, and safety within new development.

Applicability: This standard applies to any new development located on a site with street frontages on opposite sides of a block.

Standard: Building entries shall be located on both frontages of the site.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

1.1.2 Pedestrian Access: Multiple Buildings
Purpose Statement: To ensure pedestrian comfort, security, and safety.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development site that contains multiple buildings.

Standards:

A. Internal Connections. Provide a system of pedestrian walkways that connects all buildings on a site to all of the following: (1) each building on the site; (2) on- site bicycle parking areas; (3) on-site automobile parking areas; (4) on-site open space areas; (5) pedestrian amenities; and (6) the publicly accessible pedestrian circulation network outside of the development site. See example Figure 2.

B. Illumination. Provide pedestrian-oriented lighting along onsite pathways at minimum intervals of every 40 feet.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

1.1.3 On-Site Walkways
Purpose Statement: To ensure pedestrian comfort, security, and safety within new development.

Applicability: Any walkway that crosses private publicly accessible streets, parking areas, loading areas, or other vehicular routes within a development site. See example Figure 3.

Recommendations:

Projects that contain multiple buildings should provide a mid-block passage (see Standard 3.3.4 Mid-Block Passage) to serve as a form of pedestrian access between multiple buildings on the same site.

Figure 2. Pedestrian Access Paths
Between Buildings within the Lot . Photo
by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 8
Standard: Walkways shall be clearly identifiable through the use of at least one or more of the following:

1. Grade change (raised); or

2. Change in at least one of the following: paving material, color, striping, or bollards.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

1.2 Parking and Vehicular Access
Purpose Statement: To support walking and sustain a diverse, active and safe public realm.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development.

Standards:

A. Parking Access Hierarchy. Parking and service area access shall be located from the following list, in order of preference:

1. From an alley;

2. In the absence of an existing or proposed alley, access shall be from a driveway shared with a property abutting the development site;

3. In the absence of a shared driveway, access shall be from a side-street; or

4. In the absence of a side-street, access shall be from a curb cut/driveway along the primary street frontage.

B. Parking Location.

1. Parking areas shall be located behind, within, or underneath buildings, with the exception of curb-side pickup/drop-off areas and ADA-compliant spaces.

2. On sites with more than one street frontage, parking areas located along the primary street frontage are prohibited.

3. No more than 30 feet of the linear primary street frontage along San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, or Ashby Avenue shall be devoted to parking garages (see Figure 4) and openings, service, and loading entries.

C. Service Entries. Service entries shall be located on the non-primary street frontage (unless all frontages are primary).

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 3. Elevated Walkway Crossing
Photo by AWP
Figure 4. Parking Garage Entry
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 9

2. Building Design

2.1 Façade Modulation and Articulation

2.1.1 All Buildings
Purpose Statement: Create cohesive and well-crafted building façades with human-scaled details and variations on façades that support a comfortable, engaging pedestrian experience. Balance predictability with creative flexibility to support high-quality and context-sensitive architecture within the Specific Plan Area.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development.

Standards:

A. Blank Walls. Along publicly accessible streets, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and open space areas, blank walls exceeding the following lengths are prohibited:

1. Storefront Ground Floor Frontage Type. 20 feet in length.

2. Active, Residential, and Live-Work Ground Floor Frontage Types. 30 feet in length.

B. Façade Treatments.

1. All Façades. All façades of a building on each block face shall be designed and detailed in a similar manner, except for interior courtyards and interior side façades of interior lots at the zero-lot line.

2. Interior Side Façades. Interior side façades located at the zero-lot line shall be enhanced with either public art or landscaping.

3. Juliet Balconies. If provided, Juliet balconies shall have a minimum depth of 12 inches and length of 3 feet. See Figure 6.

C. Façade Articulation. All façades shall include at least two of the following façade articulation strategies:

1. Recesses. Vertical and horizontal recesses, such as: (1) a pattern of recessed grouping of windows; (2) recessed panels; or (3) entryways. See example Figure 5.

2. Projections. Vertical and horizontal projections, such as: (1) projecting entries; (2) bay windows; (3) shading and weather protection devices (for windows); or (4) decorative architectural details. If provided, shading and weather protection projections shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth.

Unless otherwise noted, architectural projections shall be a minimum of 4 inches in depth.

3. Datum Lines. Horizontal lines that continue the full length of the building, such as cornices, with minimum height of 8 inches and minimum projection depth of 6 inches.

4. Screening Devices. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, perforated metal screens, or similar strategies.

5. Ornamentation. Ornamentation shall either vary and contrast in color or material from the wall surface or be constructed of high-quality materials (e.g., brick, stone, ceramic, metal, wood, tile, or fiber-cement board).

Ornamentation may include the following: (1) cornices; (2) inlays; (3) reliefs; (4) decorative tile; or (5) window trim. Built-up stucco trim or molding (“plant-ons”) are prohibited.

Figure 5. Building Façade with
Modulation
Photo by AWP
Figure 6. Building Façade with Balconies
and Ornamentation
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 10
Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

2.1.2 Tall Buildings
Purpose Statement: Create cohesive and well-proportioned building façades with human-scaled details and variations on tall façades to reduce perceived building mass and potential wall-effect of a tall and wide façade, given the increased area and height of the façades. This supports a comfortable, engaging pedestrian experience.

Applicability: In addition to the standards in Section 2.1.1- All Buildings, these standards are applicable to any new development that is a minimum 4 stories in height.

Standards:

A. Vertical Rhythm. Building façades facing publicly accessible streets, pathways, and/or private open space shall:

1. Express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a residential unit and/or individual rooms (see Figure 7); or

2. Provide a change in plane through a combination of recesses and projections.

B. Façade Articulation. Tall building façades shall include at least three of the following façade articulation strategies:

1. Recesses. Vertical and horizontal recesses, such as: (1) a pattern of recessed grouping of windows; (2) recessed panels; or (3) entryways.

2. Projections. Vertical and horizontal projections, such as: (1) projecting entries; (2) bay windows; (3) shading and weather protection devices (for windows); or (4) decorative architectural details. If provided, shading and weather protection projections shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth.

Unless otherwise noted, architectural projections shall be a minimum of 4 inches in depth.

3. Datum Lines. Horizontal lines that continue the full length of the building, such as cornices, with minimum height of 8 inches and minimum projection depth of 6 inches.

4. Screening Devices. Screening devices that serve to create a barrier or partition within the building façade design (e.g., lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens).

5. Ornamentation. Ornamentation shall either vary and contrast in color or material from the wall surface or be constructed of high-quality materials (e.g., brick, stone, ceramic, metal, wood, tile, or fiber-cement board).

Ornamentation may include the following: (1) cornices; (2) inlays; (3) reliefs; (4) decorative tile; or (5) window trim. Built-up stucco trim or molding (“plant-ons”) are prohibited.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 7. Building Façade with
Articulation and Vertical Rhythm
Photo by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 11

2.1.3 Corner Buildings
Purpose Statement: Emphasize corner locations as prominent building elements, which require enhanced articulation to strengthen intersection identity and visibility.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development that is both:
(1) a minimum 4 stories in height; and (2) located at the corner of any of the following public streets: San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way, Cedar Street, Ashby Avenue, University Avenue, or Gilman Street.

Standard: The corner of the building shall include at least one of the following features:

1. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade (see Figure 8); or

2. Height variation of at least 4 feet greater or less than the abutting primary façade; or

3. A rounded corner, chamfered corner, tower or cupola.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

2.1.4 Through-Lot Buildings
Purpose Statement: To ensure that new development supports walking and sustains a diverse, active and safe public realm.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development that is all of the following: (1) 4 stories in height or taller; (2) located on a lot that exceeds 170 linear feet of site frontage along either San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue; and (3) has a frontage on opposite sides of a block.

Standard: Buildings exceeding 350 feet in length or width are prohibited.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

2.2 Windows
Purpose Statement: Encourage high-quality design that provides visual interest.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development.

Standard: Windows shall meet at least one of the following requirements:

1. Recessed at least 3 inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall; or

2. Framed with a minimum projection of 4 inches from the façade (see Figure 9); or

3. Provide a combination of trim (at least 2 inches) and recess (at least 1 inch).

4. Built-up stucco trim or molding (“plant-ons”) are prohibited.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 9. Framed Windows
Photo by AWP
Figure 8. Building Corner with Façade
Articulation
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 12

2.3 Colors and Materials
Purpose Statement: Encourage high-quality materials that provide visual interest.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to any new development.

Standards:

A. Variation in Materials and Colors. Buildings shall include at least 3 variations in material type, material size, texture and pattern, and/or color (See Figure 10).

Any one material must comprise at least 20 percent of the building frontage, excluding windows, railings, base bulkheads, and trim.

B. Material Changes at Corners. A change in material shall be offset by a minimum of 2 inches in depth. Materials shall continue around corners for a minimum distance of 4 feet. The same material shall continue to the next change in the wall plane.

C. Building Component Colors. All vents, flashing, electrical conduits, gutters and downspouts shall be painted the same color as the adjacent surface.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

2.4 Rooftop Design Treatments
Purpose Statement: To minimize visual impact of rooftop elements needed for the function of the building such that they are not visible from any point at or below the roof level of the subject building.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to all new buildings.

Standards:

A. Roof Edge Treatment. Buildings shall have at least one of the following roofline edge treatments:

1. A decorative cornice treatment (other than just colored "stripes" or "bands”). Cornices shall project a minimum of 6 inches from the façade (see example Figure 11); or

2. A sloped roof with overhangs and brackets; or

3. A parapet, which shall include a cap and corner detail to create a shadow line to enhance the building.

B. Rooftop Elements. Rooftop elements that are at least 2 feet in height, such as roof access and mechanical equipment, shall either be:
a. Set back minimum 10 feet from the roof edge; or
b. Screened with parapet walls, towers, or other architectural features.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Recommendation:

Rooftop equipment should be grouped together where practical.

Recommendation:

Colors should be used to bring out contrast between walls, windows, and trim.

Use of color is encouraged to make the area vibrant.

Figure 10. Building Frontage along San
Pablo Avenue
Photo by CD+A
Figure 11. Building Frontage Upper
Stories and Roof Transition
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 13

2.5 Parking Garages
Purpose Statement: To minimize the visual impact of parking.

Applicability: These standards are applicable to new stand-alone parking structures and structured parking incorporated into a building.

Standards:

A. All Entries. All entries to a structured parking garage shall be similar to the building façade. Architectural techniques can include matching façades, material treatments, or recessed garage entries.

B. Pedestrian Entries. Pedestrian entrances shall be located at-grade, connecting directly to the public pedestrian circulation network, on each street-facing frontage.

C. Ground Level Design. Except for vehicular entrances, the ground floor level, including any partially subgrade parking visible above grade, that faces a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space or path, shall be concealed from public street view by:

1. Lining with residential or non-residential use with a minimum depth of 20 feet on the ground floor, measured from the building façade; and

2. Designing and treating the façade with the same level of detail, material quality, and façade articulation as other building façade areas; and/or

3. Incorporating any of the following screening devices:
a. Landscaping (e.g., shrubs, landscaped trellises); or b. Crafted ornamental metal screens (see Figure 12).

D. Upper-Level Design. All parking levels above the ground level shall be designed and treated with the same level of detail, material quality, and façade articulation as other façade areas (e.g., façade articulation and modulation, use of real windows with glazing or false windows defined by frames, lintels, or sills); and/or
E. Light Screening. Lighting shall be screened such that automobile headlamps are not visible from adjacent buildings, parcels, streets, public parks, or publicly accessible open spaces.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 12. Ornamental Screening
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 14

3. Pedestrian-Level Design

3.1 Ground-Floor Design
As established in LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian -Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors, all ground-floor frontages of new buildings constructed within the Specific Plan Area shall construct a ground- floor frontage that complies with the requirements and standards of this section. There are 4 allowable ground floor frontage types, each having distinct design standards for the interface of the building and the street. The BMC includes the figure Ground-Floor Frontage Types in Nodes showing the locations where certain frontage types are required within Designated Nodes. Outside of Designated Nodes, any ground floor frontage type is allowed. A single development project may combine any number of ground-floor frontage types that are allowed on the development site.

3.1.1 Storefront
Purpose Statement: To provide a building form that is functional for mixed-use buildings, primarily to encourage a strong retail-oriented commercial frontage that allows for other active uses, such as residential lobbies or exercise facilities, and where residential units and other less active uses are allowed on the ground floor behind commercial frontages. The design of the building should provide visibility between the public realm of the sidewalk and the activities of the use inside the building.

Applicability: Storefront Ground Floor Design is required for all new buildings located within a Designated Node, generally along San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue, except where shown in the BMC Figure: Ground-Floor Frontage Types in Nodes.

Standards:

A. Frontage Zone and Landscaping. Projects shall be consistent with the frontage zone dimension and landscaping standards in PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards.

B. Ground Floor Dimensions and Interior Requirements:

1. Ground Floor Height. Ground floors shall have a minimum floor to floor height of 15 feet.

2. Tenant Space Depth. Ground floor tenant spaces shall be a minimum:
a. Within Designated Nodes. 40 feet in depth for a minimum of 50 percent of primary street building façades.
b. Outside Designated Nodes. 30 feet in depth. Sidewalk easements/outdoor dining may count towards the minimum depth.

C. Transparency. Ground floor frontages shall be 60 percent transparent between

2.5 and 8 feet above finished grade. The following are prohibited: permanent covering of windows with frosted/opaque film, curtains, blinds, or tinted or reflective glass. See example Figure 13.

D. Entries. Entries shall be weather protected to a minimum depth of 3 feet, by recessing the entry and/or constructing either an awning or canopy.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors.

Figure 13. Storefront Frontage Design
Building fronting San Pablo Avenue.

Photo by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 15

3.1.2 Active
Purpose Statement: To provide a building form that is functional for a range of non- residential uses allowed in the Specific Plan Area, as well as residential amenity spaces.

Applicability: Active Ground Floor Design is a frontage type that is allowed in addition to Storefront Ground Floor Design for all new buildings located within the Designated Nodes, generally along streets intersecting San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue, as shown in the BMC Figure: Ground-Floor Frontage Types in Nodes.

Standards:

A. Frontage Zone and Landscaping. Projects shall be consistent with the frontage zone dimension and landscaping standards in PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards.

B. Ground Floor Dimensions + Interior Requirements:

1. Ground Floor Height. Ground floors shall have a minimum floor to floor height of 15 feet.

2. Tenant Space Depth. Ground floor tenant spaces shall be a minimum 30 feet in depth.

C. Transparency. Ground floor frontages shall be 50 percent transparent between

2.5 and 8 feet above finished grade. The following are prohibited: permanent covering of windows with frosted/opaque film, curtains, blinds, or tinted or reflective glass.

D. Entries. Entries shall be weather protected to a minimum depth of 3 feet, by recessing the entry and/or constructing either an awning or canopy. See example Figure 14.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors.

Figure 14. Example of Active Frontage
Design
Building fronting San Pablo Avenue.

Photo by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 16

3.1.3 Residential
Purpose Statement: To provide a building form that fosters social interaction and street activation while providing appropriate transitions between public and private space.

Applicability: Residential Ground Floor Design is a frontage type that is allowed for all new buildings in locations within the Specific Plan Area where either Storefront or Active Ground Floor Design are not required. See the BMC Figure: Ground-Floor Frontage Types in Nodes.

Standards:

A. Frontage Zone and Landscaping. Projects shall be consistent with the frontage zone dimension and landscaping standards in PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards.

B. Transparency. Ground floor frontages shall be 30 percent transparent between 4 and 7 feet above finished grade.

C. Entries:

1. Primary Shared Entries. Primary entries shared by multiple residential units shall be:
a. Located at least once for each 200 feet of building frontage; and b. Recessed by a minimum of 3 feet.

2. Primary Individual Entries. Primary entries to an individual residential unit (see Figure 15) shall be:
a. Located facing the street; and
b. Weather protected to a minimum depth of 3 feet, by recessing the entry and/or constructing either an awning or canopy.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.19 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors.

Recommendations:

To create a semi-private transition between the sidewalk and residential units, raising the finished floor a minimum of 2 feet above finished grade and providing raised entries in form of either individual stoops or shared entry terraces is strongly encouraged.

Figure 15. Elevated Individual
Residential Entries
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 17

3.1.4 Live/Work
Purpose Statement: To support the unique needs of spaces that combine living and working on the ground floor and provide a storefront character to enhance the pedestrian environment within the Specific Plan Area.

Applicability: Live/Work Ground Floor Design is allowed outside of Designated Nodes.

Standards:

A. Frontage Zone and Landscaping. Projects shall be consistent with the frontage zone dimension and landscaping standards in PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards.

B. Ground Floor Dimensions and Interior Requirements:

1. Ground Floor Height. Ground floors shall have a minimum floor to floor height of 15 feet.

2. Storefront Character. A minimum of 50 percent of the live/work unit façade shall be designed as a storefront (see Figure 16), as follows:
a. Storefront areas shall be 60 percent transparent between 2.5 feet and 8 feet from finished grade.
b. Storefront areas shall be designed to include signage and lighting when being used for commercial use.
c. The following are prohibited within the commercial portion of a live/work unit: permanent covering of windows with frosted/opaque film, curtains, blinds, or tinted or reflective glass.

C. Entries:

1. Access to the non-residential portion of the unit shall be located on the street-facing façade.

2. Access to the residential portion of the unit is not permitted on the street- facing façade.

3. Primary ground floor entrances shall be weather protected to a minimum depth of 3 feet, by recessing the entry and/or constructing either an awning or canopy.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.9 Establish Ground Floor Form Types to Promote Pedestrian-Scaled and Flexible Ground Floors.

Recommendations:

The following design strategies are encouraged to support a storefront character that enhances the pedestrian environment within the Specific Plan Area:
• Window display cases at least 4 feet in depth for a retail-oriented character. • Roll-up doors compatible with the storefront design for artist studios or maker spaces.

Figure 16. Street Facing Frontage of
Live/Work Unit
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 18

3.2 Private Open Space Design

3.2.1 Common Private Open Space
Purpose Statement: To ensure that common private open space provided in new development supports social interaction while providing a suitable level of privacy for residents. See example Figure 17.

Applicability: These standards apply to all new development projects in the Specific Plan Area.

Standards:

A. Dimensions, Placement and Access:

1. Common private open spaces are shared and accessible only to the occupants of the building and their visitors.

2. Required common private open spaces may be located on the ground floor, parking or commercial podiums, or rooftops.

3. All common private open space must have a minimum width and length of 10 feet.

B. Shading. A maximum of 25 percent of the total common private open space area may be covered by an architectural element that provides shade. If provided, such elements shall be at least 8 feet above the grade of the open space.

C. Seating. Seating shall be provided that meets all of the following standards:

1. Seating may only be provided by at least one of the following: Moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches with and without backs, and design-feature seating such as seat walls, planter ledges, or seating steps.

2. Devices or forms affixed or incorporated into planter ledges, steps, sills or other horizontal surfaces that would otherwise be suitable for seating that are intended to prevent or inhibit seating (such as spikes, metal bars, or pointed, excessively rough, or deliberately uncomfortable materials or forms) shall be prohibited.

3. Seats that face building walls must be located a minimum of 6 feet from such wall.

D. Landscaping:

1. A minimum of 40 percent of the open space area shall be planted with trees, ground cover, shrubs, or be located within either movable or permanent planters, except for open space located on a rooftop.

2. A minimum of one tree per 600 square feet of the portion of the total common private open space in a development that is located outdoors shall be planted, except for podium-level courtyards.

E. Screening:

1. Residential units located on the same floor as a common private open space must be screened with a barrier to sufficiently screen the unit from view , such as landscaping, fencing, or decorative walls.

2. Bedroom windows located within 5 feet of an internal pathway or common private open space must be screened with a landscape barrier to screen the window from view.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 17. Enclosed Courtyard with
Common Amenities
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 19

3.2.2 Personal Private Open Space
Purpose Statement: To ensure that personal private open space provided in new development supports livable outdoor areas while maintaining a suitable level of privacy for residents.

Applicability: These standards apply to all new development projects in the Specific Plan Area.

Standard: Personal private open space shall meet all the following requirements:

1. All personal private open space must have a minimum clear height of 8 feet, measured from the ground floor or decking (see Figure 18);

2. Ground-floor personal private open space located outdoors must have a minimum dimension of 8 feet in at least one direction and 5 feet in all other directions; and

3. Balconies must have a minimum width and length of 5 feet.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 18. Balconies
Photo by AWP

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 20

3.3 Public Open Space Design

3.3.1 Sidewalk Expansion
Purpose Statement: To serve the range of uses and infrastructure located within each sidewalk zone along San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, and Ashby Avenue , consistent with the Pedestrian Plan (2020)1 preferred widths for a Mixed-Use Residential Boulevard.

Applicability: These standards apply to all eligible projects seeking to provide a sidewalk expansion as a public open space incentive .

Standards: Sidewalk design and use shall comply with the objective design standards in PR-S.1 Sidewalk Zone Standards.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements, LU-S.1 Sidewalk Expansion Incentive, and PR-P.1 Sidewalk Zones.

3.3.2 Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS)
Purpose Statement: To ensure the creation of high-quality POPOS within Designated Nodes to enhance placemaking and provide community open space within the Specific Plan Area. See example Figure 19.

Applicability: These standards apply to all eligible projects seeking to provide POPOS as a public open space enhancement consistent with LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements.

Standards:

A. Dimensions, Placement and Access:

1. POPOS must have a minimum size of 5 percent of the site area, or 400 square feet, whichever is greater.

2. POPOS must have a minimum dimension of 20 feet in at least one direction.

3. POPOS must be clearly visible from the public right-of-way and have a direct publicly accessible connection to a sidewalk on one of the following public streets: San Pablo Avenue, Gilman Street, Cedar Street, Hopkins Street, University Avenue, Dwight Way, or Ashby Avenue and within a Designated Node. POPOS are prohibited on roofs.

4. Public access must be permitted daily at least during all hours that City parks are open pursuant to Section 6.32.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

5. POPOS shall include signage that is located in a publicly conspicuous place stating that the open space is available for public use, hours of use, and identifies the party responsible for maintenance.

B. Shading:

1. Where provided, a maximum of 40 percent of the total area may be covered by permanent shade structures, such as awnings and trellises.

1 Berkeley Pedestrian Plan. Appendix B: Engineering & Design Guidance, Sidewalks – Preferred Widths for Sidewalk Zones, page B-8.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020%20Pedestrian%20Plan%20Appendix%20B%20%28adopted%2

9.pdf
Figure 19. POPOS Plaza in Front of
Mixed-Use Development
Photo by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 21

2. POPOS with a clear vertical volume of at least 2 stories in height may be entirely covered by the floor area of the third story of the building and above.

C. Landscaping:

1. A minimum of one tree per 400 square feet of POPOS is required and trees may be located within a freestanding fixed planter.

2. A minimum of 20 percent of the POPOS must be landscaped. Landscaping shall include at least one of the following elements: (1) in-ground planting areas; (2) raised freestanding fixed or ballasted planters; or (3) integrated green infrastructure that treats stormwater.

D. Screening. Where provided to define the edge of a POPOS, screening material shall meet the following requirements:

1. Materials shall provide at least 75 percent transparency and be decorative, transparent and/or perforated; and

2. Materials may not exceed 36 inches in height from finished grade.

E. Lighting. Pedestrian-scale lighting that meets the standards in Table 5.2:

Recommended Light Levels, PR-P .3 Improve Street Lighting for the Safety and Comfort of All Users, shall be provided.

F. Seating:

1. A minimum of one linear foot of seating for each 30 square feet of POPOS shall be provided.

2. Seating may only be provided by at least one of the following: Moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches with and without backs, and design-feature seating such as seat walls, planter ledges, or seating steps.

See example Figure 20.

3. Devices or forms affixed or incorporated into planter ledges, steps, sills or other horizontal surfaces that would otherwise be suitable for seating that are intended to prevent or inhibit seating (such as spikes, metal bars, or pointed, excessively rough, or deliberately uncomfortable materials or forms) shall be prohibited.

4. Seating for the purpose of a sidewalk cafe shall not count towards meeting the seating requirement.

5. Seats that face building walls must be located a minimum of 6 feet from such wall.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements.

3.3.3 Side Street Plaza
Purpose Statement: To encourage the enhancement of the pedestrian environment and support placemaking along San Pablo Avenue.

Applicability: These standards apply to all eligible projects seeking to provide a side street plaza as a public open space incentive .

Standard: Contribute to designing and building of a Side-Street Plaza, meeting the design and access standards described in PR-P.15 Create Side-Street Plazas.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements and PR-P.15 Create Side-Street Plazas.

Figure 20. Quick-build POPOS plaza
Photo by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 22

3.3.4 Mid-Block Passage
Purpose Statement: To incentivize publicly accessible mid-block pathways in new through-lot developments. See example Figure 21.

Applicability: These standards apply to all eligible projects seeking to provide a side street plaza as a public open space incentive .

Standards:

A. Dimensions, Placement and Access:

1. Located at the ground level and be accessible from San Pablo Avenue and/or University Avenue.

2. A minimum 16-foot width and 16-foot height, allowing for built space above and/or below the surface of the passage.

3. Provide unobstructed visibility from one public space to another.

4. Provide signage that is located in a publicly conspicuous place stating that the open space is available for public use, hours of use, and identifies the party responsible for maintenance.

B. Lighting. Provide nighttime illumination pursuant to Ordinance N.S.-7424 and PR-P .3 Improve Street Lighting for the Safety and Comfort of All Users.

C. Wayfinding. Provide at least one wayfinding sign on each side of the passage.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.3 Mid-Block Passage Incentive and PR-P.7 Public Open Space Enhancements.

3.4 Service and Utility Design
Purpose Statement: To minimize visual impact on the pedestrian experience and neighboring properties to the extent feasible.

Applicability: These standards apply to all projects that provide any of the following service and utility elements within the Specific Plan Area, unless otherwise prohibited by the utility provider, building and/or fire codes:
• Utility Equipment (e.g., electric and gas meters, fire sprinkler valves). • Service, storage areas and loading areas.
• Communal refuse, recycling, and compost collection
Standards:

A. Design. All above-ground utility equipment, service, storage, and communal refuse, recycling, and compost/green waste collection areas shall be similar to the project building and landscape design.

B. Screening. All above-ground utilities and equipment, service, storage, and outdoor loading areas or enclosures located outside shall be screened (see Figure 22).

C. Backflow Preventors. Backflow preventors shall be located within landscaped setback areas and painted black or green. If no landscaped setback areas exist on the site, then they shall be incorporated into the front of the building and concealed from public street view.

D. Transformers. All transformers should be undergrounded.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards.

Figure 22. Utility Equipment Location
Photo by AWP
Figure 21. Mid-block Crossing
“The Dogpatch Artwalk” in San Francisco.

Photo by Fletcher Studio

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 23

3.5 Private Parklets
Purpose Statement: To increase flexibility for temporary uses that support an active, pedestrian-oriented and economically resilient Specific Plan Area. See example Figure 23.

Applicability: These standards apply to any parklet constructed on private property within an existing off-street parking space(s).

Standards:

A. Design:

1. Any fixtures or temporary materials constructed for the purpose of creating a Private Parklet shall be removable.

2. A visible edge to the Private Parklet must be provided. Any railing, fencing, or landscaping material installed for the purpose of providing a visible edge shall be a maximum of 36 inches in height and decorative, transparent, and/or perforated with a minimum of 75 percent transparency.

B. Access:

1. The Private Parklet shall be accessible to customers during business hours.

2. Access and circulation from, to and within the remaining area of the off- street parking lot, driveway, and loading areas shall be maintained during operating hours as approved by the Public Works Department.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-P.8 Expand Allowed Primary and Temporary Uses and PR-P.16 Support Use and Creation of Parklets.

Figure 23. Parking Lot with Restaurant
Seating
Photo from Vik’s Chaat,vikschaatcafe.com,
accessed April 2025.

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 24

3.6 Public Art
Purpose Statement:
• Create a sense of place along San Pablo Avenue and celebrate the neighborhood’s identity through integrated, high-quality public art. • Activate Designated Nodes, open spaces, and building frontages with artwork that enhances the visual experience of the Avenue. • Encourage collaboration with local artists and inclusion of art that reflects community.

Applicability: These standards apply to all projects subject to the Percent for Art Ordinance (BMC Chapter 23.316, Percentage for Public Art on Private Projects) .

Standards:

A. Guidelines and Procedures. All public art provided within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the guidelines and procedures in BMC Chapter 23.316, Percentage for Public Art on Private Projects.

B. Location.

1. Public art shall be located in publicly visible areas (e.g., building entries, courtyards, plazas, side street plazas, POPOS, and pedestrian walkways).

2. Public art shall be either freestanding or incorporated into building elements (e.g., façades, paving, railings, columns). See example Figure 24.

C. Visibility. Public art shall be visible from at least one of the following public vantage points:

1. Public right-of-way (preferably from San Pablo Avenue or University Avenue);

2. Publicly accessible plaza; or

3. Designated pedestrian pathway.

D. Access. Public art shall be accessible without barriers or restricted access during daylight hours. Examples include building murals, fencing murals, art installations in parking lots, landscaped areas, or inside businesses with visibility from the public realm within the Specific Plan Area.

Specific Plan Policy Reference: LU-S.6 Design Standards and PR-P.13 Facilitate Installation of Public Art that Benefits the Public Realm.

Recommendations:

Projects within the following Designated Nodes are strongly encouraged to provide on-site public art: Gilman Street, University Avenue, and Ashby Avenue.

Privately funded art installations located on buildings and other private properties that are visible from the public right-of-way are encouraged.

Figure 24. Public Art on Walls and as
Surface Treatment
Top: Public art Wall Mosaic - 2352
Shattuck Avenue. Bottom: Painting on
pavement in reuse of former parking lot -
Broadway and 21st Street in Oakland.

Photos by CD+A

San Pablo Avenue Design Standards
San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Final Draft 25

4. Glossary

1. Ballasted Planter. A planter that is secured with heavy material to ensure that it is stable against wind or other factors.

2. Blank Wall. A building façade without doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or public art.

3. Chamfer. A transitional edge between two building façades, typically created by a 45-degree angle.

4. Datum Lines. Continuous horizontal architectural elements along a building façade that establish a consistent line of alignment.

5. Freestanding Fixed Planter. A planter that is self-supporting – it does not rely on another external structure for support.

6. Through-lot. A lot that has frontage on two opposite sides onto two or more public rights-of-way.

7. Wall Plane. Continuous wall surface.

ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT D
DRAFT

UNIVERSITY AVENUE STRATEGIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
Land Use Framework

The seven Avenue Nodes recommended by this plan are as follows: 1) Fourth Street in West Berkeley, 2) West University Avenue, 3) San Pablo Avenue, 34) University Avenue at the Adult School, 45) University at Acton Street, 56) University at California Street and 67) Downtown.

San Pablo Avenue – This street has recently experienced something of a renaissance. There is a wide variety of stores and businesses along San Pablo, including local-serving convenience shops, small restaurants and cafes, a bank, post office, discount households supplies, a drug store, liquor store, car repair, and other auto-related services. This tree-lined avenue is both pedestrian-oriented in its fine-grained scale and a major auto/transit thoroughfare. Most older buildings come to the street edge and create a strong pedestrian environment. New uses and buildings should protect and enhance the positive aspects of this area.

Strategy 6A: Create a special Zoning Overlay Designation for University Avenue between San Pablo Avenue Curtis Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way that:

ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT E

WEST BERKELEY PLAN AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendment to the West Berkeley Plan would retire the Plan in its entirety. In legislative terms, this would involve deleting all text and images contained in the West Berkeley Plan.

I'.
......

LJ
IJ
I
I
jJ
•• CITY OF BERKELEY• FALL 1993

CITY COUNCIL MEMBEK:::.

Loni Hancock, Mayor
Fred Collignon Shirley Dean
Linda Maio Betty Olds
Maudelle Shirek Donna Spring
Mary Wainwright Carla Woodworth
Former: Nancy Skinner

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Current
Max Anderson
Clifford Fred
Karen Latimer
William Travis
Babette Jee, Chair
Craig Braum
Jeff Horowitz
Liz Resner
Susan Wengraf
Former: Carl Anthony (former Chair)
Roberto Barragan Pat Devaney
Carl Jaramillo Denise Pinkston
Lucky Thomas
STAFF
City Planning Department
Gil Kelley, Planning Director
Nathan Landau, Project Manager
Norma Hennessey, Alison Sosna, Graphic Designers
Xandy Grube, (former Landmarks Preservation Comm.)
Karen Haney-Owens, Senior Planner
Lois Jones, Environmental Review Officer
John Ledbetter, Assoc. Planner
Pat McGowan, Urban Design Planner
Susie Sanderson, Transportation Planner
Matt Tomas (former)
Delvin Washington (former)
Lata Vasudevan (former intern)
Other Departments
Community Development Department
Kate Squire, Econ.Dvpt. Proj.Coordinator
, Emergency and Toxics Management
Denise Johnston, Coordinator
Cheri Eir, Hazardous Materials Specialist
David Caravejo, Haz.Mat.Spec. (former)
Fire Department
Gary Bard, Fire Chief
Public Works Dept., Engineering Div.

Chuck DeLeuw, Traffic Engineer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Steven Hill
Photo Credits: Nathan Landau,
Norma Hennessey, Carol Kamlarz,Jane Scheer,
Planning Analysis and Development
The West Berkeley Plan Committee wishes to give
special thanks to Luis Reyna, Waterfront Commissioner,
who was an active participa·nt in the West Berkeley Plan until his untimely death in 1988.
vv C..'.) .1 DC.1\.1'.C.LC. I r L.t'\.l"'i L.VlVUVll J. .I. C.L r:n.n.1. l\.....lC J"'U'II J. .;J Denny Abrams, Abrams & Milliken (Developer)
Jim Alexander, The Tannery (Developer)
Rick Auerbach, Merchants, Artists, Artisans & Residents (MAARS) Jackie Bernier, University of California •
Steven Block (Realtor/Developer)
P. Bokavich, Gary Steel (Manufacturer) .

Laurie Bright, COPE (Citizens Opposed to a Polluted Environment) Tamlyn Bright, Citizens Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) Robin Brode, West Berk. Project Area Committee
Mike Cassady, Urban Ore (Recycler)
Jami Caseber, CEAC
Mabel Cato, Resident
Chris Chan, Pacific Steel Castings (Manufacturer)
Terry Clark, Peerless Lighting (Manufacturer)
Dennis Cohen, Parker Associates (Developer)
Amie Cohn (Realtor)
Robert Cole, Miles lnc. (Manufacturer)
John Curl, Heartwood (Craftsperson) .

Lincoln Cushing, lnkworks (Manufacturer)
Kathleen Dolan (Environmental consultant)
SusanDrooding, Straw lnto Gold (Retailer)
Carl Duchart, Miles lnc. (Manufacturer)
David Eiffler, Miles Inc. (Manufacturer)
Travis Fretter (Vintner)
Mark Friedman, Plant Closures Project
John Greenbery, Ashby Plumbing Supply (Wholesaler)
Mike Helm (Resident)
Mike Henneberry, Alameda County Central Labor Council
Eva Herzer (Resident)
Ralph Hoover, Pacific Steel Castings (Manufacturer)
Stan Huncilman, 5th/University/Dwight Neighborhood Assoc.

Rudy Hurwich (Property Owner) •
Rick Jesch, Audobon Winery
Kevin Jenkins, Argos Ud. (Property Owner) •
Dcive Kershner (Resident)
Calvin King, Moulders Union (GMP) Local 164B
Debra Kirschenbaum, Carleton Business Center (Property Owner) Dan Knapp, Urban Ore (Recycler)
Dic_k Kraber, Peerless Lighting (Manufacturer)
Kathy Labriola, Labor Commission •
Rev. A. L. McLain (Clergy)
Curtis Manning (Resident)
Owen Marron, Alameda County Central Labor Council
Judith Mayer (Resident)
Steven McLain, Flint Ink (Manufacturer)
Frank Miranda, Macaulay Foundry (Manufacturer)
Jon Norheim, Norheim & Yost (Realtor)
Leanna Noble, Plant Closures Project
Maiv°is Peoples, United Black Clergy
Max Rickley, Macbeath Hardwood (Wholesaler)
Will Rodgers (Resident)
M.D. Rosen, Columbus School Neighborhood Org. (CSNO)
Bobby Rostampour, Oceanview Citizens for Cleanup Resolution (OCCUR) Tony Santangelo (Resident)
John Stolurow (Developer)
Terry Terteling, West Berkeley Project Area Committee
Elisa Tierney, West Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corp.

Christine Vida, Disaster Planning Task Force
Margaret Vreeland (Resident)
Cheryl Wade, OCCUR
Vivian Warkentin, OCCUR
Ron Wichmann, DeTienne & Associates (Architect)
Duke Wickoley (Resident)
Don Yost, Norheim & Yost (Realtor)
M.G. Yourick, CSNO
I
,.(
•• \l
I!

WEST BERKELEY PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Summary-Overview of the Plan-The Concept, Vision and Purposes of the Plan . . . 3 Plan Process .............. • ................ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l l

1. Land Use ... , ...... , : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 7 I Strategic Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 II. Background - Existing Land Use........................................ 18 III. Anticipated Development in West Berkeley.............................. 32 IV. Goals and Policies ........................... ·........................... 34 V. The Land Districting Concept of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 VI. Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 VI. Land Use Regulations................................................... 42 • 2. Economic Development........................................................ 57 I. · Strategic Statement ......... i........................................... 57 IL Economic Rationale of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Ill. Background ........................................................... ·:... 62 IV. The Economic Future of West Berkeley.................................. 77 V. Goals and Policies ......... · ............. ;............................... 81 VI. Issues and Strategies ..................................................... 86 VII. Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

3. Environmental Quality......................................................... 93 I. Strategic Statement ... .' .............................................. •. . . 93 II. Background............................................................ 95 III. Goals and Policies ............................................. • ........ 103 IV. Implementation Measures .............................................. 108

4. Physical Form ............................................................ : ..... 113 I. . Strategic Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 II. Background (includes West Berkeley's History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 III. Urban Design Vision ................................................... 140 IV. Goals and Policies ...................................................... 141 V. Implementation Measures ............................................... 148

5. Transportation ................................................................. 153 I. Strategic Statement ..................................................... • 153 II. Background ............................................................ 155 III. Goals and Policies ...................................................... 170 IV. Implementation Measures ................. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

6. Housing & Social Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79 I. Strategic Statement . : ................................................... 179 II. Housing Background .......................................... , . . . . . . . . 180 III. Housing Development. ................................................. 190 IV. Social Services Issues ................................................... 192 V. Goals and Policies ........ , ............................................. 198 VI. Implementation ........................................................ 201 Appendices
A. Environmental Strategies and Implementation Measures .................. 203 B. Cultural Resources of West Berkeley .................................... 219

• \
I J
'i
i

WEST BERKELEY PLAN

INTRODUCTION
The West Berkeley Plan is an amendment to Berkeley's General Plan (often referred to as the Master Plan, its former title). It is a long range plan for West Berkeley-here defined as the area between San Pablo Avenue (incorporating both sides of the street) and the Eastshore Freeway. It is intended to guide the development of West Berkeley until at least the year 2005. It sets forth the City's key land use, environmental, economic development, transportation, housing and social services, and physical form (urban design, historic preservation, open space) policies for West Berkeley.

This document is proposed for final adoption as an area plan and Master Plan • • amendment. The Plan process began in 1985. Council directed that a Plan be prepared, as part of a program of area planning. This direction was given additional urgency by the controversy surrounding the reuse of the formerly manufacturing Durkee/Aquatic Park Center site primarily for offices and laboratories. This controversy extended to occupa­ tion of a historic smokestack to block its demolition. After wide-ranging discussion of a great variety of issues a working document, the Preliminary Working Draft, was issued by the Planning & Community Development Department in 1989. In April, 1991, the City Council unanimously approved the Pref erred Land Use Concept, which set forth the basic land use and environmental direction of the Plan. Further discussions refined that Concept into the Draft Plan, which was issued in November, 1992.

Since issuance of the Draft Plan, an Environmental Impact Report, assessing the • probable environmental impacts of development under the Plan, has been prepared. That EIR must be certified by the City Council before the Plan can be adopted. After Plan adoption, rezoning-the Zoning Ordinance amendments that will bring West Berkeley's zoning into conformity with the Plan will be proposed. The West Berkeley Redevelopment • Plan (for the Redevelopment Area bounded by University and Cedar, 6th St. and the Freeway) will also be brought into conformity with the West Berkeley Plan. An Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring Program will also be prepared-this docu­ ment will serve as a more detailed outline of and timeline for the proposed and projected implementation of West Berkeley Plan concepts.

The West Berkeley Plan is the latest in a series of area plans-all formally incorporated into the City's General Plan-that the City and the community have developed. There is the Waterfront Plan, which guides and controls development on the Waterfront immediately west of the West Berkeley Plan Area. The Downtown Plan and the South Berkeley Area Plan have been adopted as guides to the preservation and revitalization of those areas. Another important plan affecting the city's future is the University of California's Long Range Development Plan, although that is not a City document and the City does not endorse all aspects of it. The City has also rewritten the zoning regulations controlling many of its most important neighborhood commercial districts-Elmwood, North Shattuck, Shattuck/Adeline, Solano Ave., and Telegraph Ave., although full area plans were not developed for these areas. A planning process is Introduction
1

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
currently beginning for the University Avenue area. Together these Plans and commercial district rezonings provide guidance for most of the economically active areas of the city; .the General Plan revision whichis now underway while tie them together into a cohesive citywide whole.

The extraordinary participatory process which created the West Berkeley Plan is discussed in the Process section.

Introduction
2 , .. '
.! I
I
• I
••

--J
u
•
,,,.

WEST BERKELEY PLAN

SUMMARY
Plan Concept & Vision
West Berkeley in 1993 is a successful pan of the city. It is home to (among other things) many growing manufacturers, a booming retail trade, important laboratories, and the most ethnically diverse residential community in Berkeley. The mix of uses, building ages, and building styles gives West Berkeley a unique character within Berkeley and the East Bay. The We~t Berkeley Plan seeks to build on that success, maintain that character, and help extend them to the year 2005.

Because West Berkeley is a successful area, the Plan seeks to guide its evolution, rather than radically reshape it. The Plan envisions a West Berkeley in 2005 which remains a mixed use area, although with relatively more retail and office uses along with a vital manufacturing sector. It envisions a West Berkeley which maintains similar building forms to those which exist currently, with some major development on minimally used sites.

In one sense, the Plan seeks to save West Berkeley from the possible negative consequences of its own success. Successful mixed use areas such as West Berkeley can become so expensive and intensely developed that manufacturing and other uses which • cannot pay maximum rents and land costs are forced out. These areas thus lose the very characteristics which initially made them attractive to many people. The SoHo district of New York City represents an advanced case of this process. The West Berkeley Plan-by designating relatively small areas where certain use categories (e.g. light manufacturing, retail) are emphasized-seeks to preserve the mix in West Berkeley as a whole. The Plan aims to guide and manage West Berkeley growth, so that growth does not overwhelm WestBerkeley's character.

The Plan does recognize that there are conditions in West Berkeley which need improvement. The Plan calls for continuous improvement of environmental quality, so that industrial and other development does no_t mean environmental degradation. The Plan calls for strengthening the ties between Berkeley/West Berkeley residents and West Berkeley employers, so that the benefits of economic expansion can be enjoyed by those most in need. The Plan calls for improved sidewalks and bikeways, so that it is easier and more pleasant to move around in West Berkeley without driving.

The Plan envisions some major physical improvements. These improvements are those which would reinforce and strengthen important West Berkeley features. In the 4th and University/Hearst area, a new long distance rail station would help anchor the retail district. New stores along Addison Street would help entice people to a revitalized Aquatic Park, now shielded from freeway noise by a soundwall. A new bicycle/pedestrian bridge would cross the Freeway to the Waterfront from the University/Addison Street area. The 7th&: Ashby area could gain new streets leading to Ashby Ave., making it easier to come into and out of the area. San Pablo Avenue should have a more urban(e) look and feel, Summary
3

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
with new mixed-use buildings anchoring key commercial corners, while the deaned and r~paired facades of older buildings emerge more sharply. Other possible improvements, such as a light·rail line along San Pablo Ave., are more uncertain, and more dependent on the decisions of other agencies .
• Although many ofthe Plan's Elements concern themselveswith physical and economic development, the ultimate goal of the Plan is to improve the qu·ality of iife· fo~ West Berkeley residents and Berkeley residents generally. For ~xample, the Plan's. emphasis on maintaining manufacturing jobs is based on the recognition t_hat these jobs . generally provide the best combination of good pay and accessibiiity to the;modeitly skilled and educated (a combination which last year's ·events in Los Angeles have reinforced the importance oD. A different example of the human importance of physical improvements is air quality,-improvements in air quality deriving from-implementation of flan goals will benefit all West Berkeleyans and Berkeleyans generally; In yet a different way, new facilities in Aquatic Park will make it a more useful resource for·area residents and workers.

The Plan's Elements and policies ~aken togethe; f~rm an integrated whole-~ framework for steady, "incremental" improvement based o'n the physical; economic, and social foundation which is in West Berkeley today. Thus the Plan seeks to supplement, rather than supplant manufacturing,· to build additional housing gerierally without demolition of existing housing. Yet the Plan also recognizes that there will be the need for ~onstant balancing of interests and for occasional trade-offs between different interests and goals. Many Plan,.policies speak to the need for such balancing. The process of· developing the Plan itself represented a major exercise in reconciling different interests andjssues. The Plan fakes a."both-and" approach, rather'than·an "either-or" approach wherever possible.

-,.
-
....

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
.In particular, a central premise of this Plan is that West Berkeley can maintain and expand its manufacturing base, while maintaining and improving its environmental quality. These goals need not be inconsistent, although there may be tensions at times. In some cases, environmental quality can be improved through expansion of manufacturing, such as when manufacturers who use recycled materials expand. The Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) which West Berkeley is a part of encourages this type of manufacturing. Similarly, there is no reason that an industrial environment cannot be an aesthetically pleasing one, although its appearance will be different from other types of areas.

Plan Pmposes
The broadest Purposes of the Plan are stated below. The Plan is a complex document, with 38 Goals-most of which have numerous Policies set forth under them.

No small set of overarching purposes could capture them. Nonetheless, the Plan is centered on diversity and quality of life. The Plan celebrates and strives to maintain both the diversity of residents and of business activity in West Berkeley, in the face of forces which might sharply reduce that diversity. The Plan seeks to maintain.and improve the quality of 'life in West Berkeley in a wide variety of ways-whether it be reducing pollutants in the air, minimizing traffic on the streets, or improving the appearance of buildings in West Berkeley. The Plan Purposes affirm that the West Berkeley Plan is not envisioned as a blueprint to transform an ailing neighborhood, but as a set of guidelines to further energize an already vital one.

1. Maintain the full range of land uses and economic activities-residences. manufac­ turing, services, retailing, and other activities-in West Berkeley.

2. Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population.

3. Maintain and improve the quality of urban life-including environmental quality, public and private service availability, transit and transportation, and esthetic and physical qualities-for West Berkeley residents and workers.

The Structure of the Plan Document
This Introduction to the Plan outlines the Plan's history and its structure. This Summary section outlines the Plan's overall vision and purposes, and summarizes key features of the Plan. This is followed by a process section, which reviews the process of developing the Plan. Then there are 6 Elements which address the major issues in West Berkeley:
• Land Use
• Economic Development
• Environmental Quality
• Transportation
• Physical Form-Urban Design, Historic Preservation, and Open Space; and • Housing and Social Services
Summary
5

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Each Element of the Plan follows a·similar structure, although some Elements have additional sections as well. The Element is introdu~ed with a Strategic Statement- a succinct summary of the broad concepts, vision, and dir~ction of the Element. This is followed by a Background section which discusses conditions, trends, and issues in the area the Element addresses. The Economic Development Element includes the Economic Development Rationale (an important section for the Plan as a whole). This background information lays• the groundwork for the Goals and Policies section which follows· it.

Finally, each Element contains an Implementation section, laying out concrete actions • that the City ca~ take to realize the Element's policies. Some Elements (like Economic Development) also have additional sections addressing major strategic issues in more detail. Other Elements (such as Land Use) have sections laying out specific recommended development standards or regulations. The Land Use Element does follow the general format, but also is largely devoted to the proposed land use regulations-permitted and prohibited uses in each district, required development standards, etc.

Summary
6 . I
.J
I

1.J
'WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Highlights of the West Berkeley Plan (selected)
Policies
• C~eates districts designed to retain manufacturing;
• Sets up concentrated retail "nodes";
• Recognizes residential enclaves within the industrial/commercial area; • Focuses comprehensive environmental enforcement in West Berkeley on the 10 most important firms;
• Supports creating a central, accessible location where the community can obtain environmental information;.
• Calls for reductions in the production, transport, and handling of hazardous materials;
• Seeks to focus economic development efforts on retaining and attracting appropriate industries;
• Supports West Berkeley's continuing role as an "incubator" of new businesses of all types;
• Facilitates creation of space for expanding businesses by streamlining the permit process;
• Proposes a variety of measures to reduce the use of single-occupant automobiles; • Demonstrates that West Berkeley is Berkeley's most ethnically diverse area, and supports efforts to maintain this diversity;
• Supports creation of well-designed live work spaces in appropriate locations; • Makes widespread tree planting in West Berkeley an open space priority; >
• Stresses the need for .urban, street focused development on all of West Berkeley's major streets with special emphasis on critical gateway streets such as University Avenue.

Physical Development Activities
• Prioritizes the reuse of large, vacant sites (such as Colgate and Utility Body) as an economic development activity;
• Highlights an improved train station at 3rd &: University as a planning and development priority;
• Supports installation of historic signs in locations such as the oldest areas of Oceanview;
• Initiates feasibility studies on parking needs around 4th &: University, 7th & Ashby, and 7th&: Parker;
• Supports the development of light rail transit on San Pablo Ave. Plan • Recommends serious consideration on new street links to Ashby Ave. (in West Berkeley) from the north;
Summary
7

I

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
• Anticipates substantial development of the University's Harrison lands; • Facilitates expansion by existing manufacturers and other businesses.

Summary of the Elements. (Major Sections) of the West Berkeley Plan J , . . .

Land Use
Perhaps mo~e than in any other field, ··the West Berkeley Plan will change the regulation of ,land u~e in West Berkeiey. The Plan creates a new set of iand use/zoning districts for West Berkeley, the first areawide revision of districts· since the Special Industrial zone was created in 1956. These new districts seek to better tailor allowable land uses to existing ones, and to provide better guidance to businesses and developers ()n what specific uses are desirable. and wha.t uses are not in specific:West Berkeley locations. The Plan seeks to preserve the mix of uses in West Be.rkeley as,a whole by reserving some areas for ~ses like manufacturing ";'hich might otherwise disappear.

The land use concept and districts are discussed in detail in the Land Use Element.

A new set of z~mip.g districts in the Zoning Ordinance wiU have to be cr,ea ted to implement the Plan. In general, the districts provide a gradation of d~tricts-'-from purely residential to several types of mixed use districts to strictly manufacturing/industrial. Given the greater clarity of the new districts.on which uses are desired'·and permitted, and which ones are not, the permit process is generally eased for conforming projects.

Econ?mic Development
The Economic Development Element proposes policies to maintain and enhance West Berkeley's :rnuhi-sectoral economic dynamism, and ~o channel the benefits of economic activity to West Berkeley and Berkeley r~idents (through both employment and business ·oppo~tuniti~s). The Elem~nt recognizes and prioritizes West Berkeley's historic role as Berkeley's manufacturing_ and industrial sectors, particularly because of the higher-quality, better-payingjobs they create. Yet int he framework of a multi-sectoral strategy, the Element also supports West Berkeley's growing role in fields s~ch as retailing and advanced services. The Element also calls for the improvement ofneighborhood serving retail stores such as grocery stores in West Berkeley. "
Environmental Quality
• Maintenan\e and improvement of environmental quality is·a central concern of the West Berkeley Plan. Environmentally oriented strategies are found throughout the Pla~-from b~ffers between_ incompatible uses inthe Land Use Element to (automobile) trip reduction in the Transportation Element. The Environmental_Q~ality ~lement is the focus of this concei:n, and incorporates goals, policies, and strategies on topics ranging from air quality ·to hazardous materials to rioise. :The restructuring of the hazardous materials program that has already occured begins to address many of the concerns of the West Berkeley Plan. • • •
Summary
8 I -
1'

,./
I (
I~

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Physical Form
West Berkeley's urban environment is a uniquely rich one within the East Bay.

The sections of the Physical Form Element-discussing Urban Design, Historic Preser:. vation, and Open Space respectively-propose policies and strategies to maintain and enhance this environment's urbanistic richness. This Element develops a policy frame­ work for physical form which will support and enhance the implementation of the Plan's land use and other policies.

Urban Design
West Berkeley will continue to be rebuilt and renewed over the next 15 years. The Plan's Urban Design policies seek to assure that this rebuilding will occur in a pedestrian­ friendly, street-oriented, urban manner, rather than an automobile oriented suburban one. Concentrations of retail stores at major intersections and transit hubs-which the Plan calls "commercial nodes"-are particularly important locations for creating urban activity. Commercial and industrial corridors along major streets cari also begin to take on a more urbane appearance. In additiori, sensitive design can help ease transitions where different types of uses-such as industrial and residential-come together in this mixed­ use area.

Historic Preservation
The mixture of buildings from many historic periods over the last century (and more) is an important part of what makes West Berkeley's urban richness. The Plan's historic preservation policies seek to highlight historic buildings and sites, educate the West Berkeley and general public about them, and preserve them to the greatest degree possible in an evolving area. New approaches, such as the designation of "Heritage Areas"-where residents and property owners would work together voluntarily for Summary
9

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
preservation and historic education--:--can help highlight areas of West Berkeley with special historic significance. The Plan also discusses and supports broader publicity for the rich ethnic and industrial history of West Berkeley, as well as architectural history.

Open Space
The West Berkeley Plan's open space approach seeks to link West Berkeley's open spaces into a network of green spaces and corridors. The Plan emphasizes an areawide effort at tree planting which can soften and humanize West Berkeley, and bring neighbors together for a common goal. The Plan also supports improvements to neighbo~hood parks. The Plan incorporates by reference the draft Aquatic Park Master Plan, placing special emphasis on improving access tolhis underutilized open space resource. The Plan recognizes the importance of improving .the pedestrian: and bicycle linkage between West Berkeley and Waterfront.

Transportation
Reducing the dependency of the West Berkeley transportation system on single occupant automobile_s is the primary thrust of the West Berkeley Plan Transportation Element. The Element also seeks to improve circulation within and into West Berkeley (especially around 7th & Ashby, where new streets may be developed), and to reduce traffic congestion on West Berkeley arterials. There is also a need to make West Berkeley an easier place for-pedestrians and bicycles to get to and through-an area where action is already being taken. An· expanded rail station at University Ave. could serve· as a centerpiece for:West Berkeley transit/transportation effor.ts .. Reinstallation oflight rail on San ·Pablo Ave.' is an uncertain but exciting possibility. "
Housing & Social Services
The Housing and Social Services Element celebrates West Berkeley's role as the most e!hnically dive~se area ~n Berkeley, and proposes poli~ies which_ will ~elp maintain that diversity. To.maintain this,. it will be necessary to maintain a stock of lower cost . . . housing-especially rental housing, but owner-occupi~d hous_ing as well. The social environment of this affordable housing, including safety, supportive social services, and . -' . ' . other services COl)-tinues to_ require improvement. The Element also supp~r.ts the contin- ued devdopm~nt of live-~orkspaces for'those who want this housing form, in appropri­ a_te_ locations und~r approprilite stand~rds.

Summary
'io
'.

I
I I
•
q
I_'

WEST BERKELEY PLAN

PLAN PROCESS
The Nature of the West Berkeley Planning Process •
Planning processes in Berkeley (and many other cities) are typically complex, . contentious, and protracted. These processes of ten become battlegrounds for people and groups with radically divergent visions of how an area should ( or should not) develop and change. The West Berkeley Plan process, which has (to date) stretched over 8 years, has certainly been complex and contentious. There were many important issues-ranging from arts and crafts protection to zoning for industry-over which participants strongly disagreed. Yet ultimately the West Berkeley Plan Committee (working with CitystafO was able to fashion documents that won consensus approval This section of the Plan will briefly describe how this agreement was achieved, how the West Berkeley Plan process developed, and try to give some of the "flavor" of the process . . The West Berkeley Plan went far beyond "citizen participation," bl!cause it is · a document fundamentally from the "citizens," the "stal<eholders" of West Berkeley.

The term "citizen participation" suggests to many periodic citizen input into a process controlled by ot.hers. In the West Berkeley Plan process, various types of citizens--:--artists, developers, landowners, manufacturers, residents, unionists and others-were continu­ ously involved and drove the process. The City Council sponsored the process, and at one · important point gave specific direction for the Plan. City staff from multiple departments provided technical and logistical information, and worked to keep the process moving forward. Yet in the final analysis, the Plan is the community's document. The listing of . Plan participants on the inside front cover of this documents symbolizes that community "ownership" of the Plan.

The "process" for a complex project like developing the West Berkeley Plan has many components. There were the formal steps taken by the West Berkeley Plan Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. There were the documents for the Plan (generally, but by no means always, prepared by stafO-both for action and for information-that are reviewed and modified by Plan participants. Perhaps most importantly, there are the interactions between the participants in developing the Plan, which lead them to new understandings about the Plan and about West Berkeley. It was this process of people meeting and talking, often arguing vociferously and even sometimes slamming the other's position, which finally allowed a consensus plan to emerge. Indeed, this contentious process would lead to the development of a core of what might be called "plankeepers." These plankeepers had been immersed in the process to the point where they could-and sometimes would-articulate the viewpoint of someone who had been directly opposed to them. This section will seek to briefly characterize all of these aspects of the Plan process.

Plan Process
11

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
I
-·
The Nature of West Be-r:keley as an area to plan
Th~ subje~t of _this proces~\Vest Berkeley-:is the.largest and rriost complex area Berkeley has ever planned for (the other Area Plans are for Downtown, South Berkeley, and the Waterfront). West Berkeley is Berkeley's manufacturing center, as well as a residential community of some 7,000 people. When the Plari was initiated, West Berkeley was clearly changing, with historically unprecedented _retail and office uses replacing some ind~stri.al uses. With' the freeway and the close proximity 1 of i~dustrial and
r~sidehtial uses, West Berkeley has· some of the city's most challenging environmental problems. As th~ first settled part o(Berk~ley, West Bef keley has important historic ;esour~es. All of this ~akes planning for Wes·~ Berkeley eve.~ ~ore complex than.usual. ' • ' • ' • I - • ,r ,•
1985-1989: Handling the Issues of West-Berkeley
The reu~e project at the Durkee Foods factory. led to the 'initiation of the West ' ·. . ' ..

Berkeley Plan process. Durkee Foods had primarily been a Ca!}ning plan~, prop(?Sed in 1984 for conversion to office and laboratory use. Many West B~rkeley residents_ a~d businesses saw Durkee as a ha_rl;>inger of dramatic change that )Vas likeiy to occur throughout the neighborhood-fro~ fairly low intensity industri~l use to ~uch higher intensity commercial use: Residents feared rivers of _traffic flchvi!}g their way. Art_ists and craftspe~pie could ·be priced out by this development· process. Some activists were personally being displaced by the reu~e projeci. One person dra~atically de~~nstrateci • . . . I . - .
his opposition to the demolition of an old factory smokestack by sitting atop it. From a public policy s_tandpoint, the M (Manufacturing) z~~e. ~egulations ~}lowed e~ery type of us~-from· single family hbmes to "heavy" ~a~ufacturi_ng-and ,thu_s provided ·no guidance on what the City wished to see on the site. To provide that guidance, the City C:~tmcil authorized th.e development of an ~rea plan for West Berkeley: • • : • • . ' , .· . '• . .

The early years of the Plan process-roughly from 1985 to 1Q89-. focused on initiating the Plan process, developing background data on the area, ap.d handling specific issues in West Berkeley. The responsibility for Pl~n development ~as given to the West Ber~eley Plan Committee_:a committee_ with open membership, Ie4 by Planning Com­ missioners, one of whom served as committee Chair. Despite its open mem~ersqip, Pl~n Committee participation tended to be fairly stable, with resic:len~s, art~s~ a11d craftspeople, and prope~ty owners well represented in this period·, while manufacturer~ and unions • • • • ' ' ! • • • •.•
representing their workers were' noL _ ' : _ . ·- _ _ ._ . • . . . . '' • .+
These.years saw important r~forms to ,land use regulatic;m in West Berkeley. Arts. and crafts zoning protecting the space~·oc~upied by t~ese u~es from changes to ~ther uses was. sponsored by· th,e c~mmittee. Intertm changes . to the. M (Manufacturing): zone regulations which instituted a par~ing requir~ment for the first time and modified change of use requirements, The C9mmittee ;kept a close watch on the,progress of its initiating . . project at Durkee. It also bega~ the:process of defining its goals,.pol!cies,.and imp~emen;. tation strategies for the area.

Equally important were decisions not to make changes. The Committee also recommended-after bitter debate-that the then proposed expansion of the West Berkeley Redevelopment Area be deferred until the completion of the West Berkeley Plan.

Plan Process
12 --1
•
., ,
,J

. '.7
I
•
r-.

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
I
If there was to be a new Redevelopment Plan, it should occur in the framework of the West Berkeley Plan rather than preceding and possibly reshaping it. The Committee also rejected proposals for upzoning-allowing greater density of housing-in the residential core areas: The Plan would leave zoning in strictly residential areas essentially unchanged. 1989-1991: Forging a Land Use Concept
Between 1989 and 1991 the Preferred Land Use Concept which is at the heart of the West Berkeley Plan was forged. Although the Concept was ultimately approved by Consensus, developing it took a great deal of work, argument, and compromise. The Concept was the ultimate result of what amounted to a restructuring of the process-with new participants, new information, and new Council direction .

In early 1989, the Planning Division staff was moving towards the development of alternative development scenarios for West Berkeley. These alternative development scenarios would lay out different possible future paths for the area, and would serve as the working documents for discussing what the Plan's land use proposal would be. The City's Office of Economic Developme"nt (OED) strongly supported the emerging idea that at least orie of these scenarios would emphasize the retention of manufacturing uses. OED had (in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce) ~urveyed large West Berkeley firms-mostly manufacturers-and acquired a new picture of the economic landscape.

Far from being in unmitigated decline, many manufacturers had expanded and planned to expand in the future. This information was a key intellectual input into the Plan.

At roughly the same time, several important new participants entered the process.

The Alameda County Central Labor Council (the coordinating body for unions in Alameda County) announced its interest in a Plan which could affect thousands of its members' jobs. Such participation by a trade union in a land use planning process was virtually unheard of, and initially some earlier Plan participants questioned the legitimacy of their involvement. The United Black Clergy reentered the Plan process, to support the· prospects for well-paid jobs at manufacturing firms for Black Berkeleyans. The Plant Closures Project (a community organization which works to prevent closing of plants) worked closely with these groups and worked to develop support for pro-manufacturing policies in the Plan process. West Berkeley industrial firms were (with City encourage­ ment) reviving their long dormant Manufactµrers' Association, in part so that they could participate in the Plan and other City processes. The entry of these groups in turn sparked stronger participation of environmental groups, such as Citizens Opposed to a Polluted Environment ( COPE) who were very suspicious that a pro-manufacturing policy would Plan Process
13

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
lead to increased erivironrriental degradation. By late 1989 the cast of char~cters was far different.from what it was earlier in the year.

Meanwhile, in October,'1989, th~ q~y Council ~lso re~sserted its ,interes~ in the Plan. The Council's discussions ofoverall City economic policy for Berkeley reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the manufacturing base. Therefore, the Council directed that "The Planning Commission, Labor Commission, and West Berkeley Area Plan Committee are io · review th~ concept of industrial san~t~aries ~s a way of retaining manufacturing and trade jobs and forward comments to the Council." Co_uncil also ~old 'the.Planning Commission to consider interim protections such as requiring a Use Permit before any change of us·e from manufacturing to. non-mamifac_turing use, and to develop appropriate standards for live-work to assure that it did not encroach on manufacturing areas, The Planning Commission would ultimately decide· that interim controls were not neeqed.

At the very end of 1989, three g!owth sce~arios~ne focusing on ~ffice growth, one on retail growth, and one on manufacturing retention...::...were publis.hed by the Plaiuiing Department. The scenarios each corttained office; retail, and ·manufacturing­ oriented areas, bu tin diffe;ent amounts. The scenarios docm~ent allowed participants to evaluate the impacts and tradeoffs' of choosing one scenario or another. The ~ow very diverse committee struggled abo'ut how it might bring th~ three together: Se~eral proposals for~ "synthesis" scenario were put forth-by the P!o-manufacturingco~lition, by environmentalists, and by a gr~up of manufacturers. The Committee 'did unite in August,1990 on a wide-ranging set of "Objectives for Designing a Preferred Land Use Concept" which set both quantitative (e.g. number-of jobs to·be ·added in a given sector) and qualitative (e.g. regulating building scale) goals for the Plan. Working from this base, staff released a draft Land Use Concept in September,1990. •. • • . . . /' .

The Subco'";miUee ~oc;ess of 1990/91-. Hand to Ha~ Planning.

The 6 months of inie~e activity which followed release·of that document are no~ viewed as the heart of the process by many Plan participants. To d~velop a Land Use' Concept wliich incorporate·d both land use and' environmental direction, the Commi~tee decided to split into two subcommittees~ne for each ~ubjec·t.-This was by no ·:niea~s ~ self-evident decision-many feared that splitting into subcommittees wo~ld delay, rather than advance th·e process. In addition, t_here was great concern as to how the two groups' a~tion~ would be coordinated: Also worrisome was the Committee's' rej~_ction of a formal structure for representing the different affected interest grm.ip~·ori the land use subcom­ mittee (informally, representatives of interest groups affected by a provision were consulted ~uring the process).· •
.The subcommittee process was citizen based planning at its most intense. The subcommittees met as of ten as once a week over a 5 month period. In the Land Use Subcommittee, questions both great and small were argued. For example, should the proposed Mixed Use district allow residences? After much arguing, committee members realized that 2 mixed use districts (with logical borders between them) coul? be created­ one with, one without houses. At the same time, the subcommittee members argued knowledgeably and passionately over how a block should be characterized arid thus what ~ - . . . . - ..

Plan Process
14 I
•
r

•

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
district it should be put in. A map of proposed districts was colo,red in block by block. .

Sometimes the staff person's hand was poised to color in a new block where there was apparently consensus, when the cry "Wait!" would come up from a dissenter. Ultimately the subcommittee would produce a consensus land use districting map literally signed by • all its participants. While the map emerged from this unavoidably political process, it also reflected~ coherent overall vision of West Berkeley with logically defined areas for heavy industry, light industry, mixed use, retail commercial development, and residences.

The Environmental Subcommittee was equally intense. Some environmentalists entered the process convinced th~t retaining industry and environmental protection were· incompatible. Their fears were somewhat assuaged by the participation of manufacturers such as Peerless Lighting, .who demonstrated how their company devoted substantial resources to meeting environmental. mandates. All members of the committee made a commitment that they wanted to retain jobs so long as the. environment could be maintained or improved. In a mee,ting called by environmentalist Councilwoman Nancy .

Skinner (who represented part of West Berkeley), Berkeley based environmentalists were also exposed to their regional cohorts who had experience in cities such as Richmond.

These groups outlined strategies for fighting polluting industries without losing jobs.

Planning Commission Chair Carl Anthony had strong credentials with both labor and environmental groups, and personally embodied the idea that environmentally sound industrial development was possible and necessary. Meanwhile, the City had initiated an evaluation and restructuring of its hazardous materials program, which helped build community confidence that the City would enforce regulations. This subcommittee wrote a broad set of possible environmental strategies and implementation measures, most of which were incorporated into the Plan.

The emergence of consensus documents from the subcommittees was greeted with exhausted relief, even joy, by Plan Committee participants. Yet despite their exhaustion, participants--in the spirit of keeping the plan--had grown scrupulously respectful of each other's viewpoint. It came to be understood that if people opposing your viewpoint were absent in a meeting, you should not seize that advantage, but should wait until they returned and a full discussion could be had. The two documents were broadly Plan Process
15 a &

. I WEST BERKELEY PLAN
comp.atible, if differing in emphasis. Planning, economic development and environmen­ tal health staff-all of whom staffed the subcommittees-felt that the proposals met the previously stated objectives and were generally implementable. The Planning Commis­ sion unanimously endorsed the Concept in February, 1991. So did the Council (givirig the Plan a standing ovation) in April, 1991, even though some were surprised at the lack of divisiveness when the Concept was brought to them. The Council at the same time created the Citizens Environmental Advisory Commission to oversee the hazardous material program, and other issues involving hazardous materials. 1991-1993: From Concept to Plan
To many, the West Berkeley Plan process seemed to be "over" in April, 1991, when the City Council approved the Pref erred· Land Use Concept. Indeed, at that point the Concept began serving as a policy guideline for development decisions in West Berkeley, and it had already begun to reshape the City's hazardous materials and environmental enforce~;nL But the Plari had to be tr;nsformed from an esseritiillly two subject Concept to a ·multi-subject Plan; which could·be· adopted '.as an amendment for West Berkeley to the Berkeley General (or Master) Pla~. •
• The work over the 'rn;xt year hid two. th~s~: ·to develop Elements. on various subjects.(e.g. transportation) for._the West Berkeley Plan, and to.resolve is~ues that.were not~d as unresolved in the Pref erred Land Use C~ncept. Staff developed draft Plan elem~nts and the West Berkeley Plan Committee critiqued them in great detail, staff redrafted sound ·Elements which were 'more satisfactory to the C~mmittee-each Element we~t to them at least twice, usually more often. Short term subcommittees with groupings of i~terested/ knowledgeable people on specifi.c is~ues-=-such as urban design and.ec~nomic develop­ ~ent-met, but there was'rio rep~at ·of the intensive· subcommittee· process. I~ August, 1992, the.Committee celebrated the publlcation·of complete draft of the Plari.

Completing a Plan di-aft provided a document which could be the ·subject of ' -· • . , . ' ' . . ' . - ' . . environmental_ review-in this case the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proct:ss. The Planning Commission (which also voiced strong endorsement of the Pl~n) a~d the City Council approved the draft Plan as the Preferred Alternative fot environmental review. • • • - f ,. ,. ' • / - ! ,
A Draft EIR was released in April, 1993, and comments on it accepted through July, 1993. T_hose.comments and r_esponses have been release~ alc;mgwith this version of the Plan. The EIR found that there wer~ no environrnen~al impacts a.rising out _qf implementation of _t~e Plan. (as _opposed .to. region-wide probl~ms) which couldi not be mitigated ..

This description of the process is being presented before the end of the process.

To approve the Plan, the Planning Commission must first certify that the EIR adequately assesses and responds to potential environmental _impacts. Then it would ne.ed to approve the Plan, r~commending approval to CounciL Should Ccmncil approve. the_ Plan, the Plan proc~ss itself would be done, but a ~rucial rezoning of all of West Berkeley to bp.ng zoning into confor;mi!Y with the Plan must follow, as should other implementing steps; We hope and trust that the plankeepers of West Berkeley will activ:ely participate in the Plan's implementation. Th_e planning of W_est B~rkeley conti1mes.

Plan Process
-16
I
•
-,

..... •
•
,

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
LAND.USE
I. STRATEGIC STATEMENT
West Berkeley's uniqueness and dynamism gro~ largely out of its wide variety of land uses. Preserving and supporting all of the elements of this vital mix of land uses is the central policy of the West Berkeley Plan. The Preferred Land Use Concept therefore • designates sites for light manufacturing, general manufacturing, retailing, offices, resi­ dences, arts and crafts, and other uses. Each of these uses provides something important to the city-whether it be to residents, to workers, to shoppers, to tax collectors; or to others. The West Berkeley Plan should maintain this mix while minimizing physical and economic incompatibilities and improving environmental quality . . The land use concept of the Plan is designed to support the economic, environ­ mental, transportation, urban design/historic preservation, and housing goals of the Plan.

It was deveioped in conjunction with-not in isolation from-these goals.

The Plan restructures West Berkeley's land use/zoning districts to support appropriate ec,:onomic development. The Plan's land use concept is designed to support its multisectoral, balanced economic development approach, by clearly targeting different locations for different uses. The Plan designates two (relatively small) portions of West Berkeley as locales where large scale, materials processing "heavy" manufacturers are accepted as legitimate, important, long term uses. It designates a large area primarily for the "light" manufacturing and other light industrial activities which are currently dominant in Wes_t Berkeley and which are key to its economic future. Yet the Plan also designates areas for office development- the worksites for many of the professional and technical specialists Berkeley is so rich in. And the Plan also highlights retail "nodes" which provide goods and services and needed tax revenue to the city.

The land use concept supports other goals of the Plan. Environmental quality is central to the Plan - the land use concept supports it by shielding residential areas from uses with high potential for impact. It provides additional environmental buffering along those sensitive edges where residential and heavy industrial uses meet. The clustering of retail uses in the Plan makes improved transit service possible, and also rn:akes possible a more pedestrian oriented, compact urban form. The Plan encourages additional housing development in commercial areas, and in mixed residential/industrial areas.

Land Use Element
17

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
II. BACKGROUND-EXISTING LAND USE
A. Introduction-West Berkeley's Mosaic of Uses
Land use in West Berkeley is characterized by a wider range of activities than in any other section of Berkeley. Like most economically active parts of the city (though often on a larger scale), there are retailers and offices in West Berkeley, as well as houses and apartment buildings. But unlike other sections of the City, West Berkeley is home to steel foundries, scientific instrument makers, book distributors, and other manufactur­ ing, wholesale trade, and industrial type uses. West Berkeley is also unique in.that sit~s under one ownership range from 2,500 square feet to 25 acres. Thus West Berkeley plays I
. a uniqu~ role in Berkeley, as it has since its founding as Oceanview in the mid-19th Century.

This background discussion will first situate West Berkeley in its regional and citywide context. It will then briefly discuss the major types of land uses in West Berkeley-industrial uses, commercial uses, and residential uses, -noting where they are typically found.• It will then note the relative arid absolute intensity of West Berkeley land usage.

Jj. West Berkeley in Context

1. West Berkeley in the Region
On a regional level, West Berkeley lies in the center of the vast East Bay industrial belt, which stretches from Hayward through Oakland and Berkeley to Richmond and on as far as Crockett. ABAG estimates that there are almost exactly 100,000 manufacturing and wholesaling employees in this area. Virtually every type.of manufacturer is (or was) found within this "district"-e.g., oil refining in Richmond, steelmaking in Berkeley, canneries in Oakland and Hayward. The first manufacturers came to this area in the late 19th Century, and there was· major development. through the first third of the· 20th Century, but new.companies arrived for .decades _thereafter. Until the rise of Silicon VaUey, this East Bay shore was the largest industrial district in the Bay Area.• . The overwhelmingly industrial (sometimes with associated residential) character of the area has been at least partially transformed in much of its length. The area is now often considered more neutrally as the "I-80/1-880 corridor." The transformation of uses is most evident in the redevelopment of Emeryville, but has also occurred in San Leandro, Hayward, Richmond, and even in parts of Oakland (especially near Downtown). None­ theless, all these cities (including Emeryville) continue to have high levels of industrial employment, and the degre.e of mix varies substantially from area to area. Manufacturing and wholesaling employment in the East Bay has been expanding and is projected to continue doing so.
2 .. West Berkeley in Berkeley
The West Berkeley Plan area represents some 1/frof Berkeley's land area. Running the length of the city in a strip near its western edge (see map), West Berkeley is bordered Z.:and Use Element
18 .I
•

j
• ..,,.

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
on the north by Albany, on the West (west of 1-80) by the Waterfront and the Berkeley Marina, on the south by Emeryville and Oakland, and on the east (east of San Pablo Ave.) by South Berkeley (south of Dwight Way) and Central Berkeley. Emeryville is in the process of revising its General Plan, while the University of California is engaged in a . master planning process.for its Albany Village lands which adjoin West Berkeley.

West Berkeley plays several important roles within the city, which are discussed more fully in the Housing and Economic Development Elements. West Berkeley has some 1/3 of the private sector jobs and 1/4 of the total jobs in Berkeley. West Berkeley is Berkeley's manufacturing and wholesaling district, its strongest regional retailing area, and an emerging office/laboratory center. West Berkeley's residential community is relatively small (some 7% of City population), but houses disproportionately high percentages of low income, non-Anglo, and artist households. West Berkeley is clearly a distfoct area within Berkeley.

Adjacent to West Berkeley, the City and citizens have developed Area'Plans for the Waterfront and South Berkeley. The Waterfront plan calls for the maintenance of the • waterfront as primarily open space, with modest hotel, recreation, and conference center uses. The South Berkeley plan (which covers the area between the Oakland line and Dwight Way) does not anticipate major land use changes, but it does seek to revitalize the southern portion ofSan Pablo Avenue-an area and objective shared with the West .

Berkeley Plan. There is no specific Area Plan for the Central Berkeley area north of Dwight, which is typically zoned R-2 or R-3, and characterized by a mix of single family houses arid apartments.

C. Types of Land Use

1. Industrial Uses-The Heavy Lifters
We begin with industrial uses1, because, despite significant changes in West Berkeley, they remain the biggest land users. Historically, West Berkeley developed around a set of factories. Indeed some of today's West Berkeley manufacturers can trace their origins to the 1890's, though this is exceptional. Thus, West Berkeley's most characteristic built form is the lo:w, large, utilitarian "industrial" building.

Industrial uses dominate in the Manufacturing and Mixed Manufacturing zone, make up 2/3 of employment in the "Mixed Green" zone, are a strong presence in the Mixed Residential zone, and even appear in the Commercial zone (particularly along San Pablo Ave. south of Dwight Way). In 1992, City staff estimates that between "heavy'; manufac­ turfog, "light" manufacturing and "warehousing" uses, there were 5.9 million square feet of built space in West Berkeley, accounting for 64% of total built space. Although the analysis probably exaggerated the extent of industrial use, and although there have been major conversions of industrial space to other uses since then, industrial uses still occupy a majority of built space.
1Following the Preferred Land Use Concept, this report includes manufacturing, wholesale trade, and "other industrial" uses such as transportation, public utilities, construction, and auto repair in discussing industrial uses overall.

Land Use Element
19

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
"Heavy" -manufacturing1
There are only a few "heavy" manufac.turers in West Ber~elef but.they p_laya disproportionately important role. i992 data fndicates that there is roughly 1,000,000 square feet ·of heavy industrial space. Business ·License data indicat~s only-31 heavy manufacturers, 3% of atea business'tis, but they employ a reported 1,685 workers, 16% ~f stated employment.2 While individual company circumstances vary, the heavy manufac­ turers tend to have ,the .largest sites, to have been in place the longest, and to have the largest and most heavily unionized workforces .. On the physical level;: some heavy manufacturers occupy distinctive high-ceilinged yet 1 story buildings; to house large scale machinery.

Heavy manufacturers are generally located in either of 2 clusters. There is a cluster in northwestern West Berkeley, where the Manufacturing zone isfocated. H~re is Pacific Steel Castings ( with @300 employees), Flint Ink (formerly Cal ink, a pre-1900 ·company), Berkeley Forge and Tool, and others. The other cluster is in southwestern West Berkeley, in t4e ~ixed Manufacturing zone. Miles Labs-foun4ed as Cutter shortly after the turn of the century, Macaulay Foundry, ana National Starch and Chemical are among the heavy manufa_cturers here.. Almost all the heavy manufacturers in this area are on large scale, mul~i-acre site.~, while. in the northwestern area some are wedged on"to smaller sites with-a more, "urban" feel to them.· As an illustration, in the northwest area, forklifts sometimes fill the str.eets, while in the southwest area material movement is likely to be in_ternal to a site, off ~treets.

Light Manufacturing
"Light" manufacturing-meaning all manufacturing not designated "heavy", as well as wholesale trade-is the dominant land use in West Berkeley. These uses occupy some 4.8 million square feet of space in West Berkeley.3 It is found in significant numbers in the Manufacturing, Mixed Manufacturing, Mixed Green, Mixed Residential, and even the Commercial zones. The~e 26(5businesses are spread from Bryant Labs (a ·chemicals wholesaler) on the Albany border to Be;keley Sheet Mei~l, which straddles th,e Emeryville line .• Just over half'of the ljght man~facturers (and a foll 70% -~flight manufacturing. employees) are locatea' in t~e Mix_ed G_reen z~ne, with 4th St. south of Addison, Folger S~_., ~ and Camelia St. east of 6th being particularly strong areas:
. Because of the diversity of light manufacture~s; fr i's diffic_ult to ge~eralize about their land use characteris,tics:' Ught manufacturers range from companies with.hundreds of employees tb" l and i person shops often thoughJ of as "crafts." They may be bakers, priii!ers, rnetai fa_bricators, makers of machi~ery, scientific instru~e~t makers," <?~ • engaged in other activities. A prototypical Berkeley light manufacturer would be found in .. one or more single ~t~ry buildings (with ~ome_parking adjacen't), ~hich it does ·not 'Heavy" manufacturing-not an economic term of art-is defined here to include chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, and primary metals.
21990 Business License data will be used in this report because more recent business license data bases are incomplete.

Updated information will be provided when available, either in the Plan document or in a supplementary report. County Business Patterns data is available through 1991. .
'Because the space inventory was by building type rather than use type, this total probably includes some construction firms and some firms in transportat_ion and public utilities, but_ these are clearly a small part of the total. - - Land Use Element
20

I
I
.,
West Berkeley*
Existing Land Use (Generalized)
■ Heavy .Manufacturing
II]
. Light Mfrg. & Wholesaling
■ Other Industrial
·■ Retail & Commercial
■ Office. Based
[3) Residential
Ill Public Space, Institutional
V = Vacant land
p = Parking
*dominant uses of portions of blocks,
not parcel by parcel City of Berkeley Planning Department-October 1993

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
share with any other company. 1 It would probably be found on a block with 1 or more other light manufacturers, which might also contain other industrial, office, or (in the Mixed Residential zone) residential uses. It is more likely to rent its space, but a larger firm could own at least some of the space. Light manufacturers present today mostly were begun (in Berkeley) sfoce 1960. In general, light manufacturers pay lower wages than heavy manufacturers, but this varies greatly with the unionization of the company and other factors.

Other Industrial Uses
"Other industrial" uses are a broad category of uses which, while not involving manufacturing or wholesale trade, nonetheless have an "industrial" character because of their processes, materials used, and/or land use. Construction, auto repair, and transpor­ tation and public utilities are key West Berkeley other industrial uses. The West Berkeley Plan area has 232 of these businesses, but they report only 1,304 employees, less than 6 employees per workplace. "Skilled blue collar" work with relatively high average wages dominate these fields, but there is great company to company variation, and construction is subject to great seasonality ..

The 104 auto repair businesse~ dominate this category. 58 of these line San Pablo Avenue from Harrison to Carrison, forming one of the dominant uses on this street. The others are scattered throughout non-residential West Berkeley, but are most likely to be found in the Mixed Green zone. All but 7 of these businesses report 10 or fewer employees.

Construction firms based in West Berkeley make up the other key part of this use group. These firms favor locations in the Light Industrial zone, but can also be found in 'But the smallest companies would be in multi-tenant buildings (e.g. Kawneer, Folger-Murray) while some companies (e.g.Andros) are using 2 story buildings. • '
Land Use Element
21

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
: the Mixed Use Residential, or, less frequently, 'in the Commercial or Resid.ential zone: -The firms tend to be small, but' 10 report employing IO or more employees (and construction employment is highly cyclical). The actual sites that construction companies use vary • from simple offices to yards of several acres where vehicles and materials are stored . • · Agricult~ral uses,.moving and trucking, and repair of items other than cars round out the category. Some notable sites are Pacific Bell's vehicie yard near 4th&: Harrison and Macy Movers at 7th & Heinz. •• •
D~ Commercial Uses-The Fastest Growing Presence
Office and Laboratory Uses
Freestanding offices and laboratories (that is, ones which are not simply part of an industrial operation) are a relatively new (on a large scale) activity in West Berkeley, but they have grown to almost 20% of its private employment. They occupy some 850,000 square feet of space. West Berkeley's office-based firms operate in business services, graphic design, software, architecture and engineering, and many other fields. Wi_th 1,923 employees, these firms report only 7 employees per business. Average wages for these firms tend to be high, as they are made up of generally well-paid professionals and less well-paid clerical staff.

The majority of office-based firms are found in the Mixed Use/Light Industrial, where they make up roughly 1/3 of total private employment. Major concentration points for these uses are Parker Plaza at 9th & Parker (and the Fantasy Records building diagonally across the street) and the Durkee complex west of 7th & Heinz, where Xoma .

Corporation has over 200 employees in its labs. This complex also _houses the state.

Department of Health Services labs, with its public employees not included in these totals.

A major Kaiser medical lab is located on Eastshore between Virginia and Hearst. 68 firms are found in scattered small buildings in the Mixed Use Residential zone, in locations such as a small cluster of graphic design firms around 5th & Delaware. A smattering of health care offices are found along San Pablo Ave. and other major streets.

Retail Uses
Retail-trade has expanded dramatically in West Berkeley in the 1980's. Retail spate now occupies over 1,000,000 square f eetin West Berkeley-the equivalent of 2 large regional shopping centers. Employment more than doubled to 2,385, while the number of businesses (including personal services such as barber shops) grew to 310. • West Berkeley is the main ''.regional" retail area in Berkeley. While the bulk ofretailers are small, a disproportionate percentage of sales was garnered by such larger firms as Whole Earth Access, Weatherford BMW, Truitt and White, and REI. West Berkeley-is represented in . .
all retail categories, perhaps most strongly in specialty retail. While auto dealers are an ex~eption, most West Berkeley retailers are nqn-union and low paying relative to other sectors.·
Al~ost 3/4 of West Berkeley retail employment (and 2/3 of businesses) is in the commercial zone. This includes the major businesses along the north side of Ashby P,lve. and the fashionable complex centered on 4th and Hearst. These are~s have seen strong sales growth in their former industrial and newly constructed buildings. Less spectacular, Land Use Element '
22 I
•

i

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
but still healthy, are the smaller businesses along University and San Pablo Avenues.

Along these streets, food stores (many with an ethnic focus), liquor stores, restaurants, and auto parts stores dominate'. However, specialty retailers such as REI and Amsterdam Art can also be found on these streets, while the mini-mall at Cedar & San Pablo represents an upscale version of the street's traditional food and liquor orientation.

Virtually all of the retail space outside the commercial zone is in the MIXed Green zone, where the growing Building Materials sector is the key use. Such establishments can be found along Ashby, near the foot of Hearst, and to a lesser extent off Gilman St. These businesses have a different land use and sales pattern than other retailers-much of their stock is stored outside. These stores also sell some 1/3 of their wares to contractors.

E. Residential Uses
While most of West Berkeley is devoted to economic activity, there are also some 3,000 dwelling units-roughly 7% of the Citywide total. Almost half of West Berkeley's units ( 44%) are in single family houses; with the addition of 2 unit structures (19% more units) almost 2/3 of units are accounted for. Only 8% of units are in larger apartment buildings of 10 units or more. Small homes on small lots-often less than the "standard" 5,000 sq. ft. are the West Berkeley norm.

Most of West Berkeley's housing-over 2,000 units-is found in the "residential core" areas-between Dwight and Camelia, from 6th St. to just west of San Pablo Ave. The residential core areas north and south of University Ave. are broadly similar, although houses in the northern area are slightly smaller (averaging 4. 9 rooms per owner-occupied unit, compared to 5.2 in the southern area, and 5.9 in Berkeley as a whole). The northernmost residential area, between roughly Delaware and Camelia has many "bun­ galow" style houses, reflecting a somewhat more recent style than residential streets Land Use Element
23

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
further south. Detailed information about the residents of West Berkeley is provided in the Housing Element.

Residences, however, are not limited to quiet local-serving streets. A 1986land • use survey indicated 239 units along San Pablo Ave. and 34 units along University Ave., often (although not always) above retail. Additionally, there· is the 75 room UA Homes residential hotel at 10th & University, which is being restored to occupancy as a non- profit residential hotel. West Berkeley's highest density zoning and largest apartment complexes are found on or near University Ave.' There is also an important residential community intermixed with some light manufacturing (and similar) use!?. This housing is concentrated along 5th St. and in the Grayson St. area in the newly designated Mixed Use/Residential district.

Live-work uses account for a small propor.tion (perhaps 2%) of West Berkeley's housing, but have gained prominence and posed challenges for City regulation. Origi­ nally pioneered by artists and craftspeople converting industrial spaces themselves,Hve­ work has now. attracted developers se~king more upscale residents. Because many live­ work units do not have City permits there is no comprehensive inventory, but major sites include the Durkee building (Heinz St. w. of 7th), The Tannery (4th St. btwn: Gilman& Camelia), 1450 4th (constructed on 4th btwn. Page & Jones), and 947 Pardee (con­ structed at 9th & Pardee).

The Element now discusses ·the characteristics of the areas in each land use designation.

Land.Use Element
24 -•
I'

u
'J

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Table 1-1: West Berkeley Employment by Broad Sector in Proposed Zoning Districts • Zoning District
Manufacturing Mixed- Mixed Use/ Mixed Use/ Commercial Total Plan Area Manufacturing Residential Light Industrial
Use Category Firms-Employees Firms-Employees Firms-Employees Firms-Employees Firms-Employees Firms-Employees "Heavy" 9 • 537 4 770 10 257 7 106
Manufacturing~
"Light" • 16 187 12 87 140 2,180 53 400
Manufacturing**
Other Industrial*** 3 118 3 16 72 471 39 279
Retail Trade**** .3 10 4 12 49 545 15 46
Office-Based••••• 4 10 4 30 100 1,099 68 386
TOTAL 35 862 27 915 371 4,552 182 1,217
_*"Heavy" Manufacturing is chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, primary metals, and asphalt products. **"Light" Manufacturing is all other manufacturing·; wholesale trade; and warehousing. 1 14 31
39 212 266
97 357 232
219 1,746 310
56 257 272
412 · 2,586 1,111
***Other Industrial is agriculture, construction, transportation and public utilities, auto repair, and miscellaneous repair services. ***~Retail Trade is retail trade and personal services; 1,684
3,097
1,304
2,385
1,923
10,393
*****Office-Based is finance, insurance, and real estate; travel agencies; and services not listed above including business services,engiO:eering and management.

Source: Business Licenses, 1990, City of Berkeley
Note: Plan Area totals include 84 firms with 262 employees located in residential areas and Aquatic Park and not reflected in columns.

Note: Business License· data tends to understate employment somewhat, due to underreporting.

F. Land Use in Plan.Districts
Mixed Use/ Light Industrial District
This description begins with the Mixed Use/Light Industrial district because it is the largest one (outside of the purely residential areas), covering roughly 300 acres. This district in many ways represents the linchpin of the West Berkeley Plan. It contains the most employment of any district--4,552 jobs or 44%1 of the total reported jobs (on Business Licenses) for the Plan area. The area's broad importance is indicated by the fact that it is home to 51 % of the manufacturing and wholesaling employment, and 57% of office-based services. Manufacturing and wholesaling make up over half.....:..54%--of the . jobs in the district (2,437 jobs). There are 77 manufact~rers in the district, virtually as many as in the Manufacturing, Mixed Manufacturing, and Mixed Use/Residential districts combined, which have a total of 79 manufacturers. 6 of the 10 largest manufacturers in West Berkeley are located in this district.

In. the Mixed Use/Light Industrial office-based services account for almost another quarter of district jobs (1,099 jobs or 24%). The district does not incorporate the centers and retail employment is modest--4 77 jobs, or 12% of the area total, with the bulk of these coming in the rather atypical Building Materials and Garden Supplies sector.

Manufacturing District
The manufacturing district is a "gritty" territory of metal "shed" buildings, tall cranes, and forklifts in the street. The district is generally west of 4th St. anq north of Virginia St., though its borders are irregular. About 900 workers (862) in 35 firms labor here, with 84% of them in manufacturing and wholesaling. Flint Ink (formerly Cal Ink), Pacific Steel Castings, and billboard builder Gannett Outdoor Advertising are the largest employers here, along with other smaller "heavy" manufacturers.

Land Use Element
25

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Table 1-2: Percentage of Each Sector's Employment in Each Zone (totals across)

ZONING DISTRICT
Mixed- Mixed Use/ Mixed Use/.

Sector Manufacturing Manufacturing Residential Light Industrial Commercial Total "Heavy" 32% 46% 15% 6% 1% 100%
Manufacturing
"Light" 6% 3% 70% 13% 7% 100%
Manufacturing
Other Industrial 9% 1% 36% 21% ·27% 100%
Retail Trade 0% 1% 23% 2% 73% 100%
Office Based 1% 2% 57% 20% • 13% • 100o/~
Total 8% 9% 44%· 12% 25% 100%
Note: Rows do not always add to 100% because of employment in Aquatic Park and in _the residential zones.

Table 1-3: Percentage of Each Zone.'s Employment in Each Sector (totals down)

ZONING DISTRICT
Mixed- Mixed Use/ Mixed Use/
) .-
Sector Manufacturing Manufacturing Residential Light Industrial Commercial Total "Heavy" • 62% 84% 6%. 9% 0% 16%
Manufacturing
"Light" 22% 10% 48% 33% 9% 30%
Manufacturing
Other Industrial 14% 2% 10% 23% 24% 13%
Retail Trade 1% 1% 12% 4% 53% 23%
Office Based 1o/o 3% 24% 32%· 14% • 1~%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100o/'? 100% 100%
Mixed Manufacturing District
The Mixed Manufacturing district js made up of the "superblocks" between 7th St. and the railroad track, Dwight Way and Heinz St. These blocks were laid out as the early 20th Century version of an "industrial park." The area is dominated by large sites-Miles' almost 25 acres, Some 10 acres at the former Colgate plant, and other similarly large sites. ' . . . . . \ . ' .

Some 900 employees work here (915) although for a mere 27 businesses. Recent employment foci-eases at Mile~ h~ve raised the employment total. :Employment in the district i~· 90% manufacturing and ~holesaling, with Miles, Macaulay. Foundry,and Artworks Foundry leading employers.

Land Use Element
26 I
--

I

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
The Mixed Use/Residential District·
The Mixed Use/Residential district's non-residential uses are divided among manufacturing and wholesaling, with 506 employees ( 4 2% of the district total), with 386 (32%) in office-based and non-repair services, and 279 (23%) in other industrial uses such as construction and auto repair. The district is not insignificant economically, with 12% of total West Berkeley jobs, 21 % of West Berkeley light manufacturing jobs, and 20% of West Berkeley office-based jobs. However, businesses in the district tend to be smaller than in other districts, with the largest employer here reporting only 60 jobs. But among the 200+ businesses in the district, there are over a dozen construction companies, a similar number of printers and publishers, almost 20 small wholesalers, and a large cluster of business service firms. Residentially, the district contains 373 units (according to the 1990 Census), 90 of which (or 25%) are concentrated at the Oceanview Gardens/ Delaware St. Historic District site. One unit houses predominate in the area, but there are many duplexes, and some 3 and 4 unit structures. The Oceanview Gardens development is composed primarily of 6 unit structures.

Commercial District
Most of the district's employment-1,746 jobs or 73% of its total is in retail and personal service uses. Similarly, the district represents 73% of West Berkeley retail/ personal service jobs. 8 of West Berkeley's 10 largest retail employers are in this district.

Whole Earth Excess, Spenger's, and REI are among these leading employers. The district also has a substantial residential population, with approximately 300 units. Areas with substantial numbers of residents include University Ave. from 8th to 10th, and San Pablo Ave. from University to Cedar, San Pablo Ave. from Addison to Parker, and 10th St. south of Dwight Way. In all of these areas, however, residential and commercial uses are mixed, either on the same property, or on the same block.

Land Use Element
27

. I

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Figure 1-2: West Berkeley Plan Conforming and Non-Conforming Uses* Conforming Uses
- Non-Conforming Uses·
*By reason of use only, buildings
may be non-conforming
I
I \
Land Use Element ·
28 H
:;1 -~
j
I
...

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Figure 1-2: Legend
Number District Use

1. Light Industrial Residence

2. Light Industrial Retail

3. Light Industrial Residence

4. Light Industrial Retail

5. , Light Industrial Retail

6. Light Industrial Retail

7. Manufacturing Office/Live-work

8. Light Industrial Retail

9. Light Industrial Residence

10. Light Industrial Residence

11. Light Industrial Residence
I
12, Light Industrial Residence

13. Manufacturing Day Care

14. Light Industrial Live-work
., 15. Light Industrial Residence

16. Light Industrial Heavy Manufacturing
- 17 .. Mixed Use/Residential Manufacturing

18. Residential Office*

19. Mixed Use/Residential Retail

20. Residential Manufacturing*

21. Residential Manufacturing*

22. Mixed Use/Residential Retail*

23. Light Industrial Bathhouse

24. Light Industrial Heavy Manufacturing

25. Light Industrial Soil Blending

26. Light Industrial Retail

27. Mixed Use/Residential Heavy Manufacturing

28. Residential Manufacturing*

29. Light Industrial Residence

30. Residential Manufacturing*

31. light Industrial Residence

32. Light Industrial 3 Residences

33. light Industrial 3 Residences

34. Residential Nursery*

35. Light Industrial 2 Residences

36. Mixed Use/Residential Manufacturing

37. Mixed Use/Residential Retail

38. Light Industrial Retail

39. Light Industrial Live-work

40. Light Industrial Retail

41. Commercial Heavy Manufacturing

42. Light Industrial Residence

43. Light Industrial Residence

44. Light Industrial Residence

45. Light Industrial Retail
*(non-conforming under current zoning)
Land Use Element
29

Figure 1-3: Sensitive Receptors

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
City of Berkeley Planning Department, Octol;)er 1993
Land Use Element
30 I
-•

I
-

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Residential Districts
The residential districts of West Berkeley-overwhelmingly zoned Rl(A), with small amounts of R3, and R4, are virtually unmodified by the Plan. The 2 residential Census tracts (which cover the area from Dwight to Camelia, 6th to San Pablo) total 256 acres, but this figure includes some commercially zoned frontage on University arid San Pablo. City records indicated (as of 1989) 2,356 housing units in the 2 tracts. Somewhat less than half of the units ( 43%) were in 1 unit structures. An additional fifth of the units (21 %) are in structures with 5 or more units. Almost all of these apartment buildings are non-conforming uses because they were built before the area was downi:oned. There is . also employment in the district-in existing non-conforming commercial structures, and in home occupations, which are counted as employment in Berkeley's business licenses. • G. The Intensity of West Berkeley Land Use
The modest scale of West Berkeley housing is noted above. Other types of West Berkeley land use also reflect modest intensity of development. Only 1 small area of West • Berkeley-the portion incorporating Parker Plaza and Fantasy Records-has an overall Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of greater than 1. This means that only in this area is there on average more than 1 square foot of building for each square foot of land, although there are other individual sites with an FAR of greater than 1 (e.g. Colgate). FARs of 2 or more are rare. By contrast, FARs of 3 or 4 or more are found in Downtown Berkeley.

Permitted Floor Area Ratios (FAR) it should be noted, are greater. The existing M district has no maximum permitted FAR, but the 3 story height limit would theoreti­ cally allow FARs as high as about 2. 7. The need to provide parking is the constraint in this case. The Special Industrial_ (SI) district has a permitted FAR of 1.0 for non-residential structures. The distinction between the permitted FARs and the existing stems from the fact that while a single lot or 2 on a block may be developed to the maximum FAR, it is unusual that the entire block is built to that level. In many cases property owners-­ particularly manufacturers seeking the most efficient goods movement-do not wish to build to a maximum FAR. Thus the permitted FAR serves more as a maximum than as a predictor of likely level of development.

The scale of West Berkeley development indicates its character as an industrial d~strict of intermediate age. The Bay Area's oldest remaining industrial district-South of Market in San Francisco-is characterized by multi-story buildings which have become increasingly difficult to use. Newer industrial areas (e.g. industrial parks in South San Francisco) are almost exclusively single story buildings and provide greater amounts of parking and loading space than in West Berkeley.

Land Use Element
31

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
III. ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN WEST BERKELEY
Assumptions for Pr~jection
Future development in an area can only be projected, with no claim to "scientific" .. a~curacy .. The land use regulations embodied in this Plan set the maximum permitted . development levels, but market conditions will generally dictate whether private devel­ opers will take advantage of these opportunities. The City itself does not plari to undertake major development projects in the area, with the possible exception of relocating its Corporation Yard.

The analysis in' this document uses the same assumptions used in the Environ­ mental Impact Report on the Plan. City staff, with the assistance of development professionals, have identified the major development opportunities that exist in West Berkeley. These include both vacant sites, and sites where expansions or changes of uses are likely. In addition, the EIR builds in allowances for expansion of existing smaller scale • development. The projections were developed by reviewing 1) Projects now approved (including under construction as of Fall, 1992); 2) Projects p~oposed; and 3). Potential projects in each zone, for each use. The Plan arid EIR assume that the avail;~li sites will be fully developed by 2005. Such "buildout" may not'occur, but asstimiI1~:!~'at it will is conservative in terms· of traffic which will have to be handled and othh i~?ues': • ----~":-:-',:':"_/.

This document provides a summary of projected development in West Berkeley . through 2005. Further detail is available in the West Berkeley Plan Draft Environmental . •',,,,,.,,:--,.,.;. .

Impact Report. • • •
Overall Level of Development
Development under the West Berkeley Plan is projected to be significant, but in scale with existing development. The Plan projects that West Berkeley will add some \ I • •
1,535,000 of non-residential development, including laboratory, manufacturing, office, and retail space. If realized, this would repre~erit a 16% addition to the existing stock (as of 1992) of some 9,300,000 square feet (see· Table 1-4). 400,000 square feet of new manufacturing space are projected, as are 680,000 square feet of new office/"R and D" space, and 525,000 square feet of retail space. Und~r ·the Plan at least: 200 residential and live-work urtits1 will be added.to the existing stock of 2,970 housing units (including live­ work). Thus the P_lan projects at least a 7% increase in residential space. . .

As· the EIR discusses, the great bulk (1,340,000 square feet) of the projected development is in 8 major projects. These are development at the University's Harrison Properties; re-occupancy of Utility Body; commercial development at the Spenger's parking lot; the approved Miles Development Agreement; reuse of the Colgate site; development at the "Colgate East" parking lot across 7th St.; Live-work development on the Hustead's Towing site, and expansion of Whole Earth Access. As of September, 1993, 'These projections include live-work space with their projection of housing development. Strictly speaking, live-work is not housing, because it incorporates both a living space and workspace. The proposed live-work ordinance treats live-work space as more "commercial" than "residential". However, regardless of how this issue is viewed, since live-work will provide living space for households, it is appropriate to include it in the housing totals. The Housing and Social Services Element provides further discussion of West Berkeley's recent levels of housing development.

Land Use Element
32 I
-I

I

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
only the Miles project and demolition of buildings at the Colgate site (but no new buildings) have been approved by the City, so none of the other projects are certain.

Table 1-4: Existing Non-Residential Space and Projected Development by Use* Manufacturing Office
& Wholesaling "A and D" Retail Other"*
Existing 5,930,000 855,000 1,350,000 1,140,000
Space, 1992
Projected, +400,000 +680,000 +325,000 +135,000
1992-2005
.. % Change, +7% +79% +24% +12%
1992-2005
Total, 2005 6,330,000 1,535,000 1,675,000 1,275,000
*rounded to nearest 5,000 sq.ft.
**Other includes auto repair shops, banks, motels, schools, churches, and other institutional uses. The expected increase in space assumes development of a Corporation Yard for the City and School District.

Development Projections and Development Objectives
In its effort to balance various types of development, the West Berkeley Plan Preferred Land Use Concept (the predecessor document to this one) adopted objectives for growth over the 15 year Plan period in various uses-Manufacturing (and wholesal­ ing), Office and Laboratory, and Retail. The Committee set objectives of adding 350,000 square feet of manufacturing space, 400,000 square feet of office and laboratory space, and 300,000 square feet of retail space. Clearly, projected growth of space meets or exceeds these targets in each area. This added space was targeted to add 700 manufacturing jobs, 1,200 office and laboratoryjobs, and 1,200 retail jobs. These objectives were arrived at by using ABAG's projections for economic growth in Berkeley as a whole as benchmarks.

Housing Development Potential
In addition to providing space for jobs, the West Berkeley Area Plan must provide space for additional housing. An assessment of potential housing development sites in the Plan Concept suggests that West Berkeley can meet a reasonable target of 200 units development over the next 15 years. Housing development potential exceeds a reasonable housing goal by 95-120 units, possibly more.

Summary of Potential
Commercial corridors
Mixed Use residential
Second units
Live-work conversions
Total
152 units
108 units
13 units
Unquantified
273 units*
Development Opportunities:

The West Berkeley Plan provides 3
types of housing development opportuni­
ties-Commercial corridors (especially San
Pablo Ave.); the Mixed Use Residential zone;
*Total units plus live-work conversions
~--------------~ and second units with single-family houses.

The projection assumes 8 housing development sites with 152 units in 3 story mixed use buildings on San Pablo Avenue (feasible only under relaxed parking standards); 6 housing development sites with 108 units in the Mixed Use/Residential district (not including possible additional conversions of industrial space to live-work use), and 13 second units with single family houses (added to 1% of the existing single family house stock).

Land Use Element
33

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
IV. GOALS AND POLICIES
The West Berkeley Plan Preferred Land Use Concept developed a substantial list ofland use goals and policies. Taken together, they provide a broad statement of the many activities the Plan seeks to provide for and balance. They provide important points of reference in both developing zoning rules and _making land us~ decisions on specific projects, but of course do not directly answer what should be done on a given site .. • The key land use goals and policies are listed and explained below. It should be noted that many goals and policies with an important bearing on land use are found in the Economic Development, Design, and Housing· Elements.

Goal 1: _
. , , • I J ,
Over the eco·nomica11y active area of West Berkeley, provide for a continued economic and land use mix, incorporating manufacturing, _other industrial, retail and office/laboratory uses, to benefit Berkeley residents and businesses economically, benefit the City government fiscally, and promotes the varied and interest character of the area. • • Rationale:
. Maintaining? mix of uses within West Berkeley is the O\'.:erriding goal of the West Be~keley Plan. This mix is the key fe~ture which distingu_ishes ·west Berkeley from other a;eas ofBer~eley and the region-_-if it disappeared, so would West Berkeley's uniqueness.

Even those policies which specify certain areas for certain uses (e.g. manufacturing) do so in the service of assuring that thqse uses will remain p~ut of the overall West Berkeley ~ . . . . . ~
mix, and not simply disappear. ~he mix assures that a variety of businesses, some'of which best meet job needs, others of which provide the City the most tax revenue, and still others of which provide important goods and services, can remain and flourish. • • Policies:

A: Retaining, through planning, zoning and land use policies which shield manufa~tures from economic arid physical inc~mpatibilities 'with other uses, sufficient • l~nd _and buildings to maintain the current level of manufacturing ~mployment· at a minimum. · B. Providing, through zoning districts, development standards, and other tools, space and incentives for expansion of manufacturing firms, particularly the growing light manufac- ' turing.sector.

C. Providing sp~ce for, 'and :desig~ating appropriate locations for-in pla~ning and zoning policies-both neighborhood and regional serving retail businesses.

D. Providing space for,·and_designating appropriate locations for, office, service, and laboratory businesses, par~icularly growing Berkeley based businesseswhich are'particu­ larly suiteµ to West Berkeley's physical environment. • Land Use Element
34 I
-•

I
•

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Goal 2:

Channel development-both new businesses and residences and the expansion of existing businesses-to districts various_ which are appropriate for the various existing elements of the West Berkeley_ land use mix.

Rationale:

The Preferred Land Use Concept was based on the concept of channeling diff er~nt types of uses to different parts of West Berkeley, within the context of its overall mix. It therefore developed a new zoning districting plan for West Berkeley. This Goal and its .. associated policies set forth the rationales for creating each of the districts.

Policies:

A. Create a Manufacturing district as a general industrial district, where the full range of existing manufacturers-both '.'heavy" and "light''-can function without interference _ from other types of uses .

B. Create a Mixed Manufacturing district as a general industrial district, where both heavy and light manufacturers can function, along with "biotech" industries and office users which can recycle the upper stories of buildings.

C. Create a Light Manufacturing district which allows a wide range oflight manufacturers to continue to operate and expand and limits loss. of their spaces to other uses, while providing an opportunity for office development where it will not unduly interfere with light manufacturing uses, and for laboratory development in appropriate locations.

D. Create a Mixed Residential district as a special mixed use district which will recognize and suppoi:t the continued evolution of a unique mix of residential, light industrial, and arts and crafts uses, with a particular effort to strengthen residential concentrations existing there.

E. Create a Commercial district which will foster the continued vitality of West Berkeley's neighborhood and regional serving retail trade, in as pedestrian-friendly a manner as possible.

F. Maintain Residential districts which will provide decent, safe, and sanitary living environments for a wide range of types of household.

Goal 3:

Protect residential core neighborhoods from adverse impacts of economic growth-especially traffic and parking congestion and noise.

Rationale:

The residential core neighborhoods are made up primarily of houses and apartments, much like other residential Berkeley neighborhoods. A safe and pleasant residential environment is important there. These neighborhoods should enjoy the same Land Use Element
35

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
protection from through traffic on non- arterial (and non-collector) streets and from commercial parking spill-over that other residential neighborhoods enjoy. The fact$ that these neighborhoods are adjacent to industrial and other economically active areas, arid that they are occupied in large part by low income people do not diminish their need for these protections.

Policies: .

A. Protect residential streets which are not arterials or coll~ctors from through traffic, both· from trucks arid commuters. • • • •
B. Protect the residential core neighborhoods from parking spill-over generated by nearby office and residential uses.

Goal 4:

Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriate to its surroundings, while respecting the genu~ne economic and physical needs of the development.

Rationale:

The modest scale of many West Berkeley areas, both reside.ntial and economically active, is an important aspect of their character. _As. devel_opment occurs in these are~s, the City must balance the economic and physi~al needs of the development itself with the scale of the area, should these c.ome in co,nflict.

Clarify and rationalize the development revi.ew process, so that clearer guidance is given to. applicants and people affected by projects, and so that decisions on projects may occur more rapidly, while providing appropriate opportunities for citizen input.

Rationale:

Many businesses and developers have argued that Berkeley's project review process is unduly long and complex. The West Berkeley Plan seeks to provide both greater certainty of outcome to applicants and affected parties, and more rapid permit processing. • The Plan achieves both
Land Us.f:Ele'ment •

36. seemingly contradictory
goals by providing more
detail on permitted· and
prohibited uses than the
previous zoning, while al­
lowing a greater number of
projects which meet zon­
ing standards to proceed
without cumbersome and
time-consuming public
hearings.

I
-Ill

I
•

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
V. THE LAND USE DISTRICTING CONCEPT OF THE PLAN
One of the niost important parts of the West Berkeley Plan is its land use concept.

The land use concept is designed to guide West Berkeley's evolution through at least the year 2005. The concept lays out a completely revised set of land use districts for West • Berkeley (see the following color district map). These districts are designed to become new zoning districts once the final Plan is adopted.

The concept represents a balance between a strong emphasis on the need to conserve desirable existing uses and the need to allow reasonable evolution and develop­ ment. It seeks to balance the legitimate, yet sometimes conflicting interests of the many "stakeholders" in West Berkeley-residents, manufacturers, workers and their unions, retailers, property owners, the University, the City itself, and many others. The Plan land use concept seeks to give clear guidance on what activities are desired where within . Berkeley, yet allow the continued development of a creative, exciting mixed use area. For the first time in West Berkeley, the land use concept provides a clear gradation of uses and • development intensity from the residential areas, through mixed use areas to the manufacturing areas
Overview of the Districting Concept
While the concept was, developed through an intensely participatory process, which required numerous trade-offs and compromises from all participants (see the Process section), there is nonetheless an _underlying logic to the concept. The concept recognizes that, although West Berkeley is, on the whole, an area with very mixed uses, individual areas within it do have certain predominant uses. Other areas have a mix of uses, but they do not generally have the full range of uses from "heavy" manufacturing to single family detached residential (see Figure 1-4 for a diagrammatic depiction of the varying mix of uses in the Plan's land use districts). There are 6 land use designations (types of zoning) for the whole of West Berkeley.

Some areas have a use mix dominated by "heavy" and "light" manufacturing, these are designated as the Manufacturing and Mixed Manufacturing districts. In much ofWest Berkeley, light manufacturing and other light industrial uses (e.g. auto repair) are the primary land use, these areas are designated as Mixed Use/Light Industrial district.

Retail commercial concentrations have developed, not only along San Pablo and Univer­ sity Aves., but around 4th & University and 7th & Ashby as well. These areas were designated Commercial. Some areas mix industrial and residential uses closely to­ gether-these areas have been designated Mixed Use/Residential. The remaining areas are overwhelmingly residential, and remain in their existing residential zoning ( whether it be R-IA, R3, or R4). This pattern is described in more detail in the following section.

In addition to this overall concept, there were a number of principles which guided the development of the land use concept. Most important among these were:
• New land use districts/zones should recognize the existing character of an area, and create as few non-conformities as possible; "
Land Use Element
37

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
• The zoning should allow desi~ed development in an area (e.g. residential infill, expansion of existing manufacturers), but generally not permit a radical change of area character;
• Although they are n_ot the_ only consideration, the desires of businesses, property owners, and residents in a particular.area are especially important in developing districting/zoning for that area; .
• Zoning should specify, as clearly as possible, permitted and prohibited uses in an area, to give guidance to applicants (for permits) and to reduce permit processing time;.
• 'Manufacturing, wholesaling, and warehousing space should be maintained in those uses as much as possible, to ~eet the Council/Planning Com~issia"n mandate to maintain manufacturing jobs; • •
• All use~, even those permitted in a zone, ~re subject to_review for environmental impacts. How~ver, whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR):an Initial Study, or othe; environmental document is ne.eded will be determined by t4e . • . ' nature and scale of an application;
• Existing residential clusters within mixed use areas should be strengthened and legitimized;
• Resi~e~ts should be buffered from the effects of.heavy industrial uses as much as possible;
..
• . • Retail uses should be clustered, to strengthen existing retail areas, to ma½e them for walkable, and to prevent retail-sprawl.·
Figure 1-4: The Spectrum of Permitted Uses
West Berkeley Plan Districts Generally Permitted Uses by District Districts
Manufacturing
Mixed Manufacturing
Mixed Use/Light Industrial
Mixed Use/Residential
Commercial
Residential
Legend:

Use Categories
"Heavy• ; Light Other
Manutacturingi Manufacturing Industrial
I
1·
Use generally permitted in district
!%?MW;@M'%1f,\Ml-1;! Use permitted to more limited extent in district Uses not indicated are generally prohibited iri district Offices
Land Use Element
38 Live-Work Retell Residential
I
■

West Berkeley Plan
Land Use Districts (Proposed)
I
•
, , - Manufacturing ••
Mixed- Manufacturing
Ml Mixed Use/ Light Industrial
- Mixed Use/ Residential
- General Commercial
m:"~:}:!,{i'.I • Residential

I
•
--

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Specific Districts in the Concept
General Manufacturing Districts
There are 2 small districts in the Plan which allow process intensive, "heavier" manufacturing uses, as well as light industrial uses. These are the Manufacturing District in northwestern West Berkeley (largely west of the railroad tracks), and the Mixed Manufacturing District in southwestern West Berkeley (around the Colgate and Miles sites). These areas are the present home to most West Berkeley "heavy" industries such as steelmaking and ink production. These districts are closely targeted to industrial uses, and generally do not allow residential, live-work, retail, or office uses (except on upper stories in the Mixed Manufacturing District). Office, laboratory, and retail uses which are integral to a manufacturing operation (e.g. a store selling products made on site) are permitted in the district. These small areas-some 94 acres in the Manufacturing zone and 79 acres in the Mixed Manufacturing zone-most closely follow the model of "Protected Manufacturing Districts" that manufacturing advocates sought for West Berkeley. While industrially oriented, the Mixed Manufacturing district is somewhat less tightly targeted than the Manufacturing District, allowing freestanding laboratories and office uses on upper stories, so that multi-story buildings in the district can be more easily used.

Mixed Use/Light Industrial District
The district is proposed for most of the areas where light manufacturing and industrial uses predominate in West Berkeley. These include the northern area, north of Camelia St. (home to such companies as Hopkins Screen Printing, Clear Com, and Mousefeathers). There is also the western area-west of 4th between Camelia and Dwight- (location of A&B Die Casting, De Soto, Peerless Lighting, and Andros Analyzers among others). There is the Parker St. area east of 7th (site oflon Systems, Nolo Press, and Consolidated Printing). South of Heinz most areas are in the district, except for the north of Ashby commercial corridor (taking in Xoma sites and the "Durkee" project, as well as East Bay Steel).

Permitted uses in the district are broadly light industrial in character, with various types oflight manufactunng being allowed but not "heavy" manufacturing. Freestanding laboratories (i.e. those not associated with a manufacturing use) would be permitted only in the areas between the railroad track and Aquatic Park, and north of Gilman St, to limit potential exposure to residential neighborhoods. Office uses are permitted in the zone, but not most types of retail. However, office development is limited by the stipulation that • only 25% of the area of a manufacturing facility not already used for offices could be converted to office use. Thus the district allows limited office development on current 1 manufacturing sites, and on currently undeveloped sites. Residential uses are not permitted in the district (although "heavier" live-work uses are). There are only a very small number of residential uses in the district, because the Mixed-Use Residential district was drawn to include all of the major residential enclaves.

Land Use Element
39

WEST BERKELEY PLAN
Mixed Use/Residential District
The Mixed Use/Residential zone is the fourth new land use/zoning district developed by the West Berkeley Plan. • While the Mixed Use/Light Industrial zone incorporates those areas dominated by a light industrial/office mix without re~idential uses, the Mixed Use/Residential focuses· on those areas where the typical mix is residential and light industrial. The district encompasses the ·current SI (Special Industrial) district between the 4th/5th midblock line and ~th St., along with an area (currently zcined M) between Carleton and Heinz, 7th-St. and tne San Pablo corrimercialstrip where the.re are substantial numbers of residences. · The district totals some 120 acres·; The district's prpposed' uses permit residenti~l', live~work, light industrial, and office uses, but only limited, generally neighborhood ;serving· retitil. To; maintain the dis~rict's smaller scale of development: it has a lower height limit and lower allowed Floor Area Ratio. (amo~nt of development per square .foot of ~and) than do the martufact~ring and_ light i~dustrial districts.

C~mmerci~l District
The· commercial district is not a ne'"'. on~ .in West Be~keley, currently covering almost all of San Pablo Ave. arid University Ave. east of 6th St. The West Berkeley Plan extends the commercial designation to other areas which have in fact ~ecome commer­ cial-4th St. between Addison and (vacated) Delaware, a corridor along the n(?r~h side of Ashby Ave.; and pockets (sometimes describe'd as "nodes") off San Pablo at Dwight and Gilman. The Plan seeks to foster concentrat~d;walkable commercial areas, and to prevent commercial sprawl which will both interfere with fodustry ~nd attenu~te commerdal areas. A new commercial "loop" from 4th & Addison to Aquatic Park is created, in the hope that'retail uses here will help lure mqre people i~to Aquatic_ Park.· The zoning for the district will vary somewhat bet~een concentrated commercial nodes (where non­ commercial uses will not be permitted on the ·ground floor) and along commercial strips stich as .Sa~ PablO.' : -• • • • • •
Residential Distric~s
Within the residential districts, the Plan does not prop·ose to change the zoning borders. The only proposed charige to permitted uses·i~ to allow small·neighborhood­ serving retail and service uses (e.g. groce_ries; la~ndromats) within the R districts.

One change which has b~en s~gg~ted fo~ study i~ the po~sible revisio~ of zoni.ng to allow multi-family structur~s a greater 4epth oflot back from San Pablo Ave. This was suggested for those areas which although zoned residential are currently not in residential use. This change could be incorporated into ·zoning revisions, but.befc?re p.oing s? ~areful study and consultation with the r.esidents would be required. This issue may be most appropriate £or the· General Plan. • • •
Land Use Elemeiit
40·
, ..

I
■
-

I
•
R
WEST BERKELEY PLAN . t---1 ----
VI. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Ordinances and Regulatory Changes
A. Rezoning-Implement the rezoning envisioned by the Preferred Land Use Concept and the West Berkeley Plan-including permitted and prohibited uses, development standards, performance standards and project review procedures-by amending the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map.

Goals and Policies Implemented: Goal 1, Policies lA, lB, lC, lD; Goal 2, Policies 2A,2B,2C;2D,2E,2F,Goal4,Goal5
Responsibility: City Planning Department
Funding: Major project within regular staff and operating funding B. Redevelopment Plan-Amend the West Berkeley Redevelopment Plan to conform with West Berkeley Plan
Goals and Policies Implemented: Goal 1, Policies lA, lB, lC, lD; Goal 2, Policies 2A, 2C, 2D, 2E, Goal 4,Goal 5
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Funding: Redevelopment Agency
C. Truck Weight Ordinance-Amend the City's truck weight Ordinance to prevent through traffic on residential streets. The City's actions .to limit the transportation Goals and Policies Implemented: Goal 3, Policy 3A
Responsibility: Traffic Engineer's Office
Funding: Regular staff and operating funding
Projects
A. Consolidated Parking-Study the feasibility of, and if feasible and desirable, construct parking garages or other consolidated parking facilities in the area of 4th & University and 7th & Ashby (and other locations if warranted). The garages would be intended to provide parking for area merchants, the Amtrak station, and to relieve overspill parking pressure on nearby neighborhoods.

Goals and Policies Implemented: Goal 1, Policy lC
Responsibility: Community Services Division initially
Funding: Study funds provided in 1991-92 Budget, study currently underway.

Studies
A. Inventory of Industrial Space-Create a comprehensive inventory of industrial space in West Berkeley, particularly industrial space subject to conversion regulation in the Mixed Use/Light Industrial and Mixed Use/Residential districts. This will support effective enforcement of these conversion rules.

Goals and Policies Implemented: Goal 1, Policies lA & lB; Goal 2 Land Use Element
41