Emeryville City Council
December 12, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 22-159
Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Emeryville Adopting The 2023- 2031 Housing Element Of The City Of Emeryville General Plan And Approving It For Submittal To The California Department Of Housing And Community Development For Certification And Approving An Addendum To The General Plan EIR
WHEREAS, State law requires cities to revise the housing elements of their General Plans periodically, and Bay Area housing elements are due by January 31, 2023 for the 2023 to 2031 planning period; and
WHEREAS, beginning in April 2021, the City held two community workshops, seven Housing Committee meetings, three Planning Commission meetings, and three City Council meetings to gain public and City official feedback and comments on the proposed Housing Element update; and
WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the Emeryville General Plan (the "2023- 2031 Housing Element") was published on May 19, 2022 for a 30-day public review period consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65585; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2022, the 2023-2031 Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for initial compliance review as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2022, the City received a response letter from HCD indicating that the 2023-2031 Housing Element was in conditional compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly and properly noticed public hearing and then voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the 2023- 2031 Housing Element and that staff be directed to submit the 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for certification; and
WHEREAS, notice for the City Council's consideration of the 2023-2031 Housing Element was provided pursuant to Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan was certified by the City Council on October 13, 2009, and in connection with the preparation of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element, an addendum to the General Plan EIR was prepared (the "General Plan EIR Addendum") consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, which found that the General Plan EIR adequately addressed all potential impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element update and that a subsequent or supplemental EIR was not required; and
WHEREAS, based on Emeryville’s strong track record of completing redevelopment projects on underutilized infill sites to facilitate new residential development, the DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 Resolution No. 22-159
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
City Council Meeting I December 12, 2022

existing uses on the sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element; Emeryville has a history of, and current Planning Regulations to continue to support, assembling multiple small sites for larger residential development projects; identified sites have a strong likelihood of being redeveloped over time, and it is common for developers to achieve greater than base zoning with incentives and bonuses; furthermore, the City’s inclusionary ordinance ensures a portion of the units will be reserved as affordable; and WHEREAS, the Emeryville City Council held a duly and properly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2022 to solicit public comments and review and consider the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the staff report and attachments thereto, the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the General Plan EIR Addendum, all public comments, and the project as set forth in this Resolution and the applicable provisions of the Emeryville Planning Regulations (the "Record"); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council approves the General Plan EIR Addendum, which is attached to the staff report for this item and hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that (i) the 2023-2031 Housing Element does not result in substantial changes to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, (ii) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the 2023-2031 Housing Element update will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and (iii) there is no new information of substantial importance that would result in the 2023-2031 Housing Element creating new significant environmental impacts, an increase in the severity of previously identified environmental impacts, a previously infeasible mitigation measure being feasible, or different mitigation measures or alternatives than those previously considered in the General Plan EIR substantially reducing one or more significant effects on the environment and that, therefore, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and be it further RESOLVED, that in approving the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the City of Emeryville General Plan (the "General Plan Amendment"), the City Council makes DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 Resolution No. 22-159
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
City Council Meeting I December 12, 2022

the following findings required by Emeryville Municipal Code Section 9-7.1205, based on its review and consideration of the Record:

General Plan Amendments Pursuant to Section 9-7.1205:
(a) The proposed amendment will contribute to the public health, safety, and general welfare or will be of benefit to the public.

The proposed General Plan Amendment will facilitate the development, maintenance, and improvement of adequate and affordable housing for new and existing residents, which will be a benefit to the public.
(b) The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Principles, unless the Guiding Principles themselves are proposed to be amended.

The proposed General Plan Amendment will facilitate the provision of housing affordable to households across the socioeconomic spectrum, which is consistent with the Guiding Principle of a "diverse, balanced, and inclusive community."
(c) The proposed amendment retains the internal consistency of the General Plan and is consistent with other adopted plans, unless concurrent amendment to those plans is also proposed and will result in consistency.

The proposed General Plan Amendment retains internal consistency with other General Plan elements and the City's Planning Regulations.

Policies and programs in the Emeryville Housing Element do not call for changes to land use regulations or other measures that would require revisions to existing plans.
(d) The proposed amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The proposed General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The General Plan EIR Addendum demonstrates that the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 Resolution No. 22-159
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
City Council Meeting I December 12, 2022

(e) The proposed amendment complies with State law for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of general plans at California Government Code Section 65350 et seq.

The proposed General Plan Amendment complies with, and is required by, applicable State law;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Emeryville hereby adopts the 2023- 2031 Housing Element which is attached to the staff report prepared for this item and hereby incorporated herein, replacing the 2015-2023 Housing Element adopted by the City Council on November 18, 2014, and approves the document for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification; and be it further
RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Emeryville does hereby authorize staff to make non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element to respond to any comments received during the adoption process or from HCD to achieve certification.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Emeryville at a special meeting held Monday, December 12, 2022, this Resolution to take effect in 30 days, by the following vote:

AYES: 5
Mayor Bauters, Vice Mayor Medina and Council Members Donahue, Martinez and Welch
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 Estrella Vista Apartments, Artwork by Eric Powell. Avalon Public Market Apartments as seen from Christie Avenue Park. Parc on Powell Apartments, Artwork by Therese Lahaie.

December 2022 | Adoption Draft – Resolution #
2023-2031 Housing Element
City of Emeryville
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 The City of Emeryville received a
letter of conditional compliance
from HCD for this Housing Element
after a single round of review. This
rare, nearly mythical occurrence,
makes this Housing Element
“a unicorn.”
One of the seven Unicorn Tapestries made in the South
Netherlands around 1495–1505, and now in The Cloisters in New York.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS * Former Councilmember
Mayor John Bauters Dianne Martinez Christian R. Patz *
Scott Donahue Vice Mayor Ally Medina Courtney Welch
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS * Former Commissioner
Zoë Chafe Steven Keller * Christine Scott Thomson*
Al Dram Erika Mendez * Jordan Wax
Jack Ghizzoni David Mourra C. Tito Young *
D. Miguel Guerrero* Deepak Sohane * Erica Zepko *
Rod Henmi Henry Symons
HOUSING COMMITTEE MEMBERS * Former Member
Dicko Ba Rodrigo Jacomet Henry Symons *
Sheryl Bolton * Daniel Killian Jordan Wax *
Lawrence Cardoza * Martin Leung Courtney Welch *
Charice Duckworth Yang Ming Erica Zepko
Netosha Grandy Gisela (Kris) Owens
Marchelle Huggins * Vickie Jo Sewell *
CITY STAFF * Former Employee
Courtney Barrett Amber Evans John Kennedy
Permit Technician/Plan Checker Community Economic Development City Attorney Valerie Bernardo Coordinator II Maggie Mahaffey
Community Economic Development Analisa Garcia Administrative Assistant Coordinator II (Co-Project Manager Assistant Planner* Assistant City Manager For the Housing Element) Vic Gonzales Navarre Oaks
Charles Bryant Chief Building/Fire Code Official Associate Planner Community Development Director Michael Guina (Co-Project Manager for Christie Crowl City Attorney * the Housing Element)
Special Counsel Charles Harris Adam Politzer
Christine Daniel Community Economic Development Interim City Manager City Manager * Coordinator I Chadrick Smalley
Miroo Desai Nancy Humphrey Deputy Director of Community Principal Planner Environmental Programs Supervisor Development Pedro Jimenez Andrea Visveshwara
Assistant City Manager Assistant City Attorney*

CONSULTANT - PLACEWORKS
Jennifer Gastelum, Principal (Project Director)
Nicole West, Senior Associate I (Project Manager)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This page intentionally left blank.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 TABLE OF CONTENTS | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.1 Chapter 2. Introduction............................................................................................................... ES-2

1.2 Chapter 3: Housing Needs Assessment.................................................................................... ES-3

1.3 Chapter 4. Constraints................................................................................................................. ES-6

1.4 Chapter 5: Assessment of Fair Housing.................................................................................... ES-8

1.5 Chapter 6. Housing Resources ................................................................................................. ES-12

1.6 Chapter 7. Achievement of 2015-2023 Housing Goals.......................................................... ES-15

1.7 Chapter 8. Goals, Policies and Programs................................................................................ ES-15

1.8 Appendix A: Review of Previous Programs .......................................................................... ES-16

1.9 Appendix B: Summary of Public Input................................................................................... ES-17

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Community Context......................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Legal Context..................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................................ 2

2.4 Public Outreach................................................................................................................................. 2

2.5 Housing Element Organization ...................................................................................................... 3

3. Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Data Description ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Demographic and Housing Characteristics .................................................................................. 6

3.3 Housing Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Economic and Income Indicators ................................................................................................. 18

3.5 Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................................................. 25

3.6 Special Housing Needs .................................................................................................................. 27

3.7 Regional Housing Needs Allocation............................................................................................ 37

4. Constraints ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 40

4.2 Potential Governmental Constraints............................................................................................ 40

4.3 Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 70

4.4 Non-Governmental (Market) Constraints ................................................................................... 72 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ii | TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. Assessment of Fair Housing .......................................................................................................................... 77

5.1 Outreach........................................................................................................................................... 78

5.2 Opportunity Areas.......................................................................................................................... 80

5.3 Patterns of Integration and Segregation ...................................................................................... 81

5.4 Access to Opportunity ..................................................................................................................102

5.5 Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk........................................................110

5.6 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity..........................................................................................115

5.7 Site Inventory Analysis .................................................................................................................118

5.8 Contributing Factors......................................................................................................................137

6. Housing Resources .........................................................................................................................................141

6.1 Progress Towards RHNA.............................................................................................................142

6.2 Additional Opportunities for Residential Development and Affordable Housing..............160

6.3 Environmental Considerations ....................................................................................................162

6.4 Facilities and Infrastructure..........................................................................................................164

6.5 Representative Projects .................................................................................................................164

6.6 Financial and Administrative Resources....................................................................................171

6.7 Opportunities for Energy Conservation.....................................................................................177

7. Achievement of 2015–2023 Housing Element Goals ................................................................................181

7.1 Effectiveness of Programs for Special Housing Needs.............................................................182

7.2 Key Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................182

8. Goals, Policies, and Programs ......................................................................................................................185

8.1 Goals and Policies ..........................................................................................................................186

8.2 Programs .........................................................................................................................................188

8.3 Quantified Objectives....................................................................................................................228 Appendix A: Review of Previous Programs......................................................................................................231 Appendix B: Outreach...........................................................................................................................................249 Appendix C: Glossary...........................................................................................................................................265 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 TABLE OF CONTENTS | iii
CHARTS
Chart 5-1. S&P/Case-Shiller Ca-San Francisco Home Index Price, 2000-2022 ............................................ 88 Chart 5-2. Zillow Housing Value Index, 2000-2022........................................................................................ 89 Chart 5-3. Unit Count by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area ...........................................................................121 Chart 5-4. Unit Count by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area, Education Domain ........................................124 Chart 5-5. Unit Count by Diversity Index ......................................................................................................128 Chart 5-6. Unit Count by Median Income and Poverty Status ....................................................................130 Chart 5-7. Unit Count by Female Headed Households................................................................................131 Chart 5-8. Unit Count by Percent of Population with a Disability (0-10% and 10-15%) ..........................133 Chart 5-9. Unit Count by Overpayment by Renting Households...............................................................135

FIGURES
Figure 3-1: People Living with HIV, Oakland & Surrounding Area, Year-End 2019 ................................. 33 Figure 5-1: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score 2021..................................................................... 82 Figure 5-2: Historic Redlining Map ................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 5-3: City Districts...................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 5-4: Predominant Population, 2019........................................................................................................ 94 Figure 5-5: HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map– Economic Domain ................................................................... 96 Figure 5-6: Median Income, 2019 ....................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 5-7: Poverty Status, 2019 ......................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 5-8: Familial Status, 2019........................................................................................................................100 Figure 5-9: Population with a Disability, 2019 ................................................................................................101 Figure 5-10: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Education Domain.................................................................103 Figure 5-11: Emery Go-Round Standard Service Routes Map........................................................................106 Figure 5-12: AC Transit System Overview Map ...............................................................................................107 Figure 5-13: Transit Bus Lines .............................................................................................................................108 Figure 5-14: Overcrowding ..................................................................................................................................111 Figure 5-15: Overpayment by Renter Households, 2019 .................................................................................114 Figure 5-16: Sites Inventory Analysis by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas...................................................122 Figure 5-17: Sites Inventory Analysis by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Domain................125 Figure 5-18 Sites Inventory Analysis by Predominant Population ...............................................................127 Figure 5-19: Sites Inventory Analysis by Median Income ...............................................................................129 Figure 5-20: Sites Inventory Analysis by Female Headed Households .........................................................132 Figure 5-21: Sites Inventory Analysis by Population with Disability ............................................................134 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 iv | TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 5-22: Sites Inventory Analysis by Overpayment by Renters...............................................................136 Figure 6-1. Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................143 TABLES
Table 1-1. 2023–2031 RHNA by Income Category .................................................................................... ES-6 Table 1-2. Capacity to Accommodate the 2023–2031 RHNA................................................................. ES-13 Table 3-1. Population Trends and Projections, 1950 to 2040 ......................................................................... 6 Table 3-2. Population Growth Comparison, 2010 to 2019............................................................................. 6 Table 3-3. Household Population and Composition, 2010 and 2019 ........................................................... 7 Table 3-4. Household and Family Size, 2019................................................................................................... 7 Table 3-5. Population Age Distribution, 2010 and 2019................................................................................. 8 Table 3-6. Comparison of 19 and Under Population, 2019............................................................................ 8 Table 3-7. Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2019.................................................................................................. 9 Table 3-8. Housing Units by Structure Type, 2010 and 2020 ...................................................................... 10 Table 3-9. Housing Tenure, 2010 and 2019.................................................................................................... 10 Table 3-10. Bedrooms per Unit, 2019................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3-11. Persons per Occupied Housing Unit, 2010 and 2019 ................................................................. 11 Table 3-12. Vacant Units by Type, 2019 ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-13. Overcrowded Housing Units, 2013-2017..................................................................................... 12 Table 3-14. Age of Structure by Year Built, Emeryville, 2019 ....................................................................... 12 Table 3-15. Assisted Housing Units at Risk of Conversion, 2021................................................................. 14 Table 3-16. Assisted Housing Units Not at Risk of Conversion, 2021 ......................................................... 14 Table 3-17. Example Projects, Construction Costs, 2021................................................................................ 15 Table 3-18. Rental Assistance Required, 2021 ................................................................................................. 16 Table 3-19. Organizations Interested in Preserving At-Risk Housing, 2021............................................... 17 Table 3-20. Employed Residents by Industry, 2011 and 2019....................................................................... 19 Table 3-21. Educational Attainment for Residents Aged 25 Years and Older, 2015-2019 ........................ 21 Table 3-22. Household Incomes, 2011 and 2019 ............................................................................................. 22 Table 3-23. Households by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 .................................................................. 23 Table 3-24. Median Monthly Rental Price and Rental Range by Unit Size, 2021....................................... 25 Table 3-25. Housing Cost Burden, 2017........................................................................................................... 27 Table 3-26. Household Size by Tenure, 2019................................................................................................... 28 Table 3-27. Household Types by Family Subtype, 2019................................................................................ 28 Table 3-28. Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, 2019 ............................................................... 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 TABLE OF CONTENTS | v
Table 3-29. Senior Households by Tenure and Age, 2019 ............................................................................. 29 Table 3-30. Senior Households by Income, 2019 ............................................................................................ 29 Table 3-31. Disabilities by Type, 2015-2019 ..................................................................................................... 30 Table 3-32. Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age, 2020................................................................... 31 Table 3-33. Alameda County-Homeless Count, 2009-2022 ........................................................................... 34 Table 3-34. Homeless Households With and Without Children, 2022 ........................................................ 34 Table 3-35. Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Population, 2019 and 2022 ........................................... 34 Table 3-36. Homeless with Special Needs, 2013 and 2019............................................................................. 35 Table 3-37. Homeless Housing Resources in Alameda County, 2020 ......................................................... 36 Table 3-38. 2023–2031 RHNA by Income Category ....................................................................................... 37 Table 4-1: Residential Land Use Classifications ........................................................................................... 41 Table 4-2: Zones Where Residential Uses Are Permitted............................................................................ 43 Table 4-3: Capacity for Emergency Shelters.................................................................................................. 49 Table 4-4: Maximum Floor Area Ratio........................................................................................................... 53 Table 4-5: Maximum Height............................................................................................................................ 53 Table 4-6: Maximum Density .......................................................................................................................... 53 Table 4-7: Residential Development Standards............................................................................................ 55 Table 4-8: Residential Parking Standards...................................................................................................... 57 Table 4-9: Bonus Points for Affordable Units in Project.............................................................................. 58 Table 4-10: Time Between Entitlements and Building Permits .................................................................... 60 Table 4-11: Planning and Application Fees ..................................................................................................... 65 Table 4-12: Residential Development Impact Fees......................................................................................... 67 Table 4-13: Sample Fee Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 68 Table 4-14: Sample of Sales Comparables, 2020-2021 .................................................................................... 73 Table 4-15: Mortgage Interest Rates ................................................................................................................. 75 Table 5-1. Poverty Status in Emeryville, 2012-2019...................................................................................... 87 Table 5-2. Emeryville Median Contract Rent, 2000-2019............................................................................. 90 Table 5-3. Racial/Ethnic Population Trends, 1930-2019............................................................................... 92 Table 5-4. Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Emeryville........................................................... 93 Table 5-5. HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by City, January 2013-March 2021............................................115 Table 5-6. Fair Housing Complaints, Emeryville, January 2013-March 2021..........................................116 Table 5-7. Resolution of Fair Housing Cases, Emeryville 2016-2021 ........................................................116 Table 5-8. Summary of Sites and Assessment of Fair Housing Indicators...............................................119 Table 5-9. Summary of Conclusions and Findings Regarding Housing Issues in Emeryville..............138 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 vi | TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 6-1. Capacity to Accommodate the 2023–2031 RHNA.....................................................................144 Table 6-2. Planned and Approved Residential Developments..................................................................147 Table 6-3. Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites...............................................................................153 Table 6-4: Potential Hazards by Site..............................................................................................................164 Table 6-5: Representative Projects .................................................................................................................167 Table 6-6: Projects on Less Than 0.5 Acres Under 5th Cycle RHNA ........................................................168 Table 6-7: Projects That Count Towards 5th Cycle RHNA That Are Not On the 5th Cycle Site Inventory List .................................................................................................................................169 Table 6-8: Funding Programs to Support Housing Activities Representative Projects..........................176 Table 8-1: Assessors Parcels Numbers Subject to AB 1397.........................................................................219 Table 8-2. Quantified Objectives....................................................................................................................228 Table A-1. Review of Previous Programs......................................................................................................232 Table B-1. Outreach Activities by Date and Topics .....................................................................................251 Table B-2. Summary of Surveys and Live Polling .......................................................................................253 Table B-3. How old are you?...........................................................................................................................253 Table B-4. Which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify as? .................................................................254 Table B-5. What is your annual household income? ...................................................................................254 Table B-6. Describe Your Role in the Emeryville Community...................................................................255 Table B-7. If you are an Emeryville resident, what type of housing do you currently live in? .............255 Table B-8. If you are an Emeryville resident, how would you rate the physical condition of your home? ..............................................................................................................................................255 Table B-9. What type of housing would you like to see built in Emeryville?..........................................256 Table B-10. What are the three most important housing objectives for Emeryville of these choices?....256 Table B-11. Are there populations that you believe are underserved in Emeryville? ..............................257 Table B-12. Housing Choices ............................................................................................................................258 Table B-13. Place-based Conservation and Revitalization............................................................................259 Table B-14. Displacement Prevention..............................................................................................................260 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-1

1. Executive Summary
The City of Emeryville’s 2023-2031 Housing Element describes housing needs and conditions in the city and establishes goals, policies, and implementation actions to improve future housing opportunities. The Executive Summary provides an overview of the main points of each chapter of the Housing Element.

The delicious combination of housing and public art is shown here at Christie Avenue Park, with the Avenue 64 Apartments in the background. Public art piece "Chocolate Cake with Rainbow Sprinkles" by Sofie Ramos.

1. DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-2 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Emeryville’s (City) 2023-2031
Housing Element describes housing needs and
conditions in the city and establishes goals,
policies, and implementation actions to improve
future housing opportunities. The Housing
Element update serves as an important
opportunity to address identified needs and
outline strategies to improve the quality of living
environments in Emeryville. The Housing
Element serves several important functions:
• Assesses the condition of the city’s
housing and the housing needs of its
residents.
• Establishes a roadmap for accommodating
projected housing unit demand for
existing and future residents over the next
eight years.
• Establishes citywide goals, policies, and
implementation actions (programs)
related to housing.
• Presents how the City will meet demand
for housing at all income levels, per State
law.

The City of Emeryville is committed to
improving access to safe and high-quality
housing for residents across all income levels.

The Housing Element lays out the City’s plan for
removing barriers to housing production to
counter identified housing shortages and helps
ensure that the City is planning for its “fair share”
of affordable and market rate housing.

Promoting a diversity of housing types,
increasing the feasibility of development of infill
and underused sites throughout the city, and
focusing the greatest amount of new housing at
all income levels near transit and jobs are some of
the strategies needed for the City to meet its
housing commitment and continue to affirm that
housing is a basic human right for all residents.

1.1 Chapter 2. Introduction
The purpose of the Introduction is to establish the
framework of the Housing Element with the
following information. Section 2.1 Community
Context
This section includes a brief overview of the city,
its location, and its current economic and
business climate.

1.1.1 SECTION 2.2 LEGAL

CONTEXT
The 2023-2031 Housing Element is a required
“element” or chapter of the City’s General Plan.

The Housing Element is intended to achieve
several overarching goals, including:

Accommodating projected housing demand, as
mandated by the State; Increasing housing
production to meet this demand; Improving
housing affordability; Preserving existing
affordable housing; Improving the safety,
quality, and condition of existing housing;
Facilitating the development of housing for all
income levels and household types, including
special needs populations; Improving the
livability and economic prosperity of all city
residents; and Promoting fair housing choice for
all.

1.1.2 SECTION 2.3 GENERAL PLAN

CONSISTENCY
As described in this section, State law requires
that the General Plan and all of its elements
comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and
compatible statement of policies. This Housing
Element builds upon the current General Plan
and is consistent with its goals, policies, and
implementation actions.

1.1.3 SECTION 2.4 PUBLIC

OUTREACH
This section is a brief overview of the outreach
campaign that the City conducted for this
Housing Element to gather information
regarding housing needs, issues, and preferences
in the community. See Appendix B for a detailed
summary of the outreach activities and the input
that was gathered. Throughout the update
process, input was considered and incorporated
into the Housing Element.

1.1.4 SECTION 2.5 HOUSING

ELEMENT ORGANIZATION
The Housing Element is organized as follows:

Chapter 3. Housing Needs Assessment – A
profile of the community, including an analysis
of the city’s population, housing characteristics,
employment and income trends, and special
housing needs.

Chapter 4. Potential Constraints – A review of
potential governmental, market, and
environmental constraints that may inhibit
housing development.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-3
Chapter 5. Assessment of Fair Housing –
Analyses of segregation, integration, disparities
in access to opportunity, and disproportionate
housing needs.

Chapter 6. Housing Resources – An evaluation
of the land, programmatic, and financial
resources available to meet Emeryville’s housing
needs.

Chapter 7. Summary of Review of the 2015-2023
Housing Element – A summary of measures
taken to implement policies and programs from
the 2015-2023 Housing Element. (Full review in
Appendix A.)
Chapter 8. Goals, Policies, and Programs – A
housing plan with goals, policies, and programs
to address Emeryville’s housing needs for the
2023–2031 planning period.

Appendix A. Review of the 2015-2023 Housing
Element – A full review of measures taken to
implement policies and programs from the 2015-
2023 Housing Element, including
accomplishments toward meeting objectives, and
the continued appropriateness of each policy and
program for the upcoming planning period.
(Summary in Chapter 7.)
Appendix B. Summary of Public Input – A
description of outreach activities and input from
the public and stakeholders on housing needs,
issues, and preferences in the community.

Appendix C. Glossary – Definitions of key terms
used in this document.

1.2 Chapter 3: Housing
Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment
chapter is to provide a quantification and a
descriptive analysis of the City’s existing and
projected housing needs and the resources
available to address these needs. It is a profile of
the community, including an analysis of the city’s
population, housing characteristics, employment
and income trends, and special housing needs.

Housing needs are determined by a city’s
population and its existing housing stock. These
identified needs are the foundation for the goals,
policies, and programs in Chapter 8.

Chapter 3 contains the following information.

1.2.1 SECTION 3.1 DATA

DESCRIPTION
A description of the data sources used in the
analysis.

1.2.2 SECTION 3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC

AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS
This section contains an analysis of population
trends and projections; household size and
composition; and age, racial and ethnic
characteristics.

Key findings include:
• Population projections estimate that
Emeryville will almost triple in size
between 2021 and 2040, indicating that it
must proactively plan for this population
expansion.
• The city is demographically diverse, with
a 40 percent of the population White nonHispanic, and 28 percent Asian population, followed by 15 percent
Black/African American, and 10 percent
Hispanic.
• Only 9 percent of Emeryville’s population
is aged 19 and younger, a smaller
percentage than Albany, Berkeley, and
Oakland, where the population aged 19
and younger is approximately a quarter of
the total population.
• The overall age composition in Emeryville
shifted older between 2010 and 2019.
• Emeryville’s median household size is 1.81
people, lower than the regional average.
• The city is a desirable place for households
within the labor force age range, yet may
not offer adequate housing opportunities
for families with children.

1.2.3 SECTION 3.3 HOUSING

CHARACTERISTICS
This section evaluates characteristics of
Emeryville’s existing housing stock, including
housing types, household composition, renter
and homeowner tenure, availability of vacant
units, household and dwelling unit size, and
households experiencing overcrowding. This
section also analyzes housing age and condition
to establish the potential need for renovation and
revitalization efforts. Finally, the section
identifies affordable units at risk of conversion to
market rate and presents options available to
retain the units as affordable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-4 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key findings include:
• Since 2000, predominant housing type
development patterns of medium- to highdensity housing and mixed-use developments that include housing have
resulted in multifamily housing
comprising 88 percent of the Emeryville
housing stock, the majority of which, 64
percent, are studio and one-bedroom
units.
• Of Emeryville’s households, 66 percent are
renters, well above Alameda County’s
average of 46 percent, reflecting the
prevalence of multifamily units. Renters
tend to spend a greater proportion of their
income on housing and experience
overcrowding at a greater rate compared
with homeowners. Community members
expressed a desire to create more
opportunities for homeownership at all
income levels and household sizes.
• As of 2019, the city had a rental vacancy
rate of 3.4 percent and a homeowner rental
vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. These are
relatively low vacancy rates, indicating
high demand, which typically results in
upward price pressures.
• Although 67 percent of Emeryville’s
housing stock was built prior to 2000,
overall condition is considered well
maintained and supported by housing
programs to address rehabilitation and
repair.
• Two properties have assisted units that are
at risk of converting to market rate in the
10-year period from 2021 to 2029. This
includes 6 units reserved for households
with very low-incomes at Ocean Avenue
Court and 41 units reserved for
households with moderate incomes at
Bakery Lofts I and II. Preservation options
typically include: (1) construction of
replacement units, (2) transfer of project to
nonprofit ownership, (3) provision of
rental assistance to tenants using
nonfederal funding sources, and (4)
purchase of affordability covenants.

1.2.4 SECTION 3.4 ECONOMIC AND

INCOME INDICATORS
This section presents economic and income
factors, including employment and
unemployment, jobs/housing balance, education,
and income characteristics, which establish
benchmarks for affordability thresholds, with
focused analysis on extremely low-income
households the most at risk of displacement.

HUD has defined income categories for purposes
of analysis and program qualification. Categories
are based on the percentage of area median
income (AMI) and are defined as:
• Extremely low income: less than 30
percent of AMI
• Very low income: 30 to 50 percent of AMI
• Low income: 51 to 80 percent of AMI
• Moderate income: 81 to 120 percent of AMI
• Above moderate income: more than 120
percent of AMI
The term “lower-income” is often used to refer to
a combined category of all income levels at or
below 80 percent of AMI.

Key findings include:
• Jobs/housing ratio of 3.77, more than
double that of Alameda County (1.43) and
the ABAG region (1.47), indicates a jobsrich community with a shortfall of housing units.
• Seventy-one percent of Emeryville
residents age 25 years and older hold at
least a bachelor’s degree, which is much
higher than Alameda County overall at 47
percent.
• As of 2019, the median household income
in Emeryville was $102,725, which is 47
percent more than it was in 2011 ($69,724).
• About 35 percent of the households in
Emeryville are considered lower income,
earning less than 80 percent of the AMI.
• Extremely low-income households
earning below 30 percent of the AMI can
face great difficulty in securing housing,
particularly housing that is affordable and
large enough to accommodate the
household size. Extremely low-income
households face incidences of
overpayment and overcrowding and are at
a high risk for homelessness.

Approximately three-fourths of
households with extremely low incomes
are renters.

1.2.5 SECTION 3.5 HOUSING COSTS

AND AFFORDABILITY
This section includes an assessment of current
market rates for rental and ownership units and
an evaluation of the affordability of market rate
housing for each income category. The section
also reports the incidence of overpayment by
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-5
households in the city. A household is considered
to be overpaying for housing and cost burdened
if it spends 30 percent or more of its gross income
on housing (including a rent or mortgage
payment and utility costs). A household is
considered severely cost burdened if it spends
more than 50 percent of its gross income on
housing costs.

Key findings include:
• Without subsidies or rent restrictions to
units, most rental and for-sale housing in
Emeryville is unaffordable to households
with lower incomes but generally within
reach for households with moderate
incomes.
• Households with lower incomes are far
more likely to overpay for housing
compared to households with moderate
and above moderate incomes, although
renters at all levels of income experience
overpayment.
• Forty-two percent of renter households
experienced a cost burden compared to 29
percent of owner households.

1.2.6 SECTION 3.6 SPECIAL

HOUSING NEEDS
Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding
acceptable, affordable housing due to special
circumstances relating to employment and
income, household characteristics, and
disabilities, among others. This section describes
groups in Emeryville with a range of special
housing and supportive service needs, consisting
of agricultural workers, large families, femaleheaded households, the elderly, persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities, and
people experiencing homelessness. In addition,
analysis of persons living with HIV/AIDS is
included because this is a population of concern
in Emeryville. This section also includes several
groups that are a particular areas of focus to the
City, including families with children, lowincome households or families, and seniors.

Additionally, the City values supporting the
ability of artists, City, and Emery Unified School
District (EUSD) employees to live in the city.

Key findings include:
• There are significant housing needs among
specific groups, including seniors, people
with disabilities, single-parent
households, and homeless persons. The
community has committed to
implementation of programs that
emphasize and prioritize the need to house
households with children, seniors, artists,
and civic employees, as well as a variety of
housing types affordable to lower-income
households to reduce the risk of
displacement and homelessness and to
meet and exceed the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) at all income
levels.
• As of 2019, only 8 percent of Emeryville
homes had three or more bedrooms and
there were no homes with five or more
bedrooms. During outreach activities for
the preparation of this Housing Element,
community members and Housing
Committee members expressed concern
that the style, size, and cost of housing in
Emeryville is forcing out existing and
potential family households.
• As of 2019, 7 percent of Emeryville’s
family households (474 families) were
female headed, and 46 percent of these
female-headed families included children
under the age of 18 (216 families).
• Approximately 9 percent of all family
households and female-headed
households without children were living
below the poverty line, and approximately
40 percent of all female-headed
households with children were living
below the poverty line.
• Out of Emeryville’s adult civilian
noninstitutionalized population (11,892
people), approximately 10 percent (1,068
people) had one or more disabilities.
• Findings indicate a higher concentration of
persons living with HIV in Emeryville
than in the rest of Alameda County. People
with HIV and AIDS encounter significant
housing problems, similar to those of the
elderly and disabled persons.
• The February 2022 homeless point-in-time
count found 9,747 homeless persons in
Alameda County, an approximately 22
percent increase over 8,022 homeless
estimated in the 2019 count. Ninety-one of
the 9,747 homeless persons counted in
February 2022 were in Emeryville.

1.2.7 SECTION 3.7 REGIONAL

HOUSING NEEDS

ALLOCATION (RHNA)
In this section, the projected housing needs in the
RHNA are described by income categories, as
presented by Table 1-1.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-6 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1. 2023–2031 RHNA by Income Category
Income Category Number of
Units
Percentage of
Total
Extremely low1 225 14%
Very low 226 14%
Low 259 16%
Moderate 308 19%
Above moderate 797 50%
Total 1,815 100%
Source: ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA, 2021.
1 Number of units for Extremely Low-Income households was calculated by assuming half of the allocation for Very Low-income households.

1.3 Chapter 4. Constraints
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the
factors that encourage or constrain the
development, maintenance, and improvement of
the housing stock in the city. To address
identified constraints, the City has included a
number of programs to assist prospective
homebuyers with acquiring housing, encourage
prospective developers to move forward on
development proposals and/or acquire land with
funding assistance programs, and explore
initiatives to promote construction of accessory
dwelling units (ADU). In addition, the City will
aim to work with stakeholders to continue to
identify nongovernmental constraints or other
circumstances that may impede the construction
of housing in Emeryville and work
collaboratively to find strategies and actions that
can eliminate or reduce identified constraints.

Chapter 4 contains the following information:

1.3.1 SECTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the chapter.

It lists the types of potential constraints that are
reviewed and analyzed in the chapter, including,
1) potential governmental constraints, consisting
of: land use and zoning regulations, design
review requirements, building code standards,
permit processing procedures, development fees,
and exactions; 2) environmental and
infrastructural constraints; and 3)
nongovernmental constraints, such as physical
geography, land availability, land cost,
construction costs, and market prices, which may
also impact the availability and price of housing.

1.3.2 SECTION 4.2 POTENTIAL

GOVERNMENTAL

CONSTRAINTS
This section analyzes land use regulations, which
are the policies, standards, requirements, and
actions imposed by various levels of government
upon land and housing ownership and
development, including the general plan, area
plans, the municipal code, and zoning districts
that accommodate housing; residential
development standards and parking
requirements; State Density Bonus for Affordable
Housing provisions; permits and processing
procedures that can add time constraints and
contribute to barriers to developing affordable
housing; fees and exactions that can add cost
constraints that contribute to barriers to
developing affordable housing; site
improvement requirements; and local
ordinances.

Key findings include:
• The General Plan Densities Map’s base
densities can be achieved while meeting
the requirements of other residential
development standards, including
setbacks, unit size, parking requirements,
and open space, indicating that residential
development regulations are not
considered a constraint to the provision of
housing.
• Without considering density bonuses (to
be revised in accordance with recent
density bonus law), existing policies allow
residential densities ranging from 20 units
per acre in the eastern neighborhoods to 85
units per acre in the Powell/Christie core,
therefore accommodating higher density
development typically required to develop
affordable housing.
• If a public benefit can be demonstrated, the
City offers bonuses for floor area ratio
(FAR), height, and/or residential density.

Qualifying community benefits include
open space, public improvements, utility
undergrounding, zero net energy, small
businesses, and “flexible community
benefits” such as universal design features
beyond those required by applicable
building codes, with special emphasis on
additional family-friendly (larger) units.
• Emeryville’s zoning permit process is
generally less time consuming than that of
many East Bay cities, with no design or
historical review boards. Analysis
associated with CEQA can prolong project
review, but many projects are eligible for
urban infill exemption. However
conditional use permits (CUP), depending
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-7
on complexity, can add to the cost and
processing timeline.
• Emeryville is subject to the SB 35
streamlined ministerial approval process
for proposed developments with at least
50 percent affordability, and to comply,
will establish a written policy or procedure
and other guidance as appropriate to
promote the streamlining approval
process and standards for eligible projects.
• The City collects three development
impact fees: Affordable Housing, Parking
and Recreation Facilities, and
Transportation Facilities. The affordable
housing impact fee has a significant impact
on rental projects, although school
facilities development fees are waived for
developments that provide affordable
housing set-aside units. Additionally, to
relieve any undue burden on developers
who are required to provide moderateincome set-aside units under the Affordable Housing Set-Aside Program,
the City of Emeryville may subsidize the
cost of any traffic fees, building fees, and
other City fees applicable to the set-aside
units.
• The City has an inclusionary housing
ordinance for which it offers a number of
options to mitigate potential hardships in
compliance. The City also has a short-term
rental ordinance. These are not considered
a constraint on housing, but have helped
the City address critical housing needs.

1.3.3 SECTION 4.3

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSIDERATIONS
This section evaluates the impact of
environmental regulations, toxic cleanup
programs, noise pollution, and infrastructure
availability, which are intended to ensure that
housing is safe and appropriate for the
community yet may act as barriers to housing
production at all income levels and improvement
by inhibiting the feasibility of housing projects.

Key findings include:
• Emeryville’s environmental concerns are
limited to a few areas, primarily toxic
contamination from previous industrial
uses and intermittent and continual noise.

The Brownfield Program to use grant
funds to clean up City-owned land and to
distribute assessment and cleanup loans to
private property owners has been, and will
continue to be, instrumental in expediting
contamination cleanup.
• Availability of utilities and infrastructure
systems is not a constraint to residential
development in the city.

1.3.4 SECTION 4.4

NONGOVERNMENTAL
(MARKET) CONSTRAINTS
This section reviews factors outside of the City’s
control that impact the availability of housing,
including the macroeconomy wage/cost of living
gap, property owner’s decisions, land costs and
availability of existing vacant or underutilized
land resources, home sales costs, and the
availability of financing, which can all act as
constraints on the development of housing at a
range of price points, unit types, and sizes.

Key findings include:
• The typical annual cost of living (including
food, utilities, transportation, housing,
healthcare, and miscellaneous expenses,
excluding state and federal income tax) for
a married couple with children is $128,285.

As of 2019, the median household income
(for all household sizes) in Emeryville was
$102,725. This indicates that the salaries for
many jobs to not match the basic cost of
living.
• While the City can allow, facilitate, and
encourage housing development,
ultimately, the decision to develop a
property remains with the property
owner.
• Lack of available land (including vacant
land and nonvacant land that is suitable
for redevelopment) can act as a constraint
on the development of housing. Land costs
can act as a constraint on the development
of housing if a prospective developer sees
the land costs as an impediment to
developing a profitable product.
• Construction costs, including for materials
and labor, can be a financial constraint for
a development project.
• The cost and availability of financing from
private and governmental sources can
impact a developer’s ability to develop a
multifamily project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-8 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.4 Chapter 5: Assessment
of Fair Housing
The purpose of this chapter is meet the Assembly
Bill (AB) 686 requirement that all housing
elements due after January 1, 2021, contain an
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent
with the core elements of the analysis required by
the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under California law, AFFH means “taking
meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
Core elements include analyses of segregation,
integration, disparities in access to opportunity,
and disproportionate housing needs.

Although displacement of lower income
households has not been a significant factor in
Emeryville, action measures to address barriers
to economic mobility for lower-income residents
in the city’s low-resource area have been
identified, emphasizing place-based
revitalization strategies. Also, though integration
of a variety of housing types is necessary
throughout the city, low-resource
neighborhoods, particularly in the vicinity of San
Pablo Avenue, have been identified as priority
areas for place-based revitalization and
investment. To ensure that racial/ethnic
background does not present a barrier to fair
housing, the City will continue to partner with
regional organizations to ensure underserved
populations are made aware of affordable
housing opportunities.

Chapter 5 covers the following information.

1.4.1 SECTION 5.1 OUTREACH
The first step in complying with this legislation
was conducting a community outreach program
to ascertain the perspective of housing service
providers and the public as to community needs
and strategies to address them.

Key findings include:
• Fair housing provider feedback identified
disability-related fair-housing violations
as the issue they encounter most.
• A fair housing provider communicated
that their organization has received an
increasing number of complaints from
low- and moderate-income homeowners
who are struggling to maintain and
improve their older households, indicating
potential displacement risk.
• Public survey and workshop respondents
favored:
o Improving housing choice thorough
improvements to the below market
rate (BMR) program, creation of an
inclusionary housing program for
BMR rental units, and the acquisition
of additional affordable housing in
mixed income developments.
o Supporting place-based conservation
and revitalization through targeted
investment in areas of most need to
improve community assets, social
service programs, parks, streets, active
transportation, and infrastructure.
o Implementing anti-displacement
efforts such as fair housing counseling,
rent review board and/or mediation,
foreclosure assistance, and
multilingual tenant legal counseling
services.

1.4.2 SECTION 5.2 ASSESSMENT OF

FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
The purpose of this section is to analyze racially
or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,
disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs, including
displacement risk. California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California
Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) have developed annual
maps of access to resources such as high-paying
job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and
clean neighborhoods; and other healthy
economic, social, and environmental indicators
to provide evidence-based research for policy
recommendations. This effort has been dubbed
“opportunity mapping” and is available to all
jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities
within their community. TCAC/HCD
categorized census tracts into high, moderate, or
low-resource areas based on a composite score of
economic, educational, and environmental
factors that can perpetuate poverty and
segregation, such as school proficiency, median
income, and median housing prices.

Key findings include:
• According to the HCD/TCAC Opportunity
Map (Figure 5-1), the southeast portion of
the city (which includes the San Pablo
Corridor, Triangle, and East BayBridge
neighborhoods), are considered lowresource areas, while the rest of the city’s neighborhoods are considered moderateresource areas.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-9
• The low-resource area has the highest
percentage of Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) use.

The majority of the city’s 100% affordable
housing was constructed in the last two
decades and is concentrated along San
Pablo Avenue, which runs north-south
through the city’s low-resource area.

However, this concentration occurred
organically because more sites of
adequate size were available in that
location at a time when funding for
affordable housing was available. Transit
availability helped ensure project
funding for these affordable housing
projects on separate applications.

1.4.3 SECTION 5.3 PATTERNS OF

INTEGRATION AND

SEGREGATION
The purpose of this section is to assess patterns of
segregation and integration, including: historic
segregation patterns, diversity, median income,
poverty status, female-headed households, and
persons with a disability.

Key findings include:
• Like other cities in the East Bay, Emeryville
was rated a "D" (hazardous) by the Federal
Home Owners Loan Corporation, a
discriminatory practice to guide
investment referred to as redlining.

However, unlike other cities in the East
Bay that had significant residential
development prior to and while redlining
was common, Emeryville was primarily
industrial during this time. Thus,
redevelopment of the city to residential
uses predominantly occurred on formerly
industrial sites. However, homeownership
opportunities available to families of color
within Emeryville would not appreciate in
value in the same way that homes in white
neighborhoods would, continuing the
disparity of wealth and depressing
investment in Emeryville neighborhoods.
• Redevelopment of former industrial
properties, supported by Emeryville’s
policy to remove the responsibility of
individual developers to remediate
potential groundwater contamination, has
served as the principal means of the
provision of housing at all income levels.
• Emeryville continues to support mixedincome neighborhoods through maintaining housing affordable to
moderate- and lower-income households
in addition to housing affordable to above
moderate households, which may have
been a significant contributor to
preventing displacement in Emeryville.
• The City’s efforts to adopt progressive
homeowner lending protection housing
legislation as well as foreclosure and
eviction rights and protections have
worked to protect Emeryville’s
marginalized homeowner and renter
communities in areas experiencing
gentrification, including for a growing
Black population. However, over the past
two decades, significant increases in rental
and sale asking prices continue to
disproportionately affect communities of
color.
• Emeryville’s neighborhoods within
moderate-resource areas show
concentrations of predominantly Asian
and White non-Hispanic neighborhoods.

As of 2019, Whites are the predominant
population in the rest of Emeryville;
however, the city’s oldest residential
neighborhoods, including the moderateresource neighborhoods between Doyle Street and Vallejo Street and the city’s lowresource area have the highest proportion of Black populations.
• The City does not contain any racially or
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
(R/ECAPs) or racially concentrated areas
of affluence (RCAAs). There is one census
tract containing a concentration of persons
experiencing poverty in Emeryville,
although this was not a historically
redlined neighborhood. The concentration
of persons experiencing poverty is likely
associated with the existence of a majority
of the city’s affordable housing
constructed in the last two decades in the
vicinity of San Pablo Avenue, which, due
to the proximity to transit and social
services, allowed the projects to receive
funding.
• There is a concentration of female-headed
households in the city’s low-resource area.

1.4.4 SECTION 5.4 ACCESS TO

OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses the contributing factors to
the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area designations,
including educational opportunities,
employment opportunities, mobility, housing for
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-10 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
persons with disabilities, and environmental
health.

Key findings include:
• While the city’s schools are located in the
low-resource area where residents are
expected to have the least positive
outcomes for educational attainment, all
students in Emeryville have access to the
same public schools. Therefore, any
differences in observed educational
attainment may be due to differing
poverty levels and/or other factors rather
than access to schools.
• Prevalence of poverty is the most
significant difference between low and
moderate employment opportunities
resource areas in Emeryville. Notably,
low-wage workers across Emeryville,
including the city’s low-resource areas,
benefit from close job proximity based on
HUD’s job proximity index.
• Emeryville residents have access to a
variety of public transit options providing
convenient connection within the city and
across the Bay Area. Also, the City offers
numerous paratransit options for seniors
and persons with disabilities as an
alternative to the standard public transit
lines through the Emeryville Senior
Center.
• Although there are a number of housing
options available to lower-income persons
with disabilities in Emeryville,
participants of the community surveys
and live polling during a community
workshop identified that supporting
affordable and senior housing developers
was the most important housing objective
for the City.
• Based on CalEnvirocsreen 4.0—a tool that
uses environmental, health, and
socioeconomic indicators to map the
potential for long term health impacts
from environmental conditions—several
census tracts in Emeryville qualify as
disadvantaged communities (DAC). The
DACs in Emeryville are in the East
Baybridge, San Pablo Corridor, and
Triangle neighborhoods.

1.4.5 SECTION 5.5

DISPROPORTIONATE

HOUSING NEED AND

DISPLACEMENT RISK
This section includes an analysis of households
experiencing overcrowding and overpayment,
housing conditions, and persons experiencing
homelessness.

Key findings include:
• Overcrowding is not a significant issue in
Emeryville, likely due to the majority of
nonfamily households and prevalence of
one- to two-bedroom housing units.

The Andante Condos are adjacent to local and Transbay buses at the 40th Street bus hub, and provide easy access to the bike share station shown in this photo on Adeline Street.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-11
• Almost 75 percent of lower-income
households are cost burdened, and a
majority of very low-income households
are severely cost burdened.
• Emeryville residents largely do not
experience substandard housing,
reflecting the findings by the Building
Department that only a very small
proportion of homes in older
neighborhoods are in need of repair or
rehabilitation.
• The February 2022 homeless point-in-time
count found 9,747 homeless persons in
Alameda County, an approximately 22
percent increase over 8,022 homeless
estimated in the 2019 count. Ninety-one of
the 9,747 homeless persons counted in
February 2022 were in Emeryville.

1.4.6 SECTION 5.6 ENFORCEMENT

AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
As described in this section, the City enforces fair
housing and complies with fair housing laws and
regulations through a twofold process: review of
City policies and code for compliance with State
law and referring fair housing complaints to
appropriate agencies.

Key findings include:
• Emeryville residents are served by
multiple fair housing service providers,
including Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO) Housing. ECHO
provides housing counseling services and
tenant/landlord services, conducts fair
housing investigations, and operates
periodic fair housing audits throughout
Alameda County, Contra Costa County,
and Monterey County, including
unincorporated areas. Additionally,
ECHO provides counseling and assistance
for first-time homebuyers and lowerincome households seeking housing. • Among East Bay cities, per capita,
Emeryville has the highest number of fair
housing inquiries received by ECHO.
• In Emeryville, of fair housing complaints
reported to ECHO, those based on
disability status and race were the most
common.
• In Emeryville, of fair housing cases
reported to ECHO, resolution through
counseling was the most common result.
• The City demonstrates compliance or
intention to comply with fair housing and
other related laws.

1.4.7 SECTION 5.7 SITE

INVENTORY ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the location of sites by
distribution of projected units by income
category, in relation to fair housing indicators,
including: TCAC/HUD opportunity areas,
median income, predominant population,
disability rates, educational score, environmental
health, and overpayment.

Key findings include:
• Of the City’s 21 identified housing
opportunity sites, one site will support all
above moderate-income units and three
sites will support all lower income units.

All other sites are assumed to support a
mixture of units within low, moderate, and
above moderate income categories.
• Residents across the city experience
similar access to economic mobility and
environmental conditions. While the
distribution of units at each affordability
level will not create a discrepancy in access
or perpetuate existing barriers to access,
the City has identified programs to
support access to economic mobility and
positive environmental conditions.
• Access to proficient schools is not a
differing factor between resource areas in
Emeryville. Poverty status has been
determined to be the most important
factor to improve in order to address
discrepancies in access to educational
attainment, therefore suggesting that
introducing additional lower income units
in moderate-resource areas is a key
housing mobility strategy for improving
educational opportunity for lower income
households.
• Situating the majority of lower- and
moderate-income units in the city’s
moderate-resource areas is a key housing
mobility strategy to provide more
opportunity for communities of color.
• Approximately 62 percent of the lowerincome unit capacity is identified in areas with lower poverty rates and where the
median income exceeds $87,100, while
construction of lower-income units in
existing higher poverty areas will help to
alleviate existing patterns of overpayment
and encourage place-based revitalization
by redeveloping underutilized parcels and
providing new, safe housing.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-12 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Locating units affordable to lower- and
moderate-income residents in and around
the mixed-use commercial centers in
moderate-resource neighborhoods will
help to improve access for and
accommodate the needs of persons living
with disabilities, who benefit from close
access to services, amenities, and transit. It
affirmatively furthers fair housing by
increasing the supply of lower income
housing citywide rather than reinforcing
the concentration of persons with
disabilities.
• Development on land-inventory sites are
expected to be mixed income with the
intent of increasing the supply of
affordable housing citywide for all income
categories, thus reducing risk of
displacement due to overpayment for all
Emeryville residents, particularly in lowresource areas with the highest rates of overpayment.

1.4.8 SECTION 5.8 CONTRIBUTING

FACTORS
This section summarizes factors that contribute
to fair housing issues in Emeryville identified
through discussions with stakeholders, fair
housing advocates, and this assessment of fair
housing issues—including listing the four
strategies and associated programs that the City
committed to in order to affirmatively further fair
housing.
• The most pressing issues are the
prevalence of poverty, which can impact
educational attainment and economic
mobility; patterns of concentration of
lower-income households, including
female-headed households; and higher
rates of overpayment, predominantly
represented in the city’s low-resource
areas.
• Additional housing issues identified
include a concentration of female-headed
households in low-resource area, shortage
of larger housing units affordable to lower
income households, lack of permanent
housing options for extremely low income
households, limited access to outdoor
spaces, proximity to environmental
hazards such as air pollution, fair housing
cases alleging discrimination on the basis
of disability, cost of repairs or
rehabilitation especially for older housing
units, lack of landlord education on fair
housing laws and requirements, and
limited affordable housing appropriately
designed for persons with disabilities.

1.5 Chapter 6. Housing
Resources
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the land
resources as well as financial and administrative
resources available to support the continued
development, preservation, and rehabilitation of
housing in Emeryville. The chapter includes a
summary of vacant and underutilized land that
is suitably zoned and available within the
planning period to meet the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), as well as a list of
federal, state, and local programs and other
resources that provide support to the City in
meeting its housing goals.

Chapter 6 covers the following information.

1.5.1 SECTION 6.1 PROGRESS

TOWARD RHNA
This section provides a parcel-specific inventory
of suitable and appropriately zoned sites for the
provision of housing for all income categories,
reviews sites subject to the provisions of
Assembly Bill 1397, identifies how the land
inventory will meet lower-income housing need,
provides an overview of planned and approved
residential projects, and analyzes the
development capacity of vacant and
underutilized sites.

Relevant findings include:
• Emeryville has ample sites available to
facilitate new housing development, meet
identified housing production targets in
the RHNA as presented in Table 1-2, and
accommodate 150 percent of the RHNA, at
each income level. All identified sites are
adequately served by transit, services,
infrastructure, and amenities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-13
Table 1-2. Capacity to Accommodate the 2023–2031 RHNA
Income
Category RHNA
150%
of
RHNA
Planned and Approved Residential Developments1
Vacant
Sites2
Underutilized
Sites2
Anticipated
ADUs
Progress
towards
RHNA
Surplus
at 100%
of RHNA
Surplus
at 150%
of RHNA
Baker
Metal
Live/
Work
Anton Evolve
AKA Bayview
Emeryville
Apartments
(the Nady
site)
The Emery
(Sherwin
Williams)
Building C
The Emery
(Sherwin
Williams)
Building D
65th
Street
Multi-Unit
Residential
Project
Nellie
Hannon
Gateway
Planned
and
Approved
Total
Extremely
Low 225 338 - - - - - 29 29 168 166 0 363 138 25
Very Low 226 339 - 8 4 6 1 30 49 168 190 0 407 181 68
Low 259 389 - - 5 13 1 30 49 168 182 10 409 150 20
Moderate 308 462 - - 12 12 2 - 26 167 427 10 630 322 168 Above
Moderate 797 1,196 17 178 101 153 20 1 470 167 1,231 10 1878 1081 682 Total 1,815 2,723 17 186 122 184 24 90 623 838 2,196 30 3,687 1,872 963 Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments 2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021; City of Emeryville Planning and Building 2021. 1 Planned/approved sites capacity and affordability levels are based on specific development proposals or permitted development plans. See site descriptions in section 6.1.3 for more details. 2 Vacant/underutilized capacity is calculated using base allowed density, adjusted in most cases to 80 percent of the base maximum in consideration of potential site constraints and anticipated mixed-use development. While not counted here, densities above base allowed are achieved with bonus points for community benefits, which is common in Emeryville. The number of units that are appropriate for the lower-income RHNA is based on density and the City’s inclusionary requirements. In accordance with the state’s default density provision, sites with densities of 20 or more units are assumed to accommodate lower-income housing development. All sites in Emeryville that allow residential uses meet the default density requirement. Additionally, Emeryville’s inclusionary housing requirement typically requires 18 percent of units to be reserved as affordable.

1.5.2 SECTION 6.2 ADDITIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
As described in this section, Emeryville has a
strong track record of developing housing and
creating affordable housing in addition to those
units identified in its Housing Element Site
Inventory by:
• Adding accessory dwelling units (ADU).
• Increasing the density of developed
properties in the RM and Mixed-Use zones
by adding more dwelling units.
• Using unique opportunities to increase
affordable housing, such as preservation
of existing units.

Despite the City’s proven track record of adding
residential units (particularly affordable units) by
these methods, in an effort to maintain a
conservative count and methodology for RHNA,
the only types of these units that are included in
Table 6-1, Capacity to Accommodate the 2023–
2031 RHNA, are ADUs.

1.5.3 SECTION 6.3

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSIDERATIONS
This section analyzes toxic cleanup and hazards
that may impact the feasibility of development.

Hazards analyzed include tsunamis,
liquefaction, sea-level rise, landslides, and
floodplains. None of the hazards were found to
preclude development on the sites in the
inventory.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-14 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.5.4 SECTION 6.4 FACILITIES AND

INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides an overview of how
infrastructure, including water supply,
wastewater treatment, and dry utilities, can affect
the provision of housing. All sites in the
inventory have access to facilities and
infrastructure, adequate water and sewer, and
dry utilities. Where there is insufficient localized
capacity to serve proposed development,
upgrades or installations are required as
conditions of project approval.

1.5.5 SECTION 6.5

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
This section presents examples of projects on sites
with similar conditions as those in the land
inventory to show that Emeryville has a strong
track record for the type of development
envisioned in the Housing Element. As a small
urban community, the City of Emeryville is
uniquely skilled in the review and facilitation of
nonvacant and small sites because nearly all
development in the city takes place on nonvacant
and small sites. The City’s General Plan and
Planning Regulations are designed with
redevelopment in mind generally, and
particularly dense, urban redevelopment. The
City’s permitting process for development is
streamlined and minimizes the number of public
meetings required to issue development permits,
and the City does not have a separate design
review board, no historic districts, and no special
commissions/committees with land use or
development approval authority. Additionally,
with regard to affordable housing, the City has
significant financial resources available to
facilitate redevelopment.

1.5.6 SECTION 6.6 FINANCIAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE

RESOURCES
This section presents financial and
administrative resources available to support the
continued development, preservation, and
rehabilitation of housing in Emeryville.

Significant City programs include:
• The City’s 2021 Affordable Housing Bond
Administration and Expenditure Plan
describes how the City will leverage:
o Physical resources (four properties),
including housing successor assets
and City-owned assets.
o Financial Resources, including
Measure C Affordable Housing Bond
Funds, Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Asset Funds (LMIHAF),
Affordable Housing Fund, Affordable
Housing Impact Fee, and Measure A1
(Alameda County). These total
approximately $64,000,000 in financial
resources.
o Of particular significance, the object
and purpose of issuing Measure C
bonds is to finance the costs of
providing and/or enhancing the
acquisition or improvement of real
property to provide affordable
housing for extremely low-, very low-
, low-, and middle-income individuals
and families, including vulnerable
populations, thus addressing fair
housing barriers experienced by these
populations.
• The City adopted a Homelessness Strategy
in 2018 that is designed to provide
financial resources to address the
problems of homelessness in Emeryville
and to work with existing funders,
providers, and neighboring jurisdictions
to provide a coordinated response to
homelessness, and a Residential Landlord
and Tenant Relations Ordinance in 2017 to
ensure the rights and stability of tenants
residing in Emeryville are protected, with
identified supporting funding resources.

The administrative and financial resources
described in this section include:
• Emeryville’s Programs and Financing
o Homeless Prevention and Mitigation
Programs
o Tenant Protection Policies and
Programs
o Affordable Housing Bond
Administration and Expenditure Plan
o Below Market Rate Ownership
Program
o First-time Homebuyer Loan Program
o Housing Rehabilitation Program
• Regional Programs and Financing
o Alameda County Mortgage Credit
Certificates
o Alameda County Down Payment
Assistance Program
o Measure A1
o Renew AC
o AC Secure
o County’s Affordable Housing Portal
o Priority Area Designation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-15
• State and Federal Financing Sources
o Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
o Alameda County Measure A-1
Housing Bond
o CalHOME
o California Emergency Solutions and
Housing (CESH)
o Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
o Farmworker Housing Grant Program
(FWHG)
o Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
o HOME American Rescue Plan
Program (HOME-ARP)
o HOME Investment Partnership
Program
o Homekey
o Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
o Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
(IIG)
o Lead Based Paint & Lead Hazard
Control (LBPLHC)
o Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC)
o Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
o National Housing Trust Fund
o No Place Like Home
o Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
o Project Based Vouchers (PBV)
o Veterans Housing and Homelessness
Prevention Program (VHHP)
• Nongovernmental Resources
o Developers
o Lenders
o Advocacy Organizations

1.5.7 SECTION 6.7

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY

CONSERVATION
This section discusses programs maximizing
energy efficiency, incorporating green building
features into new and existing buildings, and
reducing dependence on automobiles that reduce
costs for homeowners and renters and improve
community health. The City promotes energy
and resource efficiency by providing education
and referrals to resources and financing
programs at City Hall and on the City’s website,
encouraging transit use and facilitating compact
mixed-use development through land use
policies and development standards, and
implementing green building standards through
the California Green Building Code.

1.6 Chapter 7. Achievement
of 2015-2023 Housing
Goals
This chapter summarizes the City’s achievements
in implementing the goals, policies, and
programs from the 2015–2023 Housing Element.

The City made significant progress in addressing
housing needs through the development of new
units, including units affordable to lower-income
and special needs households. A complete
review of the City’s progress in implementing
2015–2023 policies and programs is provided as
Table A-1 in Appendix A.

1.7 Chapter 8. Goals,
Policies and Programs
The purpose of this chapter is to present the City
of Emeryville’s housing goals, policies, and
programs for the 2023 to 2031 planning period to
maintain, preserve, improve, and develop
housing. Goals establish the ideal future and
purpose; policies are statements to guide decision
making regarding housing issues; and programs
are actions that the City will take to implement
the policies to achieve the goals. The
department(s) primarily responsible for program
implementation, relevant review authority, time
frame, and funding source are identified for each
program.

Chapter 8 includes the following.

1.7.1 SECTION 8.1 GOALS AND

POLICIES
Goals establish the ideal future and purpose, and
policies are statements to guide decision making
regarding housing issues. The City will pursue
the following housing goals:

H-1. New Housing Development: Facilitate the
construction of a wide variety of housing types,
for various income levels, in a manner that
promotes environmental responsibility and longterm sustainability.

H-2. Preservation: Conserve and improve the
condition of the existing housing stock to
enhance the livability of neighborhood(s) for all
residents.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-16 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
H-3. Housing Needs: Ensure housing is
accessible and affordable to very-low-, low-, and
moderate-income residents, with a priority for
those with special needs.

H-4. Fair Housing: Ensure community members
have equitable access to safe, sanitary, and
affordable housing as protected under State and
Federal Fair Housing Laws.

H-5. Address Constraints: Reduce or remove
governmental and nongovernmental constraints
to the development, improvement, and
maintenance of housing, where feasible.

1.7.2 SECTION 8.2 PROGRAMS
This section provides details on the actions that
the City will take to implement the policies to
achieve the City’s housing goals. Actions were
informed by the technical assessments conducted
throughout the Housing Element update,
including the housing needs assessment,
governmental and nongovernmental constraints
assessment, and review of the prior Housing
Element plan. Strategies were also informed by
successful best practices as well as feedback
gathered from community members, local
stakeholders, and advocacy groups.

The City will undertake the following programs:

A. Housing Development Regulatory
programs
B. Streamlining Planning Processes
C. Objective Design and Development
Standards
D. Accessory Dwelling Units
E. Adaptive Reuse
F. Impact Fee
G. City Sponsored Development Fund
H. Development Opportunity Fund
I. Acquisition of BMR Ownership Units
J. Foreclosure Prevention Program
K. Special Needs Housing Incentive
Program
L. New Funding Opportunities
M. Homebuyer Assistance Programs
N. Affordable Housing Water/Sewer
Priority Programs
O. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
P. Live/Work Units.

Q. Housing for Artists/Craftspersons
R. Family Friendly Housing
S. Brownfield Remediation Loans
T. Renewable Energy and Reach Codes
U. GreenPoint/LEED Requirements
V. Energy Programs
W. Priority Development Area
X. Homeowner Rehabilitation and Repair
Programs
Y. Rental Preservation Program
Z. Energy Conservation Remodels
AA. Conversion of At-Risk BMR Rental
Units
BB. Housing and Supportive Services for
Homeless and Formerly Homeless
CC. Section 8 Rental Assistance
DD. Fair Housing Counseling
EE. Resident Engagement
FF. Access to Information
GG. Economic Mobility
HH. Schools and Child Care Centers
II. Transportation
JJ. Site Inventory
KK. Site Inventory
LL. Planning Regulation Amendments
MM.Monitor Changes in Federal and State
Housing, Planning, and Zoning Laws
NN. Review Nongovernmental Constraints
Impeding Residential Development
OO. Housing for Seniors
PP. Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing
Plan
QQ. Tenant Displacement Measures
RR. Affordable Housing Platforms
SS. Pro-housing Designation
TT. Demolition Program
UU. Universal Design

1.7.3 SECTION 8.3 QUANTIFIED

OBJECTIVES
This section identifies the number of new units
that may potentially be constructed over the
planning period, the number of existing units
that can be expected to be rehabilitated, and the
conservation of existing affordable housing
stock. The quantified objectives are linked to
programs.

1.8 Appendix A: Review of
Previous Programs
While Chapter 7 summarizes the City’s
achievements in implementing the goals,
policies, and programs from the 2015–2023
Housing Element, Appendix A provides a
complete, program-by-program review of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-17
City’s progress in implementing 2015–2023
policies and programs.

1.9 Appendix B: Summary
of Public Input
As described in this section, the City conducted
an outreach campaign to educate the public and
to gather information regarding housing needs,
issues, and preferences in the community.

Throughout the update process, input was
considered and incorporated into the housing
element.

Appendix B covers the following information.

1.9.1 SECTION B.1 OUTREACH

CAMPAIGN
This section lists the activities of the outreach
campaign, including two community workshop,
fair housing and service provider consultations,
and a series of public meetings with the Housing
Committee, Planning Commission, and City
Council. The City provided information
regarding the update on a dedicated page of the
City’s website and offered opportunities for
input through two online surveys, live polling
during two community workshops and one of
the Housing Committee meetings, and a
dedicated email address for comments and
questions. The City made a concerted effort to
reach people with extremely low incomes and
limited access to technology by advertising the
two community workshops with printed flyers
and posters in locations throughout the city,
particularly the library and at ECAP (Emeryville
Citizens Assistance Program), which provides food
and other resources to low income and unhoused
individuals. The City made a concerted effort to
reach non-English speakers for the two
community workshop by advertising them in
Spanish and English and by offering translation
services for any language if people requested it
on the meeting registration form.

1.9.2 SECTION B.2

CONSULTATIONS
As described in this section, fair housing and
service providers (“stakeholders”) were asked to
provide input on the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Update via one-on-one interviews or email.

Stakeholders were from the following
organizations:
• Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB)
• Housing Authority of the County of
Alameda
• Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO)
• Centro Legal de la Raza
• Operation Dignity
• EveryOne Home/Continuum of Care
(CoC)
• Housing and Economics Rights Advocates
(HERA)
Key findings include:
• Stakeholders expressed several challenges
and barriers to housing in Emeryville.

Overwhelmingly, the consultation process
revealed that Emeryville (and many other
Bay Area jurisdictions) face an insufficient
stock of affordable housing.
• The city needs more permanent
supportive housing with services on-site
(case management, behavior and medical
services, etc.) to meet the needs of those
living with developmental, intellectual,
and physical disabilities.
• Stakeholders want leaders to continue to
assess whether the existing tenant
protections do enough and look to
Oakland’s tenant protection laws as an
example for expanding protections.
• One stakeholder suggested changing
application processes, including
background check requirements which
can restrict certain applicants from
housing access.
• A fair housing provider received many
complaints from low- and moderateincome homeowners because they are struggling to make housing payments and
to maintain and improve their older
homes.
• A fair housing provider stated that their
clients believe that homeowner
associations can be a hostile environment
to new homeowners.
• A fair housing provider identified
disability-related fair housing violations as
the most common type of complaint that
their organization receives, potentially
due to the visibility of applicants’
disabilities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-18 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.9.3 SECTION B.3 SURVEYS AND

LIVE POLLING
As described in this section, input from members
of the public was gathered through surveys that
were available on the City’s website and live
polling during virtual presentations. The
answers were used to inform the drafting of this
Housing Element. This section presents several
tables that synthesize the responses from two
online surveys and live polling at two
community workshops and one Housing
Committee meeting.

Key findings include:
• People in the 35- to 54-year-old range were
the most frequent participants, followed
by people aged 55 to 74.
• People who identify as Black or African
American were the most frequent
participants, followed by people who
identify as White (non-Hispanic).
• Household incomes in the $25,001 to
$50,000 range were most frequently selfreported by participants, followed by household incomes in the $50,001 to
$75,000 range.
• When asked to describe their role in
Emeryville, a greater proportion of
participants were renters compared with
homeowners. While a much smaller
percentage of participants were unhoused
or did not have permanent housing, any
percentage of respondents in that category
is noteworthy. Some of the participants
were advocates or representatives from
community organizations and some own a
business in Emeryville.
• People residing in rental apartments were
the most frequent participants, followed
by people residing in condominiums that
they own.
• Approximately half of the respondents
stated their homes were not in need of
rehabilitation; however, for some of those
respondents, the common spaces in the
multiunit building where they live were in
need of maintenance or repairs. Among
the other half of the respondents, most said
their home was in need of minor repairs
and a few said their home needed major
repairs.
• The type of housing that participants
would most like to see built in Emeryville
are rental apartments, followed by singlefamily homes and duplexes. There was also strong support for assisted living and
townhomes/row homes.
• Participants strongly felt that the City
should assist with securing state or federal
funding for projects for seniors, affordable
housing, supportive housing, transitional
housing, and/or emergency shelters.

Participants also expressed the importance
of the City encouraging more
opportunities for homeownership at all
income levels and the development of
housing with three or more bedrooms to
accommodate larger families.
• Participants overwhelmingly expressed
that low-income households or families
are the most underserved population for
housing in Emeryville. Participants also
ranked seniors, educators, artists, and
service or retail workers among the most
underserved.
• Participants were asked to pick the three
actions that would have the most impact
on promoting housing supply, choices,
and affordability and removing barriers
that limit households’ ability to move to
the neighborhoods of their choosing.

Participants felt that improving the
existing BMR program for ownership
units and developing a BMR program for
rental units would have the most impact
on improving housing choice. Several
other actions were also considered highly
impactful, including acquisition of
additional affordable housing units in
mixed-income developments, citywide
affordable rental registries, and targeted
mixed-income strategies.
• Participants were asked to pick the three
actions that would have the most impact
on conserving and improving assets in
existing neighborhoods and promoting
high quality amenities throughout the city,
particularly where lower-income
households live. Participants
overwhelmingly felt that targeted
investment in areas of most need to
improve community assets, social service
programs, parks, streets, active
transportation, and infrastructure would
make the most impact for place-based
conservation and revitalization.

Participants also overwhelmingly
expressed the importance of addressing
negative environmental, neighborhood,
housing, and health impacts associated
with certain land uses. Several other
actions were also considered highly
impactful, including recruiting residents
from areas of concentrated poverty to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ES-19
serve on boards, committees, task forces,
and other local government decisionmaking bodies and a proactive code enforcement program.
• Participants were asked to pick the three
actions that would have the most impact
on preventing the displacement of existing
residents from their homes and
communities. Several actions were
considered highly impactful, particularly,
creating a rent review board and/or
mediation program, foreclosure
assistance, or multilingual tenant legal
counseling services. Participants also
expressed that displacement could be
prevented if the City implements a rent
stabilization program beyond what is
required by California Civil Code 1946.2.

Participants also supported increased
outreach in the existing multilingual
tenant legal counseling program to
advertise the availability of multiple
languages.

1.9.4 SECTION B.4 COMMENTS
FROM MEETINGS AND B.5

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
These sections are organized by presenting
comments received ahead of the release of the
Public Review Draft Housing Element and
comments received in response to the Public
Review Draft Housing Element.

The City hosted several meetings ahead of the
release of the Public Review Draft Housing
Element to share initial findings and obtain
input. These included two Community
Workshops, one Planning Commission Study
Session, one City Council Study Session, and five
Housing Committee Meetings. The common
themes from these nine meetings, as well as
comments received by email include:
• Concerns about the location of affordable
housing in the city, and a sense that it’s
over-concentrated in one area.
• Desire for more opportunities for
homeownership at all income levels,
including BMR homes.
• Interest in having BMR homes with more
bedrooms for larger families (3+
bedrooms) and more opportunities for
artists’ lofts.
• Interest in supporting the renovation of
unused office buildings and unused
ground floor retail into housing and/or
retail and services to serve the residents on
the floors above.
• Seniors and low-income populations
considered most underserved; would like
to see more support for these types of
development.
• Need for accessible units, both new and
modifications to existing units.
• It’s an issue that waitlists are always full
for affordable housing.
• People need case management services.
• Concern for safety in the public realm.
• Ideas for programs:
o Seek funding sources for ADU
construction.
o Fine-tune First Time Homebuyer Loan
program.
o Expedite conversion of single-family
homes to duplexes.
o Ensure equitable access to parks.
o Where duplexes are allowed, consider
upzoning to allow quadplexes.
o Consider upzoning transit corridors to
maximize climate change goals and
TDM (transportation demand
management).
o Prevent displacement.
o Encourage rehabilitation.
o Preserve Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing (NOAH).
o Consider participating in the CalHFA
program to spur production of
moderate-income housing.

To launch the Public Review Draft Housing
Element, City staff provided presentations at one
meeting each of the Planning Commission, City
Council and Housing Committee. Common
themes from these meetings, as well as comments
received by email, included:
• Support and admiration of the ambitious
plan.
• Interest in how people can find out about
housing opportunities.
• In favor of the variety of program
approaches included to improve the BMR
program.
• Appreciation that multiple programs in
the draft Housing Element address the
need for affordable ownership units, as
well as for improved access to affordable
housing information through coordinated
online portals in Alameda County and the
Bay Area.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ES-20 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Support for programs, including
restructuring the housing committee,
applying for prohousing designation,
encouraging homes with four bedrooms,
and adaptive reuse of parking structures.
• Suggestions for:
o Encouraging public recreation sites as
a part of new developments,
particularly making use of rooftops.
o Exploring ways to speed up actual
construction time.
o Prioritizing access to mass transit near
affordable housing.
o Including ways to eliminate fees that
are burdens to two- to four-unit
buildings.
o Creating objective standards and
conditions for demolition, including
evidence of compliance with landlord
tenant act.
o Looking closer at the environmental
impact of air pollution and embedded
carbon in concrete and glass.
o Eliminating the potential financial and
physical constraint of requiring
second stairwells for purposes of
egress, such as by making building
code amendments like other
jurisdictions have done to allow up to
six stories with single stairs, with
mitigations for fire, life, and safety.

1.9.5 SECTION B.6 SUMMARY OF

HOW INPUT IS

INCORPORATED
Highlights of public input and the programs that
address it is provided in this section.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 INTRODUCTION | 1

2. Introduction
The purpose of the Introduction is to establish the framework of the Housing Element including the community context, legal context, General Plan consistency, brief overview of public outreach 2 and the organization of the document.
.

Facing north at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue (street to the right), Adeline Street (street to the left) and West MacArthur Boulevard (street going across) the three buildings shown include Adeline Place Condos at 3801 San Pablo Avenue to the left, Avalon Senior Housing at 3850 San Pablo Avenue in the middle, and The Intersection Apartments at 3800 San Pablo Avenue on the right.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 2 | INTRODUCTION

2.1 Community Context
Emeryville is located in the San Francisco Bay
Area at the gateway to the East Bay. Emeryville
is one of the smallest cities in the Bay Area,
covering an area of just 1.2 square miles. It is
located in Alameda County, between Berkeley (to
the north), Oakland (to the south), and the San
Francisco Bay (to the west). Emeryville is located
at the eastern end of the Bay Bridge, a major
crossing between the East Bay and San Francisco.

Emeryville was incorporated in 1896 as a city of
industry and business at transportation
crossroads. Today, Emeryville is a bustling
mixed-use city that includes a vibrant arts
community, high-tech industries such as
software, animation, and biotechnology, retail
and entertainment destinations, and a variety of
housing, from older single-family neighborhoods
to converted live/work lofts and higher-density
apartments and condominiums.

2.2 Legal Context
The Housing Element is one of the statemandated elements of the General Plan. It is the only General Plan element that is subject to
review and certification by the state. Emeryville’s
Housing Element was last adopted and certified
in 2014.

State requirements for housing elements are
more detailed and specific than for other general
plan elements. This Housing Element meets the
requirements of housing law specified in
California Government Code Sections 65580
through 65589.8. The law emphasizes the
availability of housing as a statewide priority and
requires participation from regional and local
governments as well as the private sector. State
law says that the housing element “shall consist
of an identification and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs and a statement of goals,
policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing.”

2.3 General Plan
Consistency
State law requires that the General Plan and all of
its elements comprise an integrated, internally
consistent, and compatible statement of policies.

The other elements of the Emeryville General
Plan (Land Use; Transportation; Parks, Open
Space, Public Facilities, and Services; Urban
Design; Conservation, Safety, and Noise; and
Sustainability) were adopted in 2009 and
amended several times since then. The General
Plan and a description of each amendment is
available on the City’s website. In 2019 the City
adopted the 2019-2024 Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan. In 2016 the City adopted the Climate Action
Plan 2.0. This Housing Element builds upon the
current General Plan and is consistent with its
goals, policies, and implementation actions. The
City will continue to review the General Plan for
internal consistency as amendments are
proposed and adopted.

According to CalEPA’s (California
Environmental Protection Agency)
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 web-based mapping tool,
several census tracts in Emeryville qualify as
disadvantaged communities (DACs) (defined as
"an area identified by the California
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to
Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an
area that is a low-income area that is
disproportionately affected by environmental
pollution and other hazards that can lead to
negative health effects, exposure, or
environmental degradation"). The DACs in
Emeryville are in the East Baybridge, San Pablo
Corridor and Triangle neighborhoods.

Government Code section 65302(h), states that,
after 2018, cities with DACs are required to
include an environmental justice element when
two or more elements are amended. The City of
Emeryville has not amended two or more
elements since 2018, and only anticipates
updating the Housing Element in the near future.

2.4 Public Outreach
The City conducted an outreach campaign to
gather information regarding housing needs,
issues, and preferences in the community.

Throughout the update process, input was
considered and incorporated into the housing
element.

Outreach events included two community
workshops, fair housing and service provider
consultations, and a series of public study
sessions and hearings with the Housing
Committee, Planning Commission, and City
Council. The City provided information
regarding the update on a dedicated page of the
City’s website and offered opportunities for
input through two online surveys. Participation
opportunities were advertised on the City’s
website, through flyer distribution, posters
displayed in local businesses and via direct email to people who previously signed up to the City’s housing email notification list and
stakeholders, including local property managers,
developers, community groups, nonprofit
service organizations, residents, and elected
officials.

See Appendix B for a summary of outreach
activities and input.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 INTRODUCTION | 3

2.5 Housing Element
Organization
This Housing Element is organized as follows:

Chapter 3. Housing Needs Assessment – A
profile of the community, including an
analysis of the city’s population, housing
characteristics, employment and income
trends, and special housing needs.

Chapter 4. Potential Constraints – A review of
potential governmental, market, and
environmental constraints that may inhibit
housing development.

Chapter 5. Assessment of Fair Housing –
Analyses of segregation, integration,
disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs.

Chapter 6. Housing Resources – An
evaluation of the land, programmatic, and
financial resources available to meet
Emeryville’s housing needs.

Chapter 7. Summary of Review of the 2015-
2023 Housing Element – A summary of
measures taken to implement policies and
programs from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element. (Full review in Appendix A.)
Chapter 8. Goals, Policies, and Programs – A
housing plan with goals, policies, and
programs to address Emeryville’s housing
needs for the 2023–2031 planning period.

Appendix A. Review of the 2015-2023
Housing Element – A full review of measures
taken to implement policies and programs
from the 2015-2023 Housing Element
including accomplishments toward meeting
objectives, and the continued appropriateness
of each policy and program for the upcoming
planning period. (Summary in Chapter 7.)
Appendix B. Summary of Public Input – A
description of outreach activities and input
from the public and stakeholders on housing
needs, issues, and preferences in the
community.

Appendix C. Glossary – Definitions of key
terms used in this document.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 4 | INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 5

3. Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment chapter is to provide a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the City’s existing and projected housing needs and the resources available to address these needs. It is a profile of the community, including an analysis of the city’s population, housing characteristics, employment and income trends, and special housing needs.

Housing needs are determined by a city’s population and its existing housing stock.

The Andante Condos located at the corner of 40th Street and San Pablo Avenue (as shown from the intersection of Adeline Street and 40th Street) include 125 residential units, and a variety of groundfloor uses all adjacent to the 40th Street bus hub.

3. DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 6 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3.1 Data Description
This section of the Housing Element provides
quantification and descriptive analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and
resources available to address these needs. The
information provided below is derived primarily
from datasets prepared by the Association of Bay
Area Government (ABAG) and approved by
HCD. These datasets rely on data reported by
American Community Survey (ACS), California
Department of Finance (DOF), California
Economic Development Department, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS), and the Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Census. Where more
current information is available, it has been
provided. Please note that numbers for the same
type of data (e.g., households) may not exactly
match in different tables and sections because of
the different data sources and samples used.

The City of Emeryville, a population of
approximately 12,000 people, is small in
comparison to more populated cities in Alameda
County and the rest of the Bay Area. Due to the
relatively small population size, differences
between categories of information or changes
over time that are expressed as precents may
seem to have an exaggerated significance. These
instances occur infrequently and have been
documented as part of the analysis.

3.2 Demographic and
Housing Characteristics

3.2.1 POPULATION TRENDS AND

PROJECTIONS
As illustrated in Table 3-1, according to the
California Department of Finance, the city’s
population has increased significantly since 1970.

Between 2010 and 2020 Emeryville grew
approximately 22 percent, from 10,080 to 12,298
persons. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) projects continued growth
in Emeryville through 2040, at which time the
city’s population is expected to reach 34,130.

ABAG’s assumptions for growth are built around
expected local policies, infrastructure
investment, as well as historic economic
behavior, as it relates to the region. The ABAG’s
projections are not a mandate for changes to the
General Plan nor a substitute local planning
process.

Table 3-1. Population Trends and Projections, 1950
to 2040
Year Population Percentage
Change
1950 2,889 —
1960 2,686 -7%
1970 2,681 - <1%
1980 3,714 39%
1990 5,740 55%
2000 6,882 20%
2010 10,080 46%
2020 12,298 22%
2030* 16,050 31%
2040* 34,130 113%
Sources: California Department of Finance Historic Populations, 2020; ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021; ABAG Projections, 2018
* ABAG Projection
As shown in Table 3-2, growth in Emeryville
significantly outpaced growth in nearby cities
and in Alameda County as a whole.

Table 3-2. Population Growth Comparison, 2010 to
2019
Jurisdiction 2010
Population
2019
Population
Percentage
Change
Emeryville 10,080 11,899 18%
Oakland 390,724 425,097 9%
Berkeley 112,580 121,485 8%
Alameda
County 1,510,271 1,656,754 10%
Sources: US Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)

3.2.2 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND

COMPOSITION
The US Census defines a household as consisting
of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A
household includes the related family members
and all the unrelated people, if any, such as
lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees
who share the housing unit. A person living
alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated
people sharing a housing unit, such as partners
or roomers, is also counted as a household. The
US Census defines a family as a group of two or
more people (one of whom is the householder)
related by birth, marriage, or adoption and
residing together. The definition of family in the
City’s code is “two (2) or more persons occupying
a dwelling unit and living together as a single
housekeeping unit and sharing common living,
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members
of a family need not be related by blood but are
distinguished from a group occupying a hotel,
club, fraternity or sorority house.” This is
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 7
compliant with California fair housing law. The
US Census defines a family household as a
household maintained by a householder who is
in a family (as defined above) and includes any
unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members
and/or secondary individuals) who may be
residing there. The number of family households
is equal to the number of families. However, the
count of family household members differs from
the count of family members in that the family
household members include all people living in
the household, whereas family members include
only the householder and his/her relatives. The
US Census defines group quarters as places
where people live or stay in a group living
arrangement that is owned or managed by an
organization providing housing and/or services
for the residents. Group quarters include such
places as college residence halls, residential
treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities,
group homes, military barracks, prisons, and
worker dormitories.

As of 2010, nearly all Emeryville residents were
part of the household population, with only 73
people (1 percent of the total population) residing
in group quarters. In 2019, the percentage in
group quarters was less than 1 percent (5 total
residents). As such, with rounding, the
percentage of the population in households had
effectively grown to 100 percent of the total
population. The city’s household population was
split approximately evenly between those
residing in family households (52 percent) and
those in non-family households (48 percent). As
shown in Table 3-3, while there was growth in
family and non-family households and a decline
in the population in group quarters from 2010 to
2019, there was limited change in the overall
composition (based on percentage of total
population). This trend in less residents residing
in group quarters could indicate a need to
alleviate a constraint to developing more group
quarters for extremely low-income people
(Program LL).

As of 2019, the average household size in
Emeryville was 1.81 persons. As shown in Table
3-4, the average household size in Emeryville was
low in comparison to Alameda County and
statewide averages of 2.82 and 2.95, respectively.

Similarly, the average family size of 2.56 persons
in Emeryville was low in comparison to Alameda
County and the State of California, which had
averages of 3.37 and 3.53, respectively.

Table 3-4. Household and Family Size, 2019
Jurisdiction
Average
Household
Size
Average
Family Size
Emeryville 1.81 2.56
Alameda County 2.82 3.37
State of California 2.95 3.53
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)

3.2.3 AGE CHARACTERISTICS
The median age of Emeryville residents
increased slightly between 2010 and 2019, from
35 to 35.8 years of age. This was slightly younger
than the statewide median in 2019, which was

36.5 years, and comparable to the median age in
Alameda County, which was 37.6.

As shown in Table 3-5, while there was growth
in the Emeryville population at all age levels, the
overall age composition shifted older between
2010 and 2019. While there was an increase in the
number of residents aged four and younger
(from 424 in 2010 to 446 in 2019, a 5-percent
increase), all other age groups aged 24 and
younger experienced a decrease in population.

The percentage of the population aged 25 to 34
increased from 29 to 33 percent (from 2,937 in
2010 to 3,922 in 2019, a 34-percent increase). The
percentage of the population aged 65 and older
increased from 10 to 13 percent (from 1,006 in
2010 to 1,527 in 2019, a 52-percent increase). This
trend indicates that there could be a need for
more housing suitable for seniors or for residents
to continue to age in place (Programs G, R, X, CC,
OO, and UU).

Table 3-3. Household Population and Composition, 2010 and 2019 2010 2019 Percentage Number of Change Persons
% of Total
Population
Number of
Persons
% of Total
Population
Household population 10,007 99% 11,894 100% 19%
In family households 4,910 49% 6,146 52% 25%
In non-family households 5,097 51% 5,748 48% 13%
Population in group quarters 73 1% 5 <1% -93%
Total population 10,080 100% 11,899 100% 18%
Sources: US Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 8 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
As of 2019, the percentage of the population aged
19 and younger in Emeryville was markedly
lower than that of nearby jurisdictions. As shown
in Table 3-6, this age group represented 9 percent
of the Emeryville population in 2019, whereas in
Albany, Berkeley, and Oakland, it accounted for
between 22 and 27 percent of the overall
population. Due to the low percentage of the
population under age 19 residing in Emeryville,
compared to the region, the City will implement
a variety of programs to ensure developers create
units to address the needs of families of all sizes
and the City expands its outreach to target
households with school age children (Programs
R, HH).

Table 3-6. Comparison of 19 and Under
Population, 2019
Jurisdiction Total
Population
19 and
Under
Population
Percentage
of
Population
Alameda
County 1,656,754 382,964 23%
Albany 19,804 5,376 27%
Berkeley 121,485 26,180 22%
Emeryville 11,899 1,109 9%
Oakland 425,097 92,725 22%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)

3.2.4 RACIAL AND ETHNIC

CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3-7 compares Emeryville’s race and ethnic
composition in 2010 and 2019. During this time,
the number of individuals in all racial and ethnic
groups in Emeryville increased, with the
exception of American Indian/Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The overall
population remained relatively stable in terms of
race and ethnic proportions and continues to be
predominantly non-Hispanic (90 percent).

Whites comprise the largest racial group at 40
percent of the total population, Asians are the
second-largest group (28 percent), and Blacks or
African Americans made up the third (15
percent) largest. In terms of growth, the Asian
population has experienced a 23-percent increase
as a measure of the total population and the
American Indian and Alaska Native population
has experienced a decrease of 21 percent, to total
less than 1 percent of the population. The total
population change for the American Indian and
Alaska Native population may seem drastic but
the decline in population is from 19 individuals
to 15 individuals, a population change of four.

This data comparison is an example of how
percentile change in this analysis should be
evaluated with demographic context in mind.

Table 3-5. Population Age Distribution, 2010 and 2019
Age Range
2010 2019 Percentage Number of Change Persons
% of Total
Population
Number of
Persons
% of Total
Population
4 and younger 424 4% 446 4% 5%
5 to 14 486 5% 421 4% -13%
15 to 19 281 3% 242 2% -14%
19 and younger 1,191 12% 1,109 9% -7%
20 to 24 904 9% 718 6% -21%
25 to 34 2,937 29% 3,922 33% 34%
35 to 44 1,738 17% 2,240 19% 29%
45 to 54 1,266 13% 1,250 11% -1%
55 to 64 1,038 10% 1,133 10% 9%
20 to 64 7,883 78% 9,263 78% 18%
65 to 74 614 6% 889 7% 45%
75 to 84 292 3% 365 3% 25%
85 and older 100 1% 273 2% 173%
65 and older 1,006 10% 1,527 13% 52%
Total Population 10,080 100% 11,899 100% 18%
Sources: US Census 2010, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 9

3.3 Housing Characteristics

3.3.1 HOUSING TYPES
Prior to 1970, single-family homes and small
apartment buildings in the eastern
neighborhoods typified residential housing in
the city. In the 1970s and 1980s, two large
residential projects (Pacific Park Plaza and
Watergate) together added 1,830 units. In 2000,
these two projects represented 30 percent of the
city’s total housing stock. In the 1990s,
construction of live/work lofts, medium-density,
mixed-use, and single-use residential projects
typified development. Since 2000, this pattern of
adding medium- to high-density housing and
mixed-use developments that include housing
has continued.

Blue Star Corner at Sherwin Avenue and Halleck Street uses a variety of materials and landscaping to provide texture and visual interest to the 20 unit townhome condominium
development.

From 2010 to 2020, the number of housing units
in Emeryville increased by approximately 56
percent. As shown in Table 3-8, while there was
growth in housing units of all structure types, the
majority of units were in multifamily structures
of five more units. As of 2020, the majority of the
Emeryville housing stock (88 percent or 6,509
units) was in multifamily housing.

3.3.2 HOUSING TENURE
Housing tenure refers to the occupancy of a
unit—whether it is owner-occupied or renteroccupied. As shown in Table 3-9, as of 2019, approximately 66 percent (4,322 units) of the
city’s occupied housing units were renteroccupied. As compared with Emeryville, homeownership is more common in Alameda
County as a whole, where, as of 2019,
approximately 46 percent (268,286 units) of the
county’s occupied housing units were renteroccupied. In both Emeryville and Alameda County, the proportion of owner- and renteroccupied homes remained approximately the same from 2010 to 2019. Both Emeryville and
Alameda County experienced an increase of total
occupied housing units between 2010 and 2019.

However, Emeryville’s total occupied housing
units increased by 15 percent (from 5,694 to
6,568), while Alameda County’s total occupied
housing units increased by 6 percent (from
545,138 to 577,177).

During outreach activities for the preparation of
this Housing Element, community members
expressed concerns regarding housing tenure
and a desire to create more opportunities for
homeownership at all income levels. Programs
A, H, I, M, P, I, and J commit the City to actions
to improve homeownership opportunities.

Table 3-7. Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2019
Race or Ethnicity
2010 2019 Percentage
Change Number of
Persons Percentage Number of Persons Percentage
Non-Hispanic 9,153 91% 10,760 90% 18%
White 4,057 40% 4,794 40% 18%
Black or African American 1,733 17% 1,752 15% 1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 19 <1% 15 0% -21%
Asian 2,756 27% 3,388 28% 23%
Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander 16 <1% 60 1% 275% Other race 44 <1% 47 0% 7%
2 or more races 528 5% 704 6% 33%
Hispanic 927 9% 1139 10% 23%
Mexican 554 5% 525 4% -5%
Puerto Rican 66 1% 160 1% 142%
Cuban 23 <1% 23 0% 0%
Other Hispanic or Latino 284 3% 431 4% 52%
Total Population 10,080 100% 11,899 100% 18%
Source: US Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021)) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 10 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 3-9. Housing Tenure, 2010 and 2019

3.3.3 HOUSING UNIT SIZE AND

OCCUPANCY
As shown in Table 3-10, studio and one-bedroom
units account for a large portion of the city’s
housing stock (approximately 64 percent or 4,169
units.) As of 2019, only 8 percent of Emeryville
housing stock had three or more bedrooms and
there were no housing units with five or more
bedrooms. During outreach activities for the
preparation of this Housing Element, community
members expressed concerns regarding housing
sizes and a desire to create more opportunities for
housing for larger families at all income levels.

Table 3-10. Bedrooms per Unit, 2019
Number of Bedrooms Number of
Units* Percentage
0 bedroom (studio) 1,087 17%
1 bedroom 3,082 47%
2 bedrooms 1,905 29%
3-4 bedrooms 494 8%
5 or more bedrooms 0 0%
Total housing units 6,568 100%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021)
*The number of units presented in this table varies from previous tables due to the data source. The ACS has a high margin of error for smaller communities such as Emeryville.

As shown in Table 3-4, as of 2019, average
household size in Emeryville was 1.81 persons.

As can be expected given the data regarding
household sizes, and bedrooms per unit, almost
half of occupied units (47 percent) in Emeryville
were home to one person in 2019 (Table 3-11).

The number of homes occupied by one person
increased by eight percent between 2010 and
Table 3-8. Housing Units by Structure Type, 2010 and 2020 Structure Type
2010 2020
Percentage Number of Change Units Percentage Number of
Units Percentage
Single-family, attached or detached 821 13% 819 11% -<1% Multifamily, 2 to 4 units 751 11% 756 10% <1%
Multifamily, 5 or more units 5,038 76% 5,753 78% 14%
Mobile home1 36 1% 36 <1% 0%
Total housing units 6,646 100% 7,364 100% 11%
Permitted Live-aboard Boats in the
Emeryville Marina2 38 - -
Sources: California Department of Finance 2020 (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021) 1 While the Department of Finance reports the presence of 36 mobile homes in Emeryville, City staff are unaware of any. It is possible that the permitted live-aboard boats in the Emeryville Marina were counted as mobile homes by the Department of Finance. 2 Per the City Attorney’s office, live-aboard boats are considered vessels rather than housing units and so have not been added to the total number of housing units above. However, use of permitted live-abord boats as permanent residences is allowed. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which regulates live-aboard permits, has limited the number of permits to 10 percent of the total number of berths or 38 berths, whichever is less.

Tenure
2010 2019 Percentage Number of Change Units
% of Total
Units
Number of
Units
% of Total
Units
Emeryville
Owner-occupied 2,013 35% 2,246 34% 12%
Renter-occupied 3,681 65% 4,322 66% 17%
Total occupied housing units 5,694 100% 6,568 100% 15%
Alameda County
Owner-occupied 291,242 53% 308,891 54% 6%
Renter-occupied 253,896 47% 268,286 46% 6%
Total occupied housing units 545,138 100% 577,177 100% 6% Source: US Census 2010, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 11
2019, however as a share of the total occupied
housing units, those occupied by one person
decreased (from 50 percent in 2010 to 47 percent
in 2019). Two-person occupied units had the
greatest change since 2010, increasing by over
one-third. An additional 39 percent were twoperson households. As shown in Table 3-11, there were increases in one-, two-, and threeperson occupancies and decreases in four-person occupancies and occupancies of five or more
persons.

Members of the public and elected officials
expressed concern at the lack of housing units
large enough to accommodate larger families.

They expressed concern that the lack of
availability of these units may contribute to
displacement of current residents as their
families grow and may deter families from
moving to Emeryville. Program R commits the
City to encouraging developers to provide larger
units in new developments.

3.3.4 VACANCY
As shown in Table 3-12, as compared to Alameda
County as a whole, Emeryville has a slightly
higher vacancy rate (8 percent in Emeryville, 5
percent in Alameda County). Most of the vacancy
in Emeryville is related to properties being
available for rent but not yet rented or for “other”
reasons unspecified. According to the 2015-2019
American Community Survey (ACS), the city
had a rental vacancy rate of 3.4 percent and a
homeowner rental vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. A
vacancy rate of about 6 percent is generally
considered to indicate a healthy market, one in
which there is adequate housing available to
allow for mobility but not so much as to depress
the market. A low vacancy rate indicates high
demand and results in upward price pressures.

Table 3-11. Persons per Occupied Housing Unit, 2010 and 2019 Number of Persons per Unit
2010 2019 Percentage Number of Change Units* Percentage Number of Units* Percentage
1 person 2,871 50% 3,092 47% 8%
2 persons 1,910 34% 2,559 39% 34%
3 persons 551 10% 618 9% 12%
4 persons 230 4% 185 3% -20%
5 or more persons 132 2% 114 2% -14%
Total occupied housing units 5,694 100% 6,568 100% 15%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021) *The number of units presented in this table varies from previous tables due to the data source. The ACS has a high margin of error for smaller communities such as Emeryville.

Table 3-12. Vacant Units by Type, 2019
Type City of Emeryville Alameda County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Occupied 6,568 92% 577,177 95%
Vacant 572 8% 30,919 5%
For rent 155 2% 7,998 1%
For sale 32 <1% 1,961 <1%
Rented/sold, not occupied 73 1% 3,499 <1%
For seasonal/recreational or occasional use 104 1% 3,892 <1% All other, including migrant workers 208 3% 13,569 2%
Total Housing Units 7,140 100% 608,096 100%
Rental Vacancy Rate 3.4% percent 2.9%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.4% percent 0.6%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Tables B25004 and DP04 (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 12 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3.3.5 OVERCROWDING
Overcrowded units, as defined by the US Census
Bureau, have 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room;
“severely overcrowded” units have more than 1.5
persons per room. Overcrowding can affect
public facilities and services, reduce the quality
of the physical environment, and create
conditions that contribute to deterioration. As
shown in Table 3-13, approximately 1 percent of
owner-occupied housing units and 3 percent of
renter-occupied housing units were estimated to
be overcrowded. An additional 2 percent of
owner-occupied units and 6 percent of renteroccupied units were severely overcrowded.

Approximately 71 percent of overcrowded
households were renters.

Emeryville’s overcrowding rate was lower than
that of Alameda County, where approximately 5
percent of occupied housing units were
overcrowded. While overcrowding is not a major
issue, this Housing Element includes programs
to promote the supply of larger-sized family
units with three and more bedrooms by
encouraging developers to include larger units
sizes and evaluate City-controlled sites for
potential redevelopment as affordable familyfriendly housing (Programs G and R).

3.3.6 HOUSING AGE AND

CONDITION
An indication of the quality of the housing stock
is its general age. Typically, housing over 20
years old is likely to have only minor repair
needs, while housing over 40 years old is likely to
have more major rehabilitation needs that may
include plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work,
and other repairs. As shown in Table 3-14, thirtythree percent of the housing stock is 20-40 years old and approximately 34 percent of the housing
stock is over 40 years old. This typically means a
moderate amount of repairs are needed in the
community. However, as a result of code
inspection efforts, numerous residences were
repaired and conserved. In 2021, the Building
Division inspected over 500 single-family and
multifamily homes and estimated that 2% or 11
residences were identified to need maintenance
or repairs. The Triangle neighborhood had the
highest number and percentage of minor, low
repair or maintenance issues including the
greatest number of roof issues. Less than one
percent of homes in Emeryville are in need of
replacement due to age and condition.

Table 3-14. Age of Structure by Year Built,
Emeryville, 2019
Year Built Number of
Units* Percentage
1939 or earlier 540 8%
1940 to 1959 465 7%
1960 to 1979 1,394 20%
1980 to 1999 2,366 33%
2000 to 2009 1,943 27%
2010 or later 432 6%
Total housing
units 7,140 100%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 (ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021) *The number of units presented in this table varies from previous tables due to the data source. The ACS has a high margin of error for smaller communities such as Emeryville.

The City of Emeryville Building Division entered
a partnership with the Alameda County Healthy
Homes Department in 2017 to host an 8-hour
Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP)
Training course for the public. Approximately 23
people attended the training, including property
managers, painting contractors, and other
interested parties. Attendees received a
certification as required by the Federal EPA rules
to conduct any renovation, repair, or painting
worked for compensation on pre-1978 buildings.

As discussed in Appendix B, a question about
housing conditions was asked during three
outreach activities, including live polling
exercises at the two virtual community
workshops (June 29, 2021 and February 23, 2022)
and an online survey that was available from July
6 to November 19, 2021. Approximately half of
the respondents stated their homes were not in
need of rehabilitation, however, for some of those
Table 3-13. Overcrowded Housing Units, 2013-2017
Owner-Occupied Units Renter-Occupied Units
Number of Units % of Total Units Number of Units % of Total Units Total overcrowded units 230 4% 565 9%
Overcrowded units 79 1% 204 3%
Severely overcrowded units 151 2% 361 6%
Total occupied housing units 6,568
Source: 2013-2017 CHAS (ABAG Data for Housing Elements, 2021) * The number of occupied units presented in this table varies from previous tables due to the year and the data source. The ACS has a high margin of error for smaller communities such as Emeryville.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 13
respondents, the common spaces in the multiunit building where they live were in need of maintenance or repairs. Among the other half of
the respondents, most said their home was in
need of minor repairs and a few said their home
needed major repairs.

Policy H-2-1 addresses rehabilitation of the City’s
existing housing stock to correct housing
deficiencies, increase the useful life and
accessibility for all residents. Programs that
support this policy include the following
activities:
• Continuing to support housing repair
and/or rehabilitation programs for lowerincome households in partnership with other organizations (Program X).
• Identifying areas of concentrated
rehabilitation need, including through
outreach to Homeowners Associations
managing condominium developments
(Program X).
• Continuing to promote home maintenance
education (Program X).
• Establishing a Rental Preservation
program, as described in the City’s 2021
Affordable Housing Bond Administration
and Expenditure Plan (Program Y).
• Encouraging energy conservation and
green building materials in residential
remodel projects (Program Z).

3.3.7 AFFORDABLE UNITS AT RISK

OF CONVERSION TO MARKET
RATE
A variety of programs have provided incentives
for the development of affordable rental housing
in Emeryville. Programs are administered by the
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), insured by the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA), financed by
Multifamily Revenue Bond issuance or tax
credits, or subject to a housing agreement under
the City’s Affordable Housing Set-Aside
Ordinance. Through these programs, units are
restricted for periods of up to 55 years. Once the
term of the contract is up, the owner of the rental
units can raise rents to market rate. This can have
the effect of displacing low- and very low-income
tenants who cannot afford increased rents.

Table 3-15 lists assisted housing projects in the
City of Emeryville and identifies their current
contract expiration dates after which conversion
Ocean Avenue Court (125 - 1269 Ocean Avenue) is owned and operated by the Housing Authority of Alameda County.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 14 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
to market-rate housing is possible. According to
the California Housing Partnership Corporation
(CHPC), two properties have assisted units that
are at risk of converting to market rate in the 10-
year period from 2021 to 2029: Ocean Avenue
Court (1265-69 Ocean) and Bakery Lofts I & II
(1010 46th Street or 4600 Adeline) (State law
requires that Housing Elements examine units at
risk for a 10-year period from the beginning of the
planning period.) Ocean Avenue Court is
assisted by HOME Rental Assistance, and the
agreement expires in June 2026. However,
because Ocean Avenue Court is owned by the
Housing Authority of Alameda County, there is
a low risk of losing the affordable units. Bakery
Loft I & II was assisted with a $250,000 loan from
the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency and
Federal Rehab Tax Credits. The property’s
agreement to provide affordable units expires in
June 2028. The Bakery Loft I & II property is
owned by Madison Park, a full-service real estate
development company that is based in Oakland,
California. As a private, full service real estate
firm, its unclear if Madison Park will continue
affordability of the at risk units once the
requirement to do so expires.

To maintain the existing affordable housing
stock, the City can either preserve the existing
assisted units or facilitate the development of
new units. Depending on the circumstances of atrisk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation
options typically include: (1) construction of
replacement units, (2) transfer of project to
nonprofit ownership, (3) provision of rental
assistance to tenants using non-federal funding
sources, and (4) purchase of affordability
covenants. These options are described herein.

3.3.7.1 Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new affordable housing units
is a means of replacing the at-risk units should
they be converted to market-rate units. The cost
of developing housing depends on a variety of
factors, including density, size of the units (i.e.,
square footage and number of bedrooms),
location, labor, materials and land costs, and type
of construction. As shown in Table 3-17, based on
four recent projects at various stages of planning
or completion, average cost to construct
multifamily housing in Emeryville (not including
land costs) is estimated to be $437.50 per square
foot. The four representative projects include one
completed in 2020, and as of August 2021, one
under construction, one proposed, and one
entitled.

Table 3-15. Assisted Housing Units at Risk of Conversion, 2021 Project Name &
Location
Government Financial
Assistance
Total
Units
Assisted
Elderly Units
Assisted
Non-Elderly
Units
Overall
Expiration
Date
Ocean Avenue Court –
1265-69 Ocean Ave. HOME Rental Assistance 6 0 6 6/18/2026 Bakery Lofts I & II
4600 Adeline
Local Affordable Housing Fund,
Federal Rehab Tax Credits 41 0 8 6/02/2028
Table 3-16. Assisted Housing Units Not at Risk of Conversion, 2021 Project Name & Location Total Units Assisted Expiration Year 3900 Adeline, 3900 Adeline 101 12 2073
Ambassador Housing, 3610 Peralta Street 69 68 2068
Artistry (Archstone) Emeryville, 6401 Shellmound Street 261 52 20621 Avalon Senior Apartments, 3850 - 72 San Pablo Avenue, 67 66 2055 Avenue 64, 6399 Christie Avenue 224 23 2060
Bay Bridge Apartments, 1034 36th Street 6 6 2038
Bay Street Apartments / Ave Emeryville at Bay Street, 5684 Bay Street 284 57 2060 Bridgecourt Apartments, 1325 40th Street 220 88 2052
The Courtyards, 1465 65th Street 331 61 2059
Emeryvilla, 4320 San Pablo Avenue 50 50 20662
Emme, 6350 Christie Avenue 190 29 2067
Estrella Vista, 3706 San Pablo Avenue 87 86 2095
Icon at Park, 1401 Park Avenue 54 3 2062
Magnolia Terrace, 4001 Adeline Street 5 5 2066
Parc on Powell, 1333 Powell Street 172 21 2067
Triangle Court, 1063-1069 45th Street 20 20 2052
Marketplace-Parcel D, Shellmound Street 223 25 2071
Marketplace-Parcel C2, 62nd and Shellmound 66 7 2073
The Intersection Mixed Use "Maz", 3800 San Pablo Avenue 108 11 2075 Total 2,538 690
Source: City of Emeryville, 2022
1Affordability extended with amended lease agreement in April 2007. 2Affordability extended with amended lease agreement in August 1991.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 15
At an average size of 1,000 square feet per unit,
$437.50 per square foot, the cost to replace each
unit would be approximately $437,500. At this
rate, the approximate cost for building 14
replacement units would be $6,125,000, in
addition to the cost of land.

3.3.7.2 Transfer of Ownership
Transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a
nonprofit housing provider is generally one of
the least costly ways to ensure that at-risk units
remain affordable for the long term. By
transferring property ownership to a nonprofit
organization whose mission includes affordable
housing, the risk of losing the low-income
restrictions is minimized, and the project would
become potentially eligible for a greater range of
governmental assistance.

The current market value of units in Emeryville
projects was estimated using information from
multifamily sales listings within Emeryville’s
boundaries. The average cost to purchase a
multifamily development was $380,615 per unit
(based on four sales listings for multifamily
properties on real estate websites in August
2021). Although these are list prices, rather than
sale prices and it is a small sample size, it is still
useful for this comparison. There are 14 units at
risk of converting to market rate within the
current planning cycle. Using the average cost of
$380,615 per unit, the estimated cost of acquiring
14 units would be $5,328,610.

3.3.7.3 Rental Assistance
Rental subsidies using non-federal (state, local, or
other) funding sources can be used to maintain
affordability of the 14 at-risk affordable units.

These rent subsidies can be structured to mirror
the federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
program. Under Section 8, HUD pays the
difference between what tenants can pay
(defined as 30 percent of household income) and
what HUD estimates as the fair market rent on
the unit. As shown in Table 3-18, in 2021, fair
market rent for the Oakland-Fremont Metro area
was determined to be $1,595 for an efficiency
unit, $1,934 for a one-bedroom unit and $2,383 for
a two-bedroom unit. According to a rent study of
23 cities in the Bay Area performed by Zumper,
median rents for one-bedroom units in
Emeryville in June 2021 were higher than all but
six cities in the study and were above the state
average. Therefore, Table 3-18 also uses rental
listings in Emeryville surveyed in June 2021 on
Zillow.com. Those listed rents averaged $2,169
for an efficiency unit, $2,400 for a one-bedroom
unit, and $3,187 for a two-bedroom unit.

The affordable units at Bakery Loft I & II are
currently reserved for households earning
moderate incomes (120 percent of the Area
Median Income [AMI]). The federal Housing
Choice Voucher (Section 8) program is only
available for households earning 50 percent of
AMI or less. If the City designed a program that
mirrored the approach of the Housing Choice
Voucher program, a moderate-income level
could be incorporated. However, in the
calculation shown in Table 3-18, both the fair
market rents calculated by HUD for the OaklandFremont Metro area and the average rents from the survey of listings on Zillow.com are
affordable to moderate-income households and
would not require a subsidy. Therefore,
preservation of Bakery Loft I & II is not calculated
in this scenario.

For the units reserved for Very Low-Income
households at Ocean Avenue Court, a larger
subsidy would be needed if relying on the listings
found for rentals in Emeryville, as compared
with the fair market rents calculated by HUD for
the Oakland-Fremont Metro area. All 6 units at
Ocean Avenue Court are reserved for very lowincome households. There are 2 two-bedroom units and 4 three-bedrooms units, Using Fair
Market Rents calculated by HUD, preserving
these units would require an annual estimated
subsidy of $20,202 for the two two-bedroom units
and $71,208 for the four three-bedroom units. The
estimated total subsidy for Ocean Avenue Court
would be $91,410.

The feasibility of this alternative is highly
dependent on the availability of other funding
sources necessary to make rent subsidies
available and the willingness of property owners
to accept rental vouchers if they can be provided.

Table 3-17. Example Projects, Construction Costs, 2021
Project Type Project Status Total
Units Affordable
Construction
Cost Per
Square Foot
Total Development
Cost Per Square
Foot
1 100% Affordable Completed 2020 87 87 $258 $360
2 Mixed-Income Under construction 186 8 $405 Unknown
3 100% Affordable Proposed TBD 100% $531 $843
4 100% Affordable Entitled TBD 100% $556 $908
Average $438
Source: City of Emeryville, 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 16 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3.3.7.4 Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of atrisk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as affordable
housing. Incentives could include bringing down
the interest rate on the remaining loan balance,
providing loans for capital improvements,
and/or supplementing subsidies. The feasibility
of this option depends on whether the complex is
too highly leveraged. By providing lump sum
financial incentives or ongoing subsidies in the
form of rents or reduced mortgage interest rates
to the owner, the City can ensure that some or all
of the units remain affordable. There are too
many variables to estimate specific costs for this
scenario.

3.3.7.5 Cost Comparisons
The above analysis estimates the cost of
preserving the at-risk units under various
options. The highest-priced option would be
constructing 14 replacement units, for
approximately $6,125,000 (average of $437,500
per unit). However, this option is constrained by
a variety of factors, including growing scarcity of
land, rising land costs, and potential community
opposition. The second highest-priced option
would be acquiring 14 replacement units for
approximately $5,328,610 (average of $380,615
per unit).

In comparison, the annual costs of providing
rental subsidies required to preserve the 6 of the
14 assisted units are relatively low at
approximately $91,410 (average of $15,235 per
unit, per year). However, long-term affordability
of the units may not be able to be ensured in this
manner. The cost estimates for the various
methods for preserving the at-risk units offer a
useful reference for comparison, however they
don’t account for all factors, including the life
span or maintenance costs of the existing
buildings or buildings where replacement units
could be purchased. The cost of providing rental
subsidies is $15,235 per unit year one, however as
conditions change each year (fair market rents
and income limits), the amount of subsidy
required will fluctuate.

Table 3-18. Rental Assistance Required, 2021
Unit Size Fair Market
Rent1
Household
Size
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Affordable Cost
Without Utilities3
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
Annual per
Unit Subsidy
Efficiency $1,595 1 $47,950 $1,199 $396 $4,755
1-bedroom $1,934 2 $54,800 $1,370 $564 $6,768
2-bedroom $2,383 3 $61,650 $1,541 $842 $10,101
3-bedroom $3,196 4 $68,500 $1,713 $1,484 $17,802
Unit Size Median Rents
Listings2
Household
Size
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Affordable Cost
Without Utilities3
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
Annual per
Unit Subsidy
Efficiency 2,169 1 $47,950 $1,199 $970 $11,643
1-bedroom 2,400 2 $54,800 $1,370 $1,030 $12,360
2-bedroom 3,187 3 $61,650 $1,541 $1,646 $19,749
Unit Size Fair Market
Rent1
Household
Size
Moderate Income
(80% AMI)
Affordable Cost
Without Utilities3
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
Annual per
Unit Subsidy
Efficiency $1,595 1 $105,500 $2,638 $0 $0
1-bedroom $1,934 2 $120,550 $3,014 $0 $0
2-bedroom $2,383 3 $135,650 $3,391 $0 $0
Unit Size Median Rents
Listings2
Household
Size
Moderate Income
(80% AMI)
Affordable Cost
Without Utilities3
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
Annual per
Unit Subsidy
Efficiency $2,169 1 $105,500 $2,638 $0 $0
1-bedroom $2,400 2 $120,550 $3,014 $0 $0
2-bedroom $3,187 3 $135,650 $3,391 $0 $0
1 Fair market rent is determined by HUD for different jurisdictions/areas across the United States on an annual basis. 2021 FMRs for the OaklandFremont, CA HUD Metro area listed. 2 Survey of listings for available rental properties in Emeryville; Zillow, June 21, 2021. 3 Affordable cost = 30% of household monthly income
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 17

3.3.7.6 Organizations Interested in
Preserving Assisted Rental Housing
Potential nonprofit developers and housing
assistance organizations that may be interested in
purchasing at-risk units or assisting in tenant
relocation are listed in Table 3-18. The City is
committed to working proactively to retain
existing subsidized units (Program AA) and is
already working with property owners to
determine intent and examine potential scenarios
for preservation or tenant placement for both
identified properties.

3.3.7.7 Potential Sources of Funding to
Preserve Affordable Housing
The funding sources that can potentially be used
to preserve affordable housing are listed herein.

Also see section 6.6. Financial and
Administrative Resources.

The Ambassador, a 70 unit affordable housing development, was funded in part through Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Home Investment Partnership Funds.

3.3.7.7.1 Home Investment Partnerships
Funds
The Federal HOME program was created as a
result of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Local
jurisdictions may use HOME funds to develop
and support affordable rental housing and
homeownership affordability through
acquisition and to provide assistance to
homebuyers. This includes new construction;
reconstruction or rehabilitation of non-luxury
housing with suitable amenities, including real
Table 3-19. Organizations Interested in Preserving At-Risk Housing, 2021 Organization Address Phone Number
Bay Area Community
Services 629 Oakland Ave, Oakland, CA 94611 (510) 499-0365 Alameda Affordable
Housing Corporation 701 Atlantic Ave, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 747-4343 Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates 1835 Alcatraz Ave, Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 647-0700 Northern California Land
Trust, Inc. 3122 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 548-7878 Resources for Community
Development 2220 Oxford St., Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 841-4410 Affordable Housing
Associates 1250 Addison St., Ste. G, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 649-8500, ext. 14 Alameda County Allied
Housing Program 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 108, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 670-5404 Christian Church Homes of
Northern California, Inc. 303 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 201, Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 632-6712 BRIDGE Housing
Corporation 345 Spear Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 989-1111 Eden Housing, Inc. 22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 582-1460 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 18 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
property acquisition, site improvements,
conversion, demolition, and other expenses, such
as financing costs; and relocation expenses of any
displaced people, families, businesses, or
organizations. HOME funds may also be used to
provide tenant-based rental assistance. Housing
developed with HOME funds must serve lowand very-low-income households.

3.3.7.7.2 Community Development Block
Grant Program
Through the Federal CDBG program, HUD
provides funding for a range of community
development activities. The primary objectives of
the CDBG program are decent housing, suitable
living environments, and expanded economic
opportunities for people with low and moderate
incomes (“low income” is defined as household
income at 80 percent or less of AMI and includes
the local and State definition of “very low
income”). CDBG funds are awarded for housing
activities, including acquisition and
rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, economic
development, homelessness services, and public
services. CDBG funds are subject to certain
restrictions and generally cannot be used for new
housing construction.

3.3.7.7.3 Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Program
The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is the
loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program.

This provision provides communities with a
source of financing for various housing and
economic development activities. Rules and
requirements of the CDBG program apply, and
therefore, projects and activities must principally
benefit people with low and moderate incomes,
aid in the elimination or prevention of blight,
and/or meet urgent needs of the community.

Activities eligible for these funds include
economic development activities eligible under
CDBG; acquisition of real property; rehabilitation
of publicly owned property; housing
rehabilitation eligible under CDBG; construction,
reconstruction, or installation of public facilities;
related relocation, clearance, or installation of
public facilities; payment of interest on the
guaranteed loan and issuance costs of public
offerings; debt service reserves; and public works
and site improvements.

3.3.7.7.4 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
Program
The Federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
Program provides rental assistance to lower
income households earning up to 80 percent of
the County AMI. Under Section 8, HUD pays the
difference between what tenants can pay
(defined as 30 percent of household income) and
what HUD estimates as the fair-market rent on
the unit.

3.3.7.7.5 Low Income Housing Tax Credits
The CTCAC administers the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to
encourage private investment in affordable
rental housing for households meeting certain
income requirements. Credits are available for
new construction projects or existing properties
undergoing rehabilitation. Two types of Federal
tax credits are available and are generally
referred to as 9 percent and 4 percent credits,
respectively. The competition for each type is
fierce. Because 9 percent credits are so desirable
and in limited supply, the CTCAC awards them
through a competitive process twice per year.

Projects compete on point scoring, but because
most projects receive the maximum point score,
the CTCAC’s tiebreaker formula generally
decides the outcome. Tax credits of 4 percent
derive from a project’s use of tax-exempt bond
authority allocated by the California Debt Limit
Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The California
Legislature authorized a State LIHTC program to
augment the Federal LIHTC program. Because
State LIHTCs are also in limited supply, the
CTCAC awards them competitively. In total, 85
percent of the State LIHTCs are integrated into 9
percent tax credit projects, while the remainder
are reserved for 4 percent tax credit projects. As
of 2020, the trend has been that an award of 9
percent tax credits is not feasible for projects that
do not include some component of permanent
supportive housing. Thus, projects focused on
low-income units or a mix of very-low- and lowincome units, are now applying for 4 percent tax credits, which represent significantly less
funding. Overall, the demand for this significant
funding source critical to the development of
lower-income housing greatly outweighs the
supply of funding.

3.4 Economic and Income
Indicators

3.4.1 EMPLOYMENT
Housing needs are influenced by employment
trends. Significant shifts in employment
opportunities in or around the city can lead to
growth or decline in the demand for housing.

According to ABAG, there were 24,378 jobs in
Emeryville as of 2018. ABAG projects growth in
jobs in Emeryville through 2040 and estimates a
40-percent increase by 2040 to 34,030 jobs. Top
employers in Emeryville include Pixar;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 19
Zymergen; AC Transit; Oaks Card Club; Grifols
Diagnostics Solutions; IKEA; Peet’s Coffee & Tea
Inc.; Clif Bar & Company, and Stanford Health
Care.

As shown in Table 3-20, as of 2019, 7,885
Emeryville residents aged 16 and older were
employed. Of those 7,885, the largest percentage,
27 percent (2,145 people), was employed in the
professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management
industries. The number of residents employed in
this industry grew 76 percent from 2011 to 2019.

Another 22 percent (1,744 people) were
employed in the education, health, and social
services industry in 2019. The industries with the
most significant increases in number of
employees residing in Emeryville between 2011
and 2019 were information, professional,
scientific, management, administrative, and
waste management and construction and
transportation, warehousing, and utilities.

Nearly all industries saw an increase in numbers
of employees residing in Emeryville between
2011 and 2019 except wholesale trade,
manufacturing, and retail trade, which
experienced a decrease.

3.4.2 UNEMPLOYMENT
As of January 2021, the city’s unemployment rate
was estimated at 6.2 percent according to the
California Employment Development
Department. The unemployment rate in
Emeryville was lower than in Alameda County
as a whole, which had a rate of 7.2 percent, and
the Bay Area as a whole had an unemployment
rate of 6.6 percent. These trends may be
influenced by the response to COVID-19. For
example, the California unemployment rate was

3.9 percent in December 2019, prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, 9.3 percent in December
2020, while the pandemic remained ongoing and

3.8 percent in February 2022 when the pandemic
was waning and most restrictions were lifted
(such as requirements to wear masks indoors for
people who were vaccinated. Low
unemployment translates to greater consumer
confidence, spending power, and demand for
new or improved housing. This spending power
and demand has manifested in low vacancy rates
and increasing rental and home sale prices, as
further discussed in Section 3.4, Housing Costs
and Affordability.

Table 3-20. Employed Residents by Industry, 2011 and 2019 Industry
2011 2019
Percentage
Change Number
of
Residents
Percentage
Number
of
Residents
Percentage
Agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and
mining 0 — 10 0% —
Construction 138 2% 220 3% 59%
Manufacturing 465 7% 419 5% -10%
Wholesale trade 169 3% 81 1% -52%
Retail trade 708 11% 646 8% -9%
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 183 3% 277 4% 51% Information 233 4% 614 8% 164%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and
leasing 522 8% 591 7% 13%
Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management 1,221 19% 2,145 27% 76% Education, health, and social services 1,671 27% 1,744 22% 4% Arts, recreation, accommodation, and food
services 600 10% 682 9% 14%
Other services (except public administration) 192 3% 254 3% 32% Public administration 170 3% 202 3% 19%
Total employed civilian population (16 years
and over) 6,272 100% 7,885 100% 26%
Source: Source: 2007–2011 ACS; 2015-2019 ACS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 20 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3.4.3 JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
The analysis of jobs/housing balance is used to
assess the degree to which communities and
subregions are inducing commuter travel. A
community with a balance of jobs and housing
has as many jobs as homes to accommodate local
workers. A highly skewed jobs/housing ratio
means that either residents must leave the
community to reach employment, or many
people must live outside of the city and commute
to reach their employer.

As of 2018, Emeryville had a jobs/housing ratio of

3.77 (2002-2018; California Department of
Finance, E-5 (Households)). In comparison,
Alameda County as a whole had a jobs/housing
ratio of 1.43 in the same period, and the Bay Area
had a jobs/housing ratio of 1.47. Thus, the data
indicates that Emeryville has an abundance of
jobs, relative to housing. This is not surprising,
given Emeryville’s history of commercial and
industrial activity. While the Jobs/Housing ratio
for Emeryville may be high in comparison to
Alameda County and the Region, it should be
noted that the average commute time for
Emeryville residents (31 minutes) similar to those
that reside in Alameda County (32 minutes) and
the Bay Area Region (31 minutes) (Vital Signs,
MTC, 2022). As stated in Program W, the City
will continue to promote housing within its
Priority Development Area, which covers the
majority of the city, that is well served by transit
and has the majority of the city’s employment
opportunities. Additionally, the City will
continue to improve equitable access to
transportation options that do not require
personal vehicle ownership for Emeryville
residents (Program II), and develop strategies to
connect low and moderate income residents to
job opportunities with good pay from local
employers (Program GG).

3.4.4 EDUCATION AND INCOME

CHARACTERISTICS

3.4.4.1 Education
Emeryville’s educational attainment profile
shows a fairly highly educated population, as of
2019. As shown in Table 3-21, more than twothirds of the population age 25 years and older held at least a bachelor’s degree (71 percent),
compared with 47 percent in Alameda County
overall.

Emeryville is home to SAE Ex’pression College
and the San Francisco Law School and is located
in close proximity to the University of California,
Berkeley, and other learning institutions. College
students often seek medium-term rental housing,
and some may leave the community or area after
completing their program to return to their
Bay Street Emeryville is a large mixed-use development with 379 residential units (both condos and apartments), a 16 screen movie homes or find employment. theater, hotel and an abundance of retails shops and restaurants.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 21

3.4.5 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
As shown in Table 3-22, as of 2019, the median
household income in Emeryville was $102,725,
which is 47 percent more than it was in 2011
($69,724). In 2011, the Emeryville median income
was slightly below that of Alameda County as a
whole, which had a median household income of
$70,821 in 2019. However, between 2011 and
2019, the median household income in Alameda
County grew at a slower rate (40 percent)
resulting in a median household income of
$99,406 as of 2019.

Table 3-22 compares Emeryville and Alameda
County household income levels in 2011 and
2019. At both the city and county levels, striking
growth can be observed in the highest-earning
categories. During this period, the number of
Emeryville households earning $100,000 per year
or more increased 93 percent, increasing
households at this income level to 51 percent of
the population, up from 32 percent in 2011.

HUD has defined income categories for purposes
of analysis and program qualification. Categories
are based on the percentage of AMI and are
defined as follows:
• Extremely low income: less than 30
percent of AMI
• Very low income: 30 to 50 percent of AMI
• Low income: 51 to 80 percent of AMI
• Moderate income: 81 to 120 percent of AMI
• Above moderate income: more than 120
percent of AMI
Table 3-21. Educational Attainment for Residents Aged 25 Years and Older, 2015-2019 Education Level
Emeryville Alameda County
Number of
Residents
% of Population
Age 25+
Number of
Residents
% of Population
Age 25+
Less than 9th grade 155 2% 69,534 6%
Some high school, no diploma 163 2% 65,990 6%
High school graduate 896 9% 205,980 18%
Some college, no degree 1,106 11% 201,377 17%
Associate degree 555 6% 73,676 6%
Bachelor’s degree 4,283 43% 320,319 27%
Graduate or professional degree 2,914 29% 235,786 20%
Total population 25 years and over 10,072 100% 1,172,662 100% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) The Oak Walk Apartments include nine Below Market Rate units and is located adjacent to the 40th Street bus hub at the intersection of 40th Street and San Pablo Avenue.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 22 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 3-22. Household Incomes, 2011 and 2019

2011 2019 Percentage Change Number Percentage Number Percentage Emeryville
Less than $24,999 1,267 23% 1,093 17% -14%
$25,000 to $49,999 797 14% 727 11% -9%
$50,000 to $74,999 961 17% 616 9% -36%
$75,000 to $99,999 740 13% 756 12% 2%
$100,000 or more 1,747 32% 3,376 51% 93%
Total households 5,512 100% 6,568 100% 19%
Median household income $69,724 $102,725 47%
Alameda County
Less than $24,999 97,829 18% 75,395 13% -23%
$25,000 to $49,999 96,437 18% 75,942 13% -21%
$50,000 to $74,999 87,039 16% 71,982 12% -17%
$75,000 to $99,999 66,324 12% 66,584 12% 0%
$100,000 or more 188,531 35% 287,274 50% 52%
Total households 536,160 100% 577,177 100% 8%
Median household income $70,821 $99,406 40%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2007-2011 and 2015-2019) Table 3-23 provides detail on household income
by category and tenure in Emeryville in 2017.

Analysis of tenure shows that over half of renter
and owner households are above-moderate
income. Just over one quarter of renter
households (27 percent) and 20 percent of
homeowner households are very low income. It
is not unusual for homeowners to have higher
incomes than renters, as saving for a down
payment can be more affordable to higherincome households. There is not a substantial level of income disparity between tenure groups.

3.4.5.1 Extremely Low-Income Households
Lower-income households generally have a
higher incidence of housing problems and tend
to overpay for housing (paying 30 percent or
more of their monthly income toward housing
costs). Households that earn 30 percent or less
than Alameda County’s median income (up to
$41,100 for a four-person household and $32,900
for a two person household in 2021, based on
HCD Income Limits) are considered “extremely
low-income.” Extremely low-income households
can face great difficulty in securing housing,
particularly housing that is affordable and large
enough to accommodate the household size.

Extremely low-income households face
incidences of overpayment and overcrowding
and are at a high risk for homelessness.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 23
According to HUD’s CHAS data system,
approximately 15 percent of Emeryville
households (989 households) were extremely low
income as of 2017 (CHAS 2013-2017). ELI
households represent a similar percentage of
households in Emeryville when compared to the
County as a whole, where ELI households also
comprise about 15 percent of the total number of
households (15.5 percent).

In Emeryville, ELI households are more likely to
be renters than owners and in Emeryville
approximately 23 percent of housing units
occupied by ELI households are homeowners
and 77 percent are renters, based on 2013-2017
CHAS data. ELI households comprise 10 percent
of owner-occupied housing units (230 of 2,340
total homeowner households), compared to
comprising 18 percent of renter-occupied
housing units (760 of 4,200 total renter
households). In Emeryville, ELI households
experience housing problems (incomplete
kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities,
overcrowding, and overpayment) at a high rate
of incidence, with 76 percent of housing units
occupied by renting ELI households and 67
percent of housing units occupied by homeowner
households experience at least one of the housing
problems. ELI households are particularly
susceptible to cost burden, or paying at least 30
percent of gross monthly income toward
housing-related costs, reducing the ability for
households to have money available for other
necessities and emergency expenditures. Severe
cost burden, or paying at least 50 percent of
monthly income toward housing costs, further
constrains a household’s ability to pay for
necessities while maintaining housing. Costburdened ELI households are particularly vulnerable to displacement and experiencing
homelessness. When looking at rates of cost
burden in housing units occupied by ELI
households, approximately 72 percent of housing
units occupied by ELI households pay at least 30
percent of monthly income toward housing costs.

Among ELI households in owner-occupied
housing units, 67 percent (155 units) are occupied
with households experiencing cost burden. Of
these units, 70 percent (110 units) are severely
cost-burdened, paying at least 50 percent of
monthly income toward housing costs. Again,
over 73 percent of ELI households in renteroccupied units overpay for housing costs (560 units), with 79 percent of these units experiencing
severe cost burden (445 units).

In the past 10 years, the City undertook the
following actions to support extremely lowincome households, including seniors, large families, and persons with disabilities:
• The City adopted the Affordable Housing
Administration and Expenditure Plan in
February 2021, which guides the
expenditure of $50,000,000 in Measure C
Affordable Housing Bond funds, as well as
approximately $14,000,000 in additional
affordable housing resources available to
the City, for a total investment of over
$64,000,000. The object and purpose of
issuing the bonds is to finance the costs of
providing and/or enhancing the
acquisition or improvement of real
property in order to provide affordable
housing for extremely low, very low, low
and middle-income individuals and
families, including vulnerable populations
such as veterans, seniors, local artists, the
disabled, current or former foster youth,
victims of abuse, people experiencing
homelessness and individuals suffering
from mental health or substance abuse
illnesses.
• The City a committed over $16 Million to a
100% affordable housing project located at
3600 San Pablo Ave where all of the units
will be affordable to 30-60% AMI and at
least 20% of the units will be reserved for
Table 3-23. Households by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 Income Category
Renter Household Homeowner Household Total
Number of
Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Very low
(≤50% of AMI) 1,125 27% 469 20% 1,594 24%
Low
(51–80% of AMI) 490 12% 235 10% 725 11%
Moderate
(81–120% of AMI) 255 6% 170 7% 425 6%
Above moderate
(>120% of AMI) 2,315 55% 1,489 63% 3,804 58%
Total households 4,185 100% 2,363 100% 6,548 100%
Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2013-2017.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 24 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
formerly homeless households, that
include a member living with a severe
mental illness.
• In 2020, the City released a Request for
Qualifications/Proposals for the
development of a 100% affordable
Intergenerational Housing Development
for seniors and transitional-aged youth
and negotiated with the selected
developer to have all units affordable to
households below 80% AMI and over half
of the unit affordable to Extremely LowIncome households. • In 2020, the City partnered with the City of
Oakland to open a temporary emergency
shelter in Emeryville for up to 25
unhoused families.
• The City made updates to the Planning
Regulations to increase the mix of unit
sizes, including adopting the Family
Friendly Guidelines to stimulate the
development of larger units appropriately
sized for large families with children.
• Throughout the planning period, the City
worked with ECHO Housing (Eden
Council for Hope and Opportunity) to
provide tenant/landlord and fair housing
counseling and to administer the City’s
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. In
addition, the City referred cases to EBCLC
(East Bay Community Law Center) and
HERA (Housing and Economic Rights
Advocates) as necessary.
• The City worked to expand access to
resources and housing information
through publishing the City Renter's rights
information in each City Activity Guide;
making information on services available
at City Hall, City website and E-news; and
launching a new housing notification
email system.
• The City partnered with local transit
agencies to ensure that Emeryville
residents are adequately served by public
transit.

The extremely low-income housing need is
projected to be 225 units, which is derived from
presuming 50 percent of the very low-income
housing need (451 units) from the Regional
Housing Need Assessment. The City has
included the following programs to further
provide assistance to ELI households:
• Program A. Increase the creation of
affordable rental housing units for
extremely low and very low-income
people living with physical and/or
developmental disabilities by amending
Section 9-5.407 of the Planning
Regulations.
• Program G. Support affordable housing
development to develop extremely low-,
very low-, and/or low-income housing in
City-assisted development projects
whenever feasible. This includes the
projects planned 3600 San Pablo Ave (will
include units affordable extremely low- to
low-income households and permanent
supportive housing) and 4300 San Pablo
Ave (will include units for extremely lowand very low-income seniors and transitional aged youth). Work with
affordable housing developers to identify
and leverage local, state, and federal
funding programs to maximize the
number of affordable units available to
low-, very low, and extremely low-income
households, whenever possible.
• Program O. Encourage the inclusion of
extremely low- and very low-income
affordable units for people living with
physical and/or developmental disabilities
and the inclusion of Shelter-Plus-Care
units (rent-assisted units for dually
diagnosed people with mental illness,
substance abuse, and/or AIDS-related
illnesses) in residential projects in
Moderate-resource Areas. Work with the
unit sponsor to ensure a plan is in place to
provide ongoing support services to
tenants of these units.
• Program R. Promote housing designs to
attract families with children by
encouraging developers to include larger
unit sizes (two-, three-, and four-bedroom
units) as well as other on-site amenities
such as usable outdoor open space, play
equipment for a variety of ages,
community rooms, and multipurpose
rooms that can be utilized for after-school
homework clubs, computer, art, or other
resident activities.
• Program X. Continue to support housing
repair and/or rehabilitation programs that
assist lower-income households
occupying housing in need of repair
through funding partnerships with local
non-profits, Alameda County programs
that serve Emeryville residents and other
applicable programs as available.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 25
• Program BB. Encourage developers to setaside affordable units for the unsheltered population and those with extremely low
income.
• Program CC. Partner with the Housing
Authority of Alameda County to provide
referral services for the Housing Choice
Voucher Program and increase Section 8
Voucher acceptance rates in Emeryville.
• Program GG. Develop strategies to
expand the income earning potential of
very low-income residents by expanding
low barrier, low skill job opportunities
within the City.
• Program LL. To and remove barriers to
housing for special-needs groups,
including extremely low-income
households, the City will amend its
Planning Regulations to allow to permit
group residential uses with seven or more
residents through a ministerial process
rather than requiring a CUP to address the
needs of extremely low-income
households and expanding affordable
housing opportunities. Additionally, the
City will pursue adoption a group
residential preservation ordinance to
maintain existing housing available to
extremely low-income households.
• Program OO. To support senior residents,
the City will seek funding to support a
Housing Counselor to assist Seniors in
navigating and applying for affordable
housing opportunities and evaluate the
feasibility of creating a Shared Housing
Program.

3.5 Housing Costs and
Affordability

3.5.1 RENTAL MARKET COSTS
According to a rent study of 23 cities in the Bay
Area performed by Zumper, median rents for
one-bedroom units in Emeryville in June 2021
were higher than all but six cities in the study and
were above the state average. Emeryville rents
are higher than adjacent cities in the East Bay,
which may be attributable to the city’s attractive
location in close proximity to transit and major
job centers, as well as the style and amenities in
Emeryville developments and their relatively
recent construction. According to the Zumper
study, one-bedroom rents were similar in
Emeryville, Berkeley and Oakland at $2,200,
$2,190 and $2,000, respectively. The state median
rent for one-bedroom homes at the time was
approximately $1,800. Compared to rents the
year before, Emeryville’s median one-bedroom
rent had decreased by 12 percent. By comparison,
rents in Berkeley decreased by 8 percent in
Berkeley during the same time and 7 percent in
Oakland. According to the Zumper study, the
median rent for two-bedroom apartments in
Emeryville in June 2021 was $3,200, a decrease of

5.3 percent over the prior year. In Berkeley, the
median rent for units of this size was $3,000 and
in Oakland it was $2,530.

A June 2021 survey using Zillow.com found
rental listings in Emeryville to be comparable to
the rents cited by Zumper. As shown in Table 3-
24, average rents in Emeryville ranged from
$1,700 for a studio to $4,900 for a three-bedroom
home as of June 2021.

Table 3-24. Median Monthly Rental Price and
Rental Range by Unit Size, 2021
Number of
Bedrooms Rent Range Median Rent
Studio 1,700-2,600 2,169
1 bedroom 1,750-3,300 2,400
2 bedrooms 2,050-3,500 3,187
3 bedrooms 3,200-4,900 3,578
Source: Zillow, June 21, 2021.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the city has a
rental vacancy rate of 3.4 percent and a
homeowner rental vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. A
vacancy rate of about 6 percent is generally
considered to indicate a healthy market, one in
which there is adequate housing available to
allow for mobility but not so much as to depress
the market. A low vacancy rate indicates high
demand and results in upward price pressures.

Assuming that the household spent 30 percent of
its monthly income on housing costs (the
standard for affordability set by HUD), based on
State Income Limits for 2021:
• $2,193 is the maximum affordable rent for
a two-person, low-income household,
which is adequate to afford a studio but
not a one- or two-bedroom unit,
• $2,740 is the maximum affordable rent for
a four-person, low-income household,
which is adequate to afford a one-bedroom
but not a two- or three-bedroom unit,
• $3,014 is the maximum affordable rent for
a two-person, moderate-income
household, which would be adequate for a
one or two-bedroom unit,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 26 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• $3,768 is the maximum affordable rent for
a four-person, moderate-income
household, which would be adequate for a
two- or three-bedroom unit
Without subsidies or rent restrictions to units,
most rental housing in Emeryville is
unaffordable to extremely low-, very low-, and
low-income households.

During outreach activities for the preparation of
this Housing Element, including public meetings
and through the online housing survey, members
of the public expressed strong concerns
regarding rental home affordability for
households at all income levels.

To address rental affordability issues, the City
will work proactively to protect existing
affordable rental units at risk for converting to
market rate units (Program AA), offer a density
bonus for developments that include affordable
units in compliance with State law (Program A),
assist in the development of new affordable units
(Program G), provide financial incentives for the
restriction of additional below market rate units
for the special needs population (Program K),
and continue to partner with the Housing
Authority of Alameda County on providing
Section 8 Rental Assistance (Program CC).

3.5.2 HOME SALES PRICES
In 2020, the median home sales price in
Emeryville was $530,000 according to a real
estate market report prepared by Caldecott
Properties. Compared to 2019, the median sales
price decreased by 11.37 percent in 2020;
however, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to
have influenced home sales. The majority of
homes sold in Emeryville in 2020 were onebedroom units.

The median sales price in Emeryville has been
consistently lower than that in Berkeley, Albany,
Oakland, and Alameda County as a whole.

According to Redfin, the median sale price in
Berkeley in December 2020 was $1,560,000 and in
Oakland the median sale price was $780,000
during the same period. This is likely because
unit sizes in Emeryville are smaller and most
home sales in Emeryville are condominiums, in
which the costs of some amenities are reflected in
monthly homeowner association dues, rather
than in the sale prices of individual units.

Assuming a house payment of no more than 30
percent and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (note
that this includes costs such as a private
mortgage insurance payment, property taxes,
home insurance, and homeowner association
dues), a low-income household of two could
afford a purchase price of $191,821 and a
moderate-income household of two could afford
a purchase price of $420,026. With the median
home sale price of $530,000, it is unlikely that a
low-income household of two would be able to
access homeownership. A moderate-income
household of two might be able to access
homeownership, especially if they are prepared
to complete repairs and upgrades. A moderateincome household of four could afford a home priced at $510,419. Thus, homeownership may be
an affordable option for some moderate-income
households of four. However, the median sale
price of $530,000 was derived from all home sales
in Emeryville. 50 percent of Emeryville’s housing
stock are one-bedroom units and another 17
percent are studios, so the median sale price of
$530,000 likely represents a smaller home than a
household of four would be looking for.

However, a four-person low-income household
could only afford a home priced at $224,120. This
household would be extremely unlikely to find a
home of suitable size and condition priced at an
affordable level in Emeryville.

Emeryville residents who participated in the
community workshop emphasized the desire to
see increased homeownership in the city.

Homeownership can stabilize monthly costs and
may encourage longer residency in the city and
greater civic engagement. The City will
implement a variety of programs to increase
homeownership opportunities. The City will
evaluate the feasibility of increasing the number
of new affordable ownership residential units
required under the Affordable Housing Program
by reducing the requirement for the overall
number of residential units within a project
required to comply (Program A), acquire Below
Market Rates Ownership Units at risk of
foreclosure for resale to a new affordable
homeowner (Program I), offer down payment
assistance to low- and moderate-income
households (Program M), and encourage the
development and conversion of Live/Work units
as affordable homeownership options (Programs
P and M).

3.5.3 OVERPAYMENT
A household is considered to be overpaying for
housing and is cost burdened if it spends 30
percent or more of its gross income on housing
(including a rent or mortgage payment and
utility costs). A household is considered to be
severely cost burdened if it spends more than 50
percent of its gross income on housing costs.

Overpayment for housing can result in
insufficient income available for other basic
needs and services, including food, childcare,
and medical attention.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 27
As shown in Table 3-25, over one-third of
Emeryville households were overpaying for
housing as of 2017. Approximately 37 percent of
households were cost burdened, and 17 percent
were severely cost burdened. Overpayment was
problematic for both renter and owner
households. However, 42 percent of renter
households experienced a cost burden as
compared to 29 percent of owner households.

Approximately 52 percent of very low-income
households were severely cost burdened. Among
low-income households, 74 percent were cost
burdened and another 39 percent were severely
cost burdened. As previously discussed, marketrate housing prices in Emeryville are unaffordable to lower-income households. The
City will work to create greater affordable
housing opportunities for these households, as
stated in Programs A, D, G, H, K, M, O, BB, CC,
and OO.

3.6 Special Housing Needs
This section describes groups in the City of
Emeryville with a range of housing and
supportive service needs, including groups
defined in state housing element law as having
special needs. These groups consist of
agricultural workers, large families, femaleheaded households, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and people experiencing
homelessness. (See the end of section 3.3 for an
analysis of extremely low-income households.)

3.6.1 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households are identified as a specialneeds population because they may have difficulty locating adequately sized affordable
housing. Large households are defined by the US
Census as households containing five or more
persons (related or unrelated). As previously
discussed, Emeryville has a small household size
(average 1.81 persons) and few large households.

As shown in Table 3-25, only 2 percent of
Emeryville households have five or more people.

As shown in Table 3-10, studio and one-bedroom
units account for a large portion of the city’s
housing stock (approximately 64 percent or 4,169
units.) As of 2019, only 8 percent of Emeryville
homes had three or more bedrooms and there
were no homes with five or more bedrooms. As
shown in Table 3-26, the majority of large
households are renters, but this is primarily due
to the higher percentage of renters in the city
overall.

Members of the public and elected officials
expressed concern at the lack of housing units
large enough to accommodate larger families.

They expressed concern that the lack of
availability of these units may contribute to
displacement of current residents as their
families grow and may deter families from
moving to Emeryville.

Table 3-25. Housing Cost Burden, 2017
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Very Low Income ≤50% AMI 1,130 460 1,590
Percentage with cost burden 77% 62% 73%
Percentage with severe cost burden 57% 40% 52%
Low Income 51–80% AMI 495 230 725
Percentage with cost burden 34% 74% 74%
Percentage with severe cost burden 28% 61% 39%
Moderate Income and above >81% AMI 2,580 1,645 4,225
Percentage with cost burden 20% 13% 17%
Percentage with severe cost burden 1% 0% 1%
Total households with cost burden 1,765 675 2,440
Percentage with cost burden 42% 29% 37%
Total households with severe cost burden 815 325 1,140
Percentage with severe cost burden 19% 14% 17%
Total households 4,205 2,335 6,540
Source: HUD CHAS 2013-2017
Note: Due to differences in margins of error, table totals using CHAS data may not be consistent between tables in the Housing Element. AMI is Area Median Income.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 28 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The City will work to create greater opportunities
for larger households by encouraging developers
to provide larger unit sizes (Program R).

3.6.2 FEMALE-HEADED

HOUSEHOLDS
Female-headed households are considered a
special-needs group because of the
comparatively low rates of homeownership,
lower income levels, and disproportionately high
poverty rate experienced by this group. In
addition, female-headed households with
children can face housing discrimination. As
shown in Table 3-27, as of 2019, 7 percent of
Emeryville households (474 families) were
female-headed, and 46 percent of female-headed
families included children under the age of 18
(216 families). The 2015-2019 ACS estimated that
73 percent of single-person householders in
Emeryville were female.

Table 3-27. Household Types by Family Subtype,
2019
Household Type Population
Percentage
of Total
Households
Family Households 2,335 36%
With Own Children 663 10%
Married Couple
Families 1,686 26%
With Own Children 415 6%
Female Householders 474 7%
With Own Children 216 3%
Male Householders 175 3%
With Own Children 32 0%
Non-family Households 4,233 64%
Total Households 6,568 100%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) The Federal Poverty Level (FPL), also known as
the "poverty line," is the amount of annualized
income earned by a household, below which they
would be eligible to receive certain welfare
benefits, as computed annually by the US Census
Bureau. In 2019, the poverty line was $12,490 for
a household of one plus $4,420 for each
additional household member. The poverty line
for a four-person household was $25,750.

Amounts are somewhat higher for 2021;
however, 2019 data is shown since Table 3-27
contains data from 2019. As shown in Table 3-28,
while approximately 9 percent of all family
households and female-headed households
without children were living below the poverty
line, approximately 40 percent of all femaleheaded households with children were living below the poverty line.

This group may benefit from City efforts to
provide affordable family housing. As stated in
Program R, the City will work to encourage
additional housing that includes
multigenerational on-site amenities and
multipurpose rooms that can be used for afterschool homework clubs and other resident activities. Additionally, the City will work with
Emery Unified School District to promote
affordable housing opportunities for at-risk
families (Program HH).

In addition to economic problems, single-mother
families may be vulnerable to displacement due
to domestic violence. According to the 2018
EveryOne Home report prepared by a
Countywide collaborative of homeless services
providers, as of 2018, 175 emergency shelter beds
and 47 units of Rapid ReHousing were available
exclusively for women escaping domestic
violence and 32 beds in transitional housing were
available specifically for victims of domestic
abuse in Alameda County.

Table 3-26. Household Size by Tenure, 2019
Household Size
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Number of
Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage 1 to 4 persons 2,226 99% 4,228 98% 6,454 98%
5 or more persons 20 1% 94 2% 114 2%
Total households 2,246 4,322 6,568
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 29

3.6.3 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Seniors are considered to have special needs
because they are more likely to have fixed
incomes, making it difficult to afford rent
increases or home maintenance costs. As of 2019,
approximately 16 percent of householders in
Emeryville were 65 years of age or older. The
largest cohort among renters and owners were
between 65 and 74 years. As shown in Table 3-29,
the ownership rate among senior households is
greater than that of the city as a whole.

Table 3-29. Senior Households by Tenure and Age,
2019
Many senior households live on limited incomes.

As shown in Table 3-30, as of 2019,
approximately 38 percent of Emeryville senior
households had an annual income of less than
$30,000. Low annual incomes can impact seniors’
ability to pay rising housing costs or pay for basic
services.

Two apartment buildings in Emeryville are
reserved for very low-income seniors: Emery
Villa (50 units) and Avalon Senior Apartments
(66 units). Watermark provides 30 independent
living units, 63 assisted living units, and 44
memory care units, all market-rate, with a
capacity to accommodate 175 seniors.

Table 3-30. Senior Households by Income, 2019
Annual Income Number Percentage
Less than $30,000 401 38%
$30,000 to $49,999 225 21%
$50,000 to $74,999 164 15%
$75,000 to $99,999 93 9%
More than $100,000 182 17%
Total 1,065 100%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) The Alameda County Area Agency on Aging is
the local arm of the national aging network that
works to advance the social and economic health
of elders (age 60 and over) in the county. In 2016,
the agency completed a Four-Year Plan on Aging
(as of July 2021, this was still the most current
plan). The Four-Year Plan on Aging includes data
and surveys identifying issues facing seniors
residing in the North County (Alameda, Albany,
Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont).

The top-rated concern from survey respondents
was having adequate money for living expenses,
followed by having adequate money to plan and
save. In public outreach performed as part of
developing the Four-Year Plan, all focus groups
indicated transportation access as a major
concern and expressed a desire to have more
affordable housing integrated into market-rate,
mixed-age housing. Access to information about
available resources was also indicated as a
challenge by participants in the agency’s
outreach efforts.

Table 3-28. Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, 2019 Group Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level Totals Number Percent Number Percent Female-Headed Households 355 74.9% 119 25.1% 474
with Children 146 59.6% 99 40.4% 245
with No Children 209 91.3% 20 8.7% 229
Total Family Households 2,111 90.4% 224 9.6% 2,335
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 Household Age
Renters Owners Total
Number of
Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage 65 to 74 years 278 6% 350 16% 628 10%
75 to 84 years 93 2% 172 8% 265 4%
85+ years 81 2% 91 4% 172 3%
Total Households with
Senior Householder 452 10% 613 27% 1,065 16%
Total Households 4,322 - 2,246 - 6,568 -
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 30 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The need for affordable senior housing was noted
in community workshop polls, in the online
survey, and at hearings during the preparation of
this Housing Element (See Appendix B). In
addition to housing that is affordable, seniors
need housing that is accessible and within
walking distance to services and amenities, such
as pharmacies and grocery stores. As stated in
Programs G, W, and OO, the City will support
the development of affordable senior housing
facilities.

3.6.4 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
A disability is defined broadly by the US Census
as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that
lasts over a long period of time and makes it
difficult to live independently. Special needs for
access and affordability can make it difficult for
persons with disabilities to find adequate
housing. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, there
were no Emeryville residents aged 17 or younger
with one or more disabilities. However, due to
small sample sizes, this may not be accurate. Out
of Emeryville’s adult civilian
noninstitutionalized population (11,892 people),
approximately 10 percent (1,068 people) had one
or more disabilities. Among the 1,068 adults that
reported having one or more type of disability,
the instances of each type of disability are shown
in Table 3-31. They are ranked in order of
frequency.
1 Behavioral Health Services, Alameda County. August 3, 2021 (adopted). Mental Health Services Act Annual Plan Update, Fiscal Year 2021-2022, pg. 40.

Table 3-31. Disabilities by Type, 2015-2019
Disability Number of
Instances Percentage1
With an ambulatory
difficulty 666 62.4%
With an independentliving difficulty 436 40.8%
With a cognitive
difficulty 372 34.8%
With a hearing difficulty 310 29.0%
With a self-care
difficulty 292 27.3%
With a vision difficulty 195 18.3%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021
1 Among the 1,068 adults reporting one or more type of disability.

Since people may have more than one type of disability type, percentages do not equal 100.

The cost of housing is a significant barrier. Many
with disabilities depend on Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) as their sole source of
income and would be considered extremely low
income. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the
mean SSI for households in Emeryville receiving
assistance was $8,498 per year ($708 per month).

SSI payments alone leave recipients near the
poverty level, established at $12,490 per year in
2019 for a one-person household (US Department
of Health and Human Services poverty
guidelines).
• The City is committed to ensuring
housing is usable and accessible for all
people, including those with disabilities
and will look to support those with
disabilities through Program K, O, X and
UU.

Mental Illness. People with behavioral health
problems, including mental illness and/or
substance abuse, face substantial challenges
obtaining and maintaining stable housing. In
2019, 9.7 percent of Alameda County residents
“likely has had serious psychological distress in
the past year.” However, 74.8 percent of Alameda
County residences who needed assistance for
mental/emotional and/or alcohol/drug issues,
received assistance. Also, Alameda County has a
ratio of 160 residents per 1 mental health
provider.1

3.6.5 PERSONS WITH

DEVELOPMENTAL

DISABILITIES
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, “development disability”
means a disability that originates before an
individual attains age 18 years, continues or can
be expected to continue indefinitely, and
constitutes a substantial disability for that
individual, which includes intellectual disability,
cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term
also includes disabling conditions found to be
closely related to intellectual disability or to
require treatment similar to that required for
individuals with intellectual disabilities but does
not include other handicapping conditions that
are solely physical in nature.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 31
Many developmentally disabled persons can live
and work independently in a conventional
housing environment. More severely disabled
individuals require a group living environment
where supervision is provided. The most
severely affected individuals may require an
institutional environment where medical
attention and physical therapy are provided.

Because developmental disabilities exist before
adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing
for the developmentally disabled is the transition
from the person’s living situation as a child to an
appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The California Department of Developmental
Services (DDS) provides community-based
services to approximately 329,002 persons with
developmental disabilities and their families (as
of 2020) through a statewide system of 21
regional centers, 4 developmental centers, and 2
community-based facilities. The Regional Center
of the East Bay (RCEB) serves Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties. The center is a private,
nonprofit community agency that contracts with
local businesses and organizations to offer a
range of services to individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families.

According to data provided by the RCEB, in
collaboration with the Housing Consortium of
the East Bay (HCEB), there were 66 persons with
development disabilities in the 94608-zip code,
which is primarily located in Emeryville, as of
2020. Table 3-32 provides an estimate of
developmentally disabled residents by age.

Approximately 61 percent of developmentally
disabled residents were aged 18 years or older.

Table 3-32. Developmentally Disabled Residents by
Age, 2020
Age Range Number of
Persons Percentage
18 years and younger 26 39%
18 and older 40 61%
Total 66 100%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020), ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021
A variety of housing types are appropriate for
people living with a developmental disability:
rent-subsidized housing with services that is
accessible and close to transit and community
resources, tax credit-financed special-needs
housing, licensed and unlicensed modified
single-family homes (typically three to five
bedrooms), inclusionary units within larger
developments, Section 8 vouchers,
homeownership through financial assistance
programs, and housing specially modified for the
medically fragile (Senate Bill 962 homes).

Affordability is a particular concern, as many
persons with developmental disabilities live on
extremely low fixed incomes.

The City is committed to facilitating the
development of housing appropriate for persons
with developmental disabilities. In 2020, the City
studied the potential for expanding housing for
residents with supportive services needs using a
Master Lease program. The City also continues to
support Rebuilding Together East Bay and the
Alameda County Health Homes Program to
provide accessibility grants that can help lowincome households make necessary accessibility alterations to their home.

To improve access to housing for those with
developmental disabilities, this Housing Element
includes Program O to evaluate the feasibility of
providing developers an option of setting aside
affordable rental unit for people living with
developmental disabilities by producing a
smaller percentage of affordable units than
required. Program K commits the City to
providing a financial incentive for restricting
additional Below Market Rate units for the
disabled in existing or new developments
beyond what is required under the Affordable
Housing Program. In addition, the City will
encourage the development of a variety of
housing types that can accommodate persons
with disabilities, such as shelter-plus-care units
and care facilities for those with severe
disabilities (Program O).

3.6.6 PERSONS LIVING WITH

HIV/AIDS
According to the report, HIV in Alameda County,
2017-2019 by Alameda County Public Health
Department, HIV Epidemiology and
Surveillance Unit, as of 2019, an estimated total of
6,350 persons were living with HIV/AIDS in
Alameda County, per the Alameda County
Public Health Department. The majority were
male (83.8 percent), and the racial/ethnic group
with the highest proportion of cases was African
American (38.4 percent). The City of Emeryville
had the highest HIV prevalence within the
county, which was most densely concentrated in
the southern and eastern neighborhoods of the
city. This concentration correlates with the
location of majority of affordable and assisted
housing. According to Figure 3-1, census tracts in
the northern portion of Emeryville (land north of
Standford Ave) have approximately 410 to 729
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 32 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
cases of people living with HIV per 100,000
people. Census tracts in South Emeryville are
much more concentrated at an approximate case
of 1,229 to 2,287 per 100,000 people. Even though
Emeryville does not have the highest
concentration of people living with HIV, the data
must be interpreted with Emeryville’s smaller
population (in comparison to the rest of the
county). As a result, these findings indicate a
higher concentration of persons living with HIV
than the rest of Alameda County.

People with HIV and AIDS encounter significant
housing problems, similar to those of the elderly
and disabled persons. This can be because of
limited incomes or the structural capacity of the
housing supply to accommodate their physical
needs. In Emeryville, Baybridge Apartments,
Ambassador Housing and Estrella Vista offer
housing reserved for households living with
HIV/AIDS.

As of 2021, the Alameda County HIV/AIDS
housing and service system continued to be
supported by two federal programs: HUD’s
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) program and the Ryan White CARE
Act. HOPWA funds are used for the
development of emergency, transitional, and
permanent housing. According to the US Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),
Ryan White funds cannot be used for permanent
rental or ownership housing, and the use of
HOPWA for services should be limited to 35
percent of the total grant amount in a given
project.

Alameda County has offered a short-term rent,
mortgage, and utility subsidy program for
people living with HIV/AIDS since 1996.

Additionally, Project Independence provides
Icon at Park Apartments at 1401 Park Avenue includes the reuse of Significant Structure #62 in Table 9-5.1210 of the Planning Regulations.
partial rent subsidies, support service
coordination, and accessibility improvements to
people living with HIV/AIDS who are at risk of
homelessness.

3.6.7 PERSONS EXPERIENCING

HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness and housing instability have wideranging negative impacts. Persons or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming
homeless are often unable to reach their full
potential at home, at work, at school, or in the
community. Homelessness is a symptom of a
wide range of challenges. The high cost of
housing in Alameda County increases cases of
homelessness and presents a barrier to its
prevention.

Alameda County has made a significant
investment in affordable housing and services
related to homelessness, behavioral health, and
HIV/AIDS. In May 2022, the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors endorsed the Home
Together 2026 Community Plan (the “Home
Together Plan”). The Home Together Plan is a 5-
year strategic initiative that sets forth the
strategies, activities and resources needed to
reduce homelessness in Alameda County. The
Home Together Plan has four goals:
• Preventing homelessness for residents
• Connecting people to shelter and direct
resources
• Increasing housing solutions
• Strengthening coordination,
communication, and capacity.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 33
Figure 3-1: People Living with HIV, Oakland & Surrounding Area, Year-End 2019 Source: HIV in Alameda County, 2017-2019 by Alameda County Public Health Department, HIV Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 34 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3.6.7.1.1 Homeless Count
Every two years, EveryOne Home completes a
point-in-time count of the homeless population
in Alameda County. The count was most recently
completed in February 2022, preliminary results
were released in May 2022 and full results were
published in July 2022. As shown in Table 3-33,
the February 2022 count found 9,747 homeless
persons in the county, an approximately 22-
percent increase over 8,022 homeless estimated in
the 2019 count. Due to the small size of its staff,
the City of Emeryville does not directly collect
data on the number of homeless persons in the
city. As of the 2022 point-in-time count, there
were 0 sheltered residents and 91 unsheltered
residents experiencing homelessness in
Emeryville.

Table 3-33. Alameda County-Homeless Count,
2009-2022
Year Homeless
Population
Percentage
Change
2009 4,341 —
2011 4,178 -4%
2013 4,264 2%
2015 4,040 -5%
2017 5,629 39%
2019 8,022 43%
2022 9,747 22%
Source: Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report, 2019; Alameda County Homeless Point-In-Time Count and Survey 2022
As shown in Table 3-34, in 2022 no homeless
households with children were identified in
Emeryville. Of the 91 homeless adults, 10 percent
were 18-24 years old and 90 percent were over the
age of 25 Countywide, five percent (486) of
homeless individuals were 18 years old or
younger.

As shown in Table 3-35, the 2022 count found
2,612 sheltered homeless individuals in Alameda
County (including the cities and unincorporated
County). This is a 53 percent increase as
compared with the 2019 count, which found
1,710 sheltered homeless individuals
countywide. The number of unsheltered
homeless individuals increased by 13 percent,
from 6,312 in 2019 to 7135 in 2022. (See Programs
O, QQ, BB and LL.)
Table 3-34. Homeless Households With and Without Children, 2022 Age Range Emeryville Alameda County
Count Percentage Count Percentage
In households with
children
0 to 18 0 0% 486 5%
18 to 24 0 0% 69 1%
25+ 0 0% 289 3%
In households
without children
18 to 24 9 10% 735 8%
25+ 82 90% 8,071 84%
Total 91 100% 9,650 100%
Source: Alameda County Point-In-Time Count and Survey, 2022 Table 3-35. Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Population, 2019 and 2022 2019 2022 Percentage
Change Count Percentage Count Percentage
Total sheltered 1,710 21% 2,612 27% 53%
Unsheltered 6,312 79% 7,135 73% 13%
Total Homeless Population 8,022 100% 9,747 100% 22%
Source: Alameda County Point-In-Time Count and Survey, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 35
As shown in Table 3-36, the 2019 count found an
increased number of people with severe mental
illness experiencing homelessness (2,590
individuals, or 32 percent of the total homeless
population) compared to the 2013 count, which
identified 1,106 individuals or 26 percent of the
total homeless population. During the same time
period, the 2019 homeless count found an
increase in the number of homeless individuals
having chronic substance abuse problems (from
1,289 to 1,897); however, as a percentage of all
homeless individuals, those with chronic
substance abuse problems decreased from 30
percent to 24 percent.

Table 3-36. Homeless with Special Needs, 2013
and 2019
2013 2019
With severe mental
illness 1,106 2,590
As percentage of total
homeless population 26% 32%
With chronic substance
abuse 1,289 1,897
As percentage of total
homeless population 30% 24%
Source: Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report, November 2019, ABAG Data Profiles for Housing Elements, 2021 Alameda County Behavioral Health Care
Services (BHCS) operates a housing assistance
program, called EveryOne Home Fund, for
adults with serious mental illness or children
with a BHCS provider. The program can fund
short-term rental assistance to prevent
homelessness and longer-term rental assistance
for BHCS program clients.

See also Section 5.5.3.

3.6.7.1.2 Local Resources
In addition to the resources described herein, see

6.2 Financial and Administrative Resources for
more details. Due to the small size of its staff, the
City of Emeryville does not directly collect data
on the number of homeless persons in the city. In
February 2022, the County Continuum of Care,
Everyone Home, led Alameda County’s Point-inTime (PIT). As of the point-in-time count, there were 0 sheltered residents and 91 unsheltered
residents experiencing homelessness. Currently,
the City of Emeryville has a contract with
Operation Dignity, an Emeryville-based
homelessness outreach and housing navigation
services provider, through 2023. The City
continues to participate in the Alameda County
Urban County Technical Advisory Committee
and the HOME Technical Advisory Committee.

In 2017, the City joined Berkeley and Albany in
the North County Homeless Hub. The City
adopted a Homeless Strategy in 2018 which sets
forth goals and implementation measures
intended to address homelessness. At that time,
the City approved a total of $305,000 in funding
for homeless services, a substantial increase over
previous years. The City is actively working with
various governmental and non-governmental
partners on identifying ways to support those
who are homeless and to implement efforts to
prevent and end homelessness. The City is also
supporting the development of permanent
supportive housing through the 3600 San Pablo
Avenue project, which will create 25 permanent
supportive housing units for very low-income
households upon completion.

In 2019 the City approved a temporary
emergency shelter for families at the former City
Recreation Center located at 4300 San Pablo
Avenue, in the MUR zone. The project was
operated by the East Oakland Community
Project (EOCP). The site had been previously
earmarked for a low-income senior housing
project. The developer selection, planning
entitlement, and building permit processes for
such a project would be expected to take about
two years, during which time the site was able to
be used for the temporary emergency family
shelter. As of May 2022, the City had selected a
developer and was in the process of negotiating
a Lease Disposition and Development
Agreement (LDDA) with them.

As is shown in Table 3-37, within Alameda
County, almost two-thirds of all year-round
homeless housing resources (65 percent of all
beds) in the county are for adults only, including
the majority of emergency shelter beds. An
additional 34 percent are available to families.

Within these beds, 95 emergency shelter beds and
699 beds of permanent supportive housing are
available to veterans.

The Besler Building at 4053 Harlan includes 42 condominiums and is listed as Significant Structure #68 in Table 9-5.1210 of the Planning Regulations.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 36 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The City provides funding to the Emeryville
Community Action Program (ECAP), which
collects food donations and provides hot meals to
community members in need. This volunteer-run
service continues throughout the year with
additional special holiday programs. ECAP
provides more than 300 food bags every day on
Monday through Saturday. According to a
November 2020 memo to the Emeryville City
Council, ECAP provided approximately 289,614
distributions of food (including duplicates)
annually based on their 2019 annual report.

While ECAP does not collect data on how many
of these clients are housed versus homeless, it is
likely that a fair number of the clients are
homeless or extremely low income. The high
demand for this program is evidence of a large
number of people that are living with very little
means and need emergency food assistance.

Another major support service location for the
homeless is located one mile south of Emeryville
on the San Pablo Avenue corridor—the Society of
St. Vincent de Paul of Alameda County (SVdP).

According to a November 2020 memorandum to
City Council, the City of Emeryville in
partnership with the City of Oakland has
supported shelter beds annually since FY 2015-
2016. The initial fiscal support was $15,000
annually but has risen to $30,000 annually in
recent years.

The City also provides an annual allocation of
funds to support the EveryOne Home Plan’s
Housing Management Information System
(HMIS). Since 2005, this program has been used
to track the number of homeless individuals
receiving housing and service throughout
Alameda County.

3.6.7.2 Agricultural Workers/
Farmworkers
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 10
Emeryville residents work in the agriculture or
natural resources industries. Thus, Emeryville
does not need special housing for agricultural
workers. The 2017 Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Agricultural Census estimates there are
approximately 593 hired farmworkers in
Alameda County, with 305 estimated to be
permanent labor and 288 estimated to be seasonal
workers. Increasing the supply of housing
affordable to lower income households could
potentially benefit farmworkers. Therefore, the
City is committed to increasing the supply of
affordable housing for low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income households (Programs A,
G, H, I, and Y). Additionally, the City will
amend the Planning Regulations to comply with
Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 and will
establish a definition of employee housing and
ensure permitting requirements are compliant
(Program LL).

3.6.8 LOCAL OPPORTUNITY
GROUPS
Based on community input, the City has
identified several groups that are a particular
area of focus. These local opportunity groups are
families with children, low-income households
or families, and seniors. Additionally, the City
values supporting the ability of artists, City and
Emery Unified School District (EUSD) employees
to live in the city.

3.6.8.1 Families with Children
According to the US Census, approximately 10
percent of Emeryville households (663
households) were families with children under

18. In Alameda County, Oakland, and Berkeley,
30, 24, and 19 percent of households were
families with children, respectively.

During outreach activities for the preparation of
this Housing Element, community members and
Housing Committee members expressed concern
that the style, size, and cost of housing in
Emeryville is forcing out existing and potential
family households. Families move to seek
housing with more child-friendly amenities,
homes with multiple bedrooms, and more
affordable rents or purchase prices.

Table 3-37. Homeless Housing Resources in Alameda County, 2020 Family Units Family Beds Adult-Only
Beds
Total YearRound Beds Seasonal Overflow/
Voucher
Emergency Shelter 109 391 974 1,383 160 33
Safe Haven 0 0 32 32 0 0
Transitional Housing 50 163 454 617 0 0
Permanent Supportive
Housing 441 1,205 2,325 3,545 0 0
Rapid Re-Housing 102 353 278 633 0 0
Total 702 2,112 4,063 6,210 160 33
Source: Alameda County Continuum of Care Report, HUD, 2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT | 37
Thus, the community would like to promote
family-friendly housing for all income levels, and
particularly seek opportunities to provide
housing that is affordable to low- and moderateincome families. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 24 percent of children under 18 in
Emeryville were living below the poverty line. By
comparison, around 12 percent of residents
between 18 and 64 and around 17 percent of
residents 65 or over were living below the
poverty line.

The City has taken efforts to promote affordable
housing opportunities for Emeryville families.

The City’s Affordable Housing Set-Aside
(AHSA) Ordinance requires that a preference for
existing Emeryville residents and/or employees
be applied in the lotteries for new below-marketrate (BMR) housing, which enables Emeryville families to have an opportunity to apply for and
obtain affordable for-sale BMR housing.

Program R specifically commits the City to
continued actions to encourage the development
of family-oriented affordable housing. The City
will promote housing that includes larger units,
usable outdoor open space, community rooms,
and other child-friendly amenities.

3.6.8.2 Artists
Emeryville is well endowed with artists, and the
community places great value in the arts. The
Emeryville Artist Co-Op consists of 56 live/work
units that are affordable to low- and moderateincome artists. It provides some space for resident artists, but not nearly enough to support
the sizeable community. The City continues to
recognize the artists currently living in
Emeryville and encourages the growth of artist
community in the city.

Many projects in Emeryville include live/work
units, and additional live/work units are planned
and under construction. Programs PP and Q
commit the City to engage with the artist and
craftperson community to assess their housing
needs, continuing to encourage the development
of live/work spaces and ensure that those projects
that contain affordable live/work units conduct
targeted marketing to the artist and craftsperson
community.

3.6.8.3 City and School District Employees
It is within the public interest for City and school
district employees to live in Emeryville. Workers
who live nearby spend less time and energy
commuting, and essential service employees
such as Police Department personnel are closer in
case of emergency.

To encourage City and EUSD employees to live
in Emeryville, the City has special assistance
available through its First-Time Homebuyer
Program for both market-rate units and BMR
units for these groups. In addition, the City
waives its first-time homebuyer requirement and
program income limits, although applicants
purchasing BMR units must have incomes that
do not exceed the moderate-income limits. The
City will continue to offer the First Time
Homebuyer Program (Program M) to City and
EUSD employees.

Opportunities for City and EUSD employees are
also available through the AHSA Ordinance,
which gives lottery preference for BMR units to
persons who work in Emeryville (second only to
persons who are already Emeryville residents)
(Program QQ). As stated in Program FF, the City
will establish a communication channel with
EUSD to market all affordable housing
opportunities in Emeryville.

3.7 Regional Housing Needs
Allocation
State law (California Government Code Section
65580 et seq.) requires the California Department
of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to project statewide housing needs and
allocate the anticipated need to each region in the
state. For the Bay Area, including Emeryville,
HCD provides the regional need to ABAG, which
then distributes the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) to the cities and counties
within the ABAG region.

Projected housing needs in the RHNA are
described by income categories as established by
HCD: very low, low, moderate, and above
moderate. Additionally, recent state housing
element legislation requires jurisdictions to
project housing needs for extremely low-income
households, which is assumed to be half of the
very low-income allocation.

Emeryville’s share of the 2023 to 2031 RHNA is
1,815 units. Table 3-38 provides a breakdown of
units by income category.

Table 3-38. 2023–2031 RHNA by Income Category
Income Category Number Of
Units
Percentage Of
Total
Extremely low1 225 14%
Very low 226 14%
Low 259 16%
Moderate 308 19%
Above moderate 797 50%
Total 1,815 100%
Source: ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA, 2021
1 Number of units for Extremely Low-Income households was calculated by assuming half of the allocation for Very Low-income households
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 38 | HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Local governments can employ a variety of
strategies to meet RHNA housing production
goals, as provided in California Government
Code Section 65583(c)(1), including vacant land
zoned for residential uses, development of
second units, and the potential for
redevelopment of underutilized sites. As
described in the sites inventory section in
Chapter 6, Housing Resources, Emeryville has
sites zoned for residential development at a range
of densities to exceed the RHNA for all income
categories.

The Watergate, built as a low-rise "marina-style" apartment complex was converted to condominiums in the late 1970s.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 39

4. Constraints
The purpose of the Constraints chapter is to analyze the factors that encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of the housing stock in the city. The chapter reviews the City’s policies and procedures related to land use and zoning, design review, building code standards, permit processing, and development fees. Non-governmental constraints, such as physical geography, land availability, land cost, construction costs, and market prices are also assessed.

The Glashaus Condominiums as seen from the Emeryville Greenway between 65th Street and Ocean Avenue. The Glashaus Condominiums were constructed in 2008 and include 145 residential units and multiple ground floor retail and restaurant spaces.

4. DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 40 | CONSTRAINTS

4.1 Introduction
Government policies, such as land use and
zoning regulations, design review requirements,
building code standards, permit processing
procedures, development fees and exactions, and
environmental regulations, are intended to
ensure that housing is safe and appropriate for
the community. However, these requirements
may act as barriers to housing production and
improvement by inhibiting the feasibility of
housing projects. Non-governmental constraints,
such as physical geography, land availability,
land cost, construction costs, and market prices,
may also impact the availability and price of
housing. This chapter examines these potential
constraints under current conditions in
Emeryville.

4.2 Potential Governmental
Constraints

4.2.1 LAND USE REGULATIONS
Governmental constraints are policies, standards,
requirements, or actions imposed by the various
levels of government upon land and housing
ownership and development. Although federal
and state agencies play a role in the imposition of
governmental constraints, these agencies are
beyond the influence of local government and are
therefore not addressed in this document. As
appropriate, the City will monitor federal and
State legislation that could impact housing and
support, or change additions to existing
legislation. The City will update the Planning
Regulations, as needed, to comply with any new
housing related planning or zoning laws enacted
by the State during the Cycle 6 Planning Period
(Program MM).

4.2.1.1 General Plan
Each city and county in California must prepare
a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to
guide its future. The Land Use Element of the
General Plan establishes the basic land uses and
density of development within each jurisdiction.

Under state law, the General Plan elements must
be internally consistent, and each jurisdiction’s
zoning must be consistent with its General Plan.

Thus, the Land Use Element must provide
suitable locations and densities to implement the
policies of the Housing Element.

The Emeryville General Plan was adopted in 2009
and most recently amended in 2019. The General
Plan provides a framework for development and
is intended to guide the city’s continued
transition from an industrial center to a diverse
and vibrant community.

Density, building intensity (or floor area ratio
[FAR]), and building height are established in the
Land Use Element and implemented by the
Municipal Code. As discussed in context of the
General Plan, density, FAR, and building height
are not directly correlated with land use
designations and zoning districts and are instead
established by the General Plan Floor Area Ratios
Map, General Plan Maximum Building Height
Map, and General Plan Residential Densities
Map. (To refer to these maps, see the City’s Land
Use Element.) Each map designates a base
maximum ratio (FAR and density) or limit
(height) per area and a maximum development
bonus ratio/limit that may be conditionally
permitted for projects demonstrating a
significant public benefit, such as public open
space, family-friendly housing, or sustainable
design.

Table 4-1 provides an overview of land use
categories that allow residential development as
well as the corresponding zoning districts. As
density is not established by land use
classifications, descriptions only include general
explanation of residential use types typified in
the land use classification.

Without considering density bonuses, existing
policies allow residential densities ranging from
20 units per acre in the eastern neighborhoods to
85 units per acre in the Powell/Christie core.

These densities can be achieved along with:

1. Building intensities that range from 0.5 to

3.0 FAR without a bonus and up to 6.0
FAR with a bonus in the Powell/Christie
core.

2. Building heights that range from 30 to
over 75 feet without a bonus, and over
100 feet with bonus in the Powell/Christie
core.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 41

4.2.1.2 Area Plans
The City, adopted six area plans between 1990
and 2012, predating the City’s General Plan
amendments and comprehensive update to the
Municipal Code. The area plans have been
developed for specific neighborhoods to guide
streetscape design and/or development projects
through tailored development standards and
policies. These plans are intended to preserve
and enhance neighborhood character and
establish a cohesive aesthetic that strengthens
neighborhood identity and fosters a sense of
community. The General Plan amendments and
comprehensive update to the Municipal Code
incorporated some of the suggested changes
identified in the area plans, most notably
codifying portions of the North Hollis Overlay
Zone and the Park Avenue Overlay Zone. These
plans have also been used to implement new
public amenities such as the sidewalks and street
trees on Park Avenue (Park Avenue District Plan)
and the creation of the Emeryville Greenway
(North Hollis Area Urban Design Program).

As of December 2021, the City, has been
formulating objective design and development
standards and plans to adopt them in mid-2023.

As a part of this effort and to comply with the
requirements of the Housing Accountability Act,
Senate Bill (SB) 330, and SB 35, the City is
reviewing the design regulations and guidelines
for multifamily and residential mixed use set
forth in the area plans. The City, will identify
unique guidelines specific to districts to retain,
key design principles that could have citywide
applicability, and redundant or obsolete
guidelines that should be removed. Guidelines
from some of the area plans will be incorporated
into the City’s objective standards. The City,
initiated this effort in June 2020 with its awarded
SB2 grant funding and will complete before the
end of 2023 (Program C). The North Hollis Area
Urban Design Program, San Pablo Avenue Urban
Design Plan, and Park Avenue District Plan are
available on the City’s website. The South
Bayfront Design Guidelines are fully
implemented and not posted on the City’s
website.

4.2.1.2.1 North Hollis Area Urban Design
Program (Adopted 2002)
The North Hollis Area Urban Design Program is
implemented through the North Hollis Overlay
Zone. The plan covers the northeast corner of the
city and calls for infill residential uses that
complement the existing neighborhood. The plan
is also intended to stimulate use of the greenway,
discourage through traffic, balance automobile
access with other transportation modes, provide
sufficient public parking, and encourage private
development that enhances neighborhood
character and promotes pedestrian
improvements of the area. Sections of the North
Hollis Area Urban Design have been successfully
implemented, including design guidelines for
sidewalks. However, some design standards,
including FAR, have been made obsolete through
General Plan amendments and a comprehensive
update to Municipal Code.

Table 4-1: Residential Land Use Classifications
Land Use Classification Implementing Zoning District Description High Density Residential High Density Residential (RH) Mid- or high-rise residential development.

Medium High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential (RMH) Residential development generally at maximum FARs ranging from 1.0 to 1.6.

Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (RM) Residential development at FARs of 1.0 or less. Single-family units and duplexes are permitted uses; multifamily housing types require either a major or minor conditional use permit, subject to the Municipal Code.

Mixed Use with Residential Mixed Use with Residential (MUR) and Mixed Use with Residential South (MURS)
One or more of a variety of residential and nonresidential uses. On larger sites of over an acre, a mix of residential and nonresidential uses is required; on smaller sites, a single use may be permitted.

Mixed Use with Nonresidential Mixed Use with Nonresidential (MUN) Not generally a residential classification; however, live/work units are permitted.

Industrial Light Industrial (INL) and Heavy Industrial (INH) Not generally a residential classification; however, “light” live/work is allowable in the east of Hollis and Horton Street industrial areas, and “heavy” live/work (e.g., work involving manufacturing, welding, and assembly) is allowable in the industrial area west of Hollis.

Source: City of Emeryville General Plan, 2019
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 42 | CONSTRAINTS

4.2.1.2.2 San Pablo Avenue Urban Design Plan
(Adopted 1990)
The San Pablo Avenue Urban Design Plan
outlines a phased strategy for the development of
San Pablo Avenue into an active, attractive
neighborhood retail center. The document targets
land use for a few specific catalyst projects,
establishes goals for public circulation and
streetscape improvements, and provides design
guidelines for new development. The plan was
written in 1990 and the majority of it has already
been implemented. The design guidelines
support low-density commercial and are largely
outdated from the City’s current mixed-use
commercial and high-density residential context.

4.2.1.2.3 South Bayfront Design Guidelines
(Adopted 1997)
The South Bayfront Design Guidelines cover the
area south of Powell Street between the railroad
and Interstate 80 (I-80). The plan outlines eight
high-level site design principles for the
development of the district and presents three
conceptual models. These guidelines were
established in 1997. Since that time, much of the
South Bayfront area has been developed
accordingly through the Bay Street
redevelopment.

4.2.1.2.4 Park Avenue District Plan (Adopted
2006)
The Park Avenue District Plan establishes
incentives and development guidelines intended
to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood. It
seeks to preserve the area’s small parcels and
historic buildings and encourages private
development of live/work housing, small-scale
businesses, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility,
and 24-hour community uses. Public
investments, such as an arts center, community
open space, and improved sidewalks, will
complement this improved district. Sidewalks
and streetscape along Park Avenue, west of
Hollis Street, has been successfully built out in
accordance with this area plan. However, design
guidelines for FAR and height have been made
obsolete through General Plan amendments and
the comprehensive update to the Municipal
Code.

4.2.1.3 Municipal Code (Zoning)
Emeryville’s Municipal Code, which was
originally adopted in 1995 and is periodically
updated, establishes zoning districts that
implement the General Plan land use
classifications. Table 4-2 shows residential uses,
the zoning districts in which they are permitted,
and whether they are permitted by right (without
discretionary action) or with a conditional use
permit (CUP). This flexible approach allows
residential permitting on approximately 57
percent of the land in Emeryville. The Municipal
Code is available online on the City’s website.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 43
Table 4-2: Zones Where Residential Uses Are Permitted
Residential Use RM RMH RH MUR MURS MUN INL INH
Single unit P — — — — — — —
Two units P — — — — — — —
Multi-unit CM P P P4 P4 — — —
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) /junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) P P P P P Domestic violence shelter C C C C C — — —
Low-barrier navigation center CM2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Emergency shelter — — — C P C C —
Factory-Built Housing (Manufactured homes)5 P
Group residential, including single-room occupancy (SRO), boarding houses, and dormitories Small (six or fewer persons) P P P P P — — —
Large (seven or more persons) C C C C C — — —
Mobile home park5 C — — — — — — —
Residential care facility
Limited (six or fewer persons) P P P P P — — —
General (seven or more persons)1 C C C C C — — —
Supportive housing
Single unit or two units P — — — — — — —
Multi-unit CM P P P P — — —
Transitional housing
Single unit or two units P — — — — — — —
Multi-unit CM P P P P — — —
Live/work unit
Heavy — — — — — — — CM
Light C C C C C C C —
Employee housing3 — — — — — — — —
Source: Emeryville Municipal Code, 2021
1 The City commits to revising the Municipal Code to permit limited and general residential care facilities using the same standards, both without conditional use permits. 2 The City commits to revising the Municipal Code to permit low-barrier navigation centers in any zone where multifamily uses are permitted, in accordance with Assembly Bill 101. 3 The City commits to revising the Municipal Code to permit employee housing that serves six or fewer persons as other single-family uses of the same type in the same zone across all zones that allow single-family residential uses in compliance with the California Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6) (Program LL).

4. While multifamily is a permitted use, per Section 9-3.303(b)(2)b, a CUP is required for any development on sites of 1-5 acres in the MUR/MURS zones. The CUP is not considered a constraint on housing and the process ensures that mixed-use developments incorporate adequate housing. The residential use itself is not discretionary. 5 Mobile/Manufactured Planning Regulation Amendment: Planning Regulations will be updated to require mobile and manufactured homes the same approval processes as single-family residential uses, in compliance with California Government Code Section 65852.3 within 3 years (Program LL).

Key: permitted (P), conditionally permitted with a major conditional use permit (C), normally requiring a minor conditional use permit (CM) and prohibited (—).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 44 | CONSTRAINTS

4.2.1.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing
Types
Emeryville’s Municipal Code is consistent with
the General Plan and provides ample
opportunities for residential development. With
standard housing developments permitted by
right and less common use types allowed
conditionally, the City’s regulations encourage
and facilitate a diverse variety of housing types
and are not considered a constraint to housing
production.

The City, is committed to providing a variety of
housing opportunities to members of the
community, including those with special needs.

Emeryville’s Municipal Code provides for a
variety of housing types, living situations, and
residents’ needs. For example, recent updates to
the Municipal Code remove barriers to
establishing group homes, allow emergency
shelters by right, and provide opportunities for
transitional and supportive housing.

4.2.1.4.1 Single-Family and Multifamily
Emeryville has no low-density residential zones
because there are no neighborhoods exclusively
zoned for single-family housing, such as a
residential low-density zoning district. Singleunit and two-unit residences are allowed by right in the RM zoning district but are not permitted in
any other zoning district that allows residential
uses. Single units consist of one dwelling unit on
a single lot, whether that be detached from or
attached to dwelling units on abutting lots. Twounit development consists of two dwelling units on a single lot that may be either attached or
detached. This use type is distinguished from an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is an
accessory residential unit as defined by state law.

The RM (Medium Density Residential) zones in the DoyleHollis and Triangle Neighborhoods include a diversity of unit types including single unit homes (1050, 1048, 1046 45th Street), duplexes (1093 - 1095 43rd Street), and multi-unit developments (1274 63rd Street multi-unit).

Multi-unit (three or more units) residences are
allowed by right in the RMH, RH, MUR, and
MURS zoning districts and with a CUP in the RM
zone. Multi-unit residential development can be
attached or detached, with typical uses including
townhouses, condominiums, and apartment
buildings.

4.2.1.4.2 Live/Work Units
Live/work units combine a workspace and
incidental residential occupancy that is occupied
and used by a single household in a structure that
has been constructed for such use or is converted
from commercial or industrial use and altered to
accommodate residential occupancy and work
activity. Live/work units are further defined as
Heavy and Light. Heavy indicates work activity
that may be objectionable because it produces
offensive order, dust, noise, bright lights, or
vibration or involves the storage of hazardous
materials or products, including activities such as
manufacturing, welding, or assembly. Light
refers to any live/work unit not classified as
heavy. Heavy live/work units are allowed only in
the INH zoning district subject to an approved
minor CUP. Light live/work units are allowed in
the RM, RMH, RH, MUR, MURS, MUN, and in
the INL districts with an approved major CUP.

4.2.1.4.3 Liveaboard Permits for Boats
Within the Municipal Code, boats are not
considered residences. However, per the
regulations of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC), the lesser of 10 percent of vessels at the
Emeryville Marina, or 38 vessels, may be issued
liveaboard permits in one-year increments.

Community members holding these permits may
elect to use their vessels as primary residences.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 45
Permitted boats must be of a type designed for
active navigation and may not include
houseboats. According to a letter provided by the
City Attorney’s office, in 2017 the City received
complaints from residents of the Emeryville
Marina that they were being displaced due to
increasing slip rents and evictions issued by the
private entity managing the marina. While this
may create a housing challenge for displaced
residents, because of the nature of liveaboard
permitting and the BCDC regulations governing
the marina, the City does not have a basis to
interfere in these evictions so long as the
managing entity complies with state law. As
noted with Table 3-8, while the Department of
Finance reports the presence of 36 mobile homes
in Emeryville, City staff are unaware of any. It is
possible that the permitted live-aboard boats in
the Emeryville Marina were counted as mobile
homes by the Department of Finance. Per the City
Attorney’s office, live-aboard boats are
considered vessels rather than housing units.

However, use of permitted live-abord boats as
permanent residences is allowed. The San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, which regulates live-aboard
permits, has limited the number of permits to 10
percent of the total number of berths or 38 berths,
whichever is less

4.2.1.4.4 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs)
ADUs (previously referred to as second units) are
defined in the Municipal Code (see Section 9-

2.702(b)) as an attached or detached residential
dwelling unit that provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more
persons. An ADU may be within the same
structure as the primary unit, in an attached
structure, or in a separate structure on the same
parcel. State legislation requires jurisdictions to
allow ADUs that meet certain standards by right
anywhere that single-family or multifamily uses
are allowed. JADUs, that is, smaller units (up to
500 square feet) located entirely within an
existing single-family primary unit, are also
allowed under state law.

In 2019 an application was submitted, and permits were issued, for a new ADU at the rear of 1031 43rd Street (building on the right). In 2020 a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the 2- bedroom ADU at 4211 Adeline Street (building on the left).

The Emeryville Marina at sunset where, per BCDC regulations, the lesser of 10 percent of vessels at the Emeryville Marina, or 38 vessels, may be issued liveaboard permits.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 46 | CONSTRAINTS
Emeryville permits ADUs by right in all zoning
districts where single-family and multiple-family
residential is permitted, in addition to the MUR
and MURS zoning districts, subject to the
provisions of the Municipal Code (Section 9-

5.14). Emeryville allows detached and attached
ADUs up to 1,200 square feet or the same square
footage of the largest principal unit, whichever is
greater. Emeryville allows one ADU and one
JADU on lots with an existing or proposed single
unit. On lots with two-units or multi-unit
residentials, Emeryville permits:
• Within portions of existing two unit or
multi-unit structures that are not used as
livable space, including, but not limited to,
storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways,
attics, basements and garages, one ADU or
25 percent as many units as exist on the
site, whichever is more, is/are allowed.
• Detached from, or attached to but not
within, existing structures, two ADUs are
allowed.

ADUs are reviewed ministerially and permitted
through an approved zoning compliance review
permit, requiring review by the Community
Development Director, in consultation with the
Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal.

The City adopted updates to the ADU ordinance
in 2021 to comply with state law. During the
planning period, the City will implement the
ADU ordinance and update it to comply with any
new state requirements. Additionally, the City
will propose initiatives to promote ADU
development as an affordable housing option,
including considering establishing a loan
program for homeowners for ADUs, marketing
ADU guidance materials, and creating a
frequently-asked-questions (FAQs) webpage for
ADUs on the City’s website (Program D).

4.2.1.4.5 Mobile Homes/Mobile Home Parks
Mobile homes or factory-built housing offer an
affordable housing option to many low- and
moderate-income households. California
Government Code Section 65852.3 requires cities
to treat certified mobile homes (manufactured
homes) on a permanent foundation for
permanent occupancy the same as single-family
dwellings. They may not be excluded from lots
zoned for single-family dwellings and are subject
to the same rules as site-built homes, except for
certain architectural requirements. Further, a city
may not require an administrative permit,
planning or development process, or
requirement that is not imposed on a
conventional single-family dwelling.

Factory-built homes in Emeryville are expressly
treated the same as site-built homes, per Section
9-5.205 of the Municipal Code. Factory-built
housing on residential lots not constructed
within a mobile home park must conform to the
same development standards applied to sitebuilt homes with regards to setbacks, parking, placement, and other standards, but have
additional specific architectural requirements
related to exterior finish and roofing material to
blend factory-built housing with site-built
housing. Mobile home units may also be used as
rental ADUs subject to certain construction
standards (e.g., National Mobile Home
Construction and Safety Standards of 1974), and
architectural requirements. These standards do
not impose a constraint on the placement of
mobile homes or unreasonable cost burdens on
mobile homeowners since new factory-built
homes normally comply with the City’s
requirements with little or no modification.

Despite this, factory-built housing is
underutilized in the city. While the Department
of Finance reports the presence of 36 mobile
homes in Emeryville (Table 3-8), City staff are
unaware of any. It is possible that the permitted
live-aboard boats in the Emeryville Marina were
counted as mobile homes by the Department of
Finance.

Mobile home parks are permitted in the RM zone
with an approved CUP. Emeryville does not have
any mobile home parks within the city limits.

Planning Regulations will be updated to require
mobile and manufactured homes the same
approval processes as single-family residential
uses, in compliance with California Government
Code Section 65852.3 within 3 years (Program
LL).

4.2.1.4.6 Residential Care Facilities
Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3,
and 1568.08 require local governments to treat
licensed group homes and residential care
facilities with six or fewer residents no differently
than other by-right single-family housing uses.
“Six or fewer persons” does not include the
operator, the operator’s family, or persons
employed as staff. Local agencies must allow
these licensed residential care facilities in any
area zoned for residential use and may not
require licensed residential care facilities for six
or fewer persons to obtain CUPs or variances that
are not required of other family dwellings. Group
homes and residential care facilities should not
be subject to any restrictions (e.g., occupancy
limit) that are not imposed on similar dwellings
(e.g. single-family homes, apartments).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 47
In Emeryville, limited residential care facilities
(providing care for six or fewer persons) are
permitted by right in the RM, RMH, RH, MUR,
and MURS zones. “By right” means that the use
is principally permitted with a ministerial
process. The City will adopt Objective Design
Standards in early 2023 which will be a means to
address the potential for subjectivity in the City’s
design review processes (Program C). General
residential care facilities (providing care for
seven or more persons) are conditionally
permitted in the RM, RMH, RH, MUR, and
MURS zones. In Program LL, the City commits to
revising the Municipal Code to allow general
residential care facilities to be permitted in the
same way as limited residential care facilities.

4.2.1.4.7 Group Residential Uses (Housing for
Extremely Low-Income Households)
Emeryville’s Group Residential uses consist of
accommodations generally offered on a weekly
or longer basis consisting of shared living
quarters or single-room occupancy (SRO)
housing with more than one room or unit sharing
kitchen and/or bathroom facilities. Group
residential uses include boarding houses and
dormitories. Similar to residential care facilities,
Emeryville has separate zoning requirements for
group residential uses with six of fewer residents
(small) and group residential uses with seven or
more residents (large).

Small group residential uses are treated the same
as other single-family (single-unit) uses and are
permitted by right in the RM, RMH, RH, MUR,
and MURS zoning districts. Large group
residential uses are conditionally permitted in
the above-mentioned zones. In Program LL, the
City commits to revising the Municipal Code to
allow large group residential uses to be permitted
in the same way as small group residential uses.

The City, does not impose separation
requirements for group residential uses, allowing
for the integration of group residential uses with
other residential uses.

SRO units and similar use types are an important
source of affordable housing for extremely lowincome households. Extremely low-income households typically comprise persons with
special housing needs, including, but not limited
to, persons experiencing homelessness or at risk
of homelessness and persons with substance
abuse problems. Assembly Bill (AB) 2634 (Lieber
2006) requires the quantification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs of
extremely low-income households. Housing
Elements must also identify zoning to encourage
and facilitate supportive housing and SRO units.

In Programs A, G, H, K, L, O, Y, BB, CC, GG, and
OO, the City, commits to addressing the needs of
extremely low-income households, including
expanding affordable housing opportunities. As
a part of this effort, the City, will amend the
Municipal Code to permit group residential uses
with seven or more residents through a
ministerial process rather than requiring a CUP
(Program LL).

4.2.1.4.8 Employee and Farmworker Housing
No land within Emeryville is designated for
agricultural use. According to 2019 American
Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
(Table 3-20), there are 10 persons in Emeryville
employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining occupations. These persons
may work outside of Emeryville. Therefore,
Emeryville has no specific need for farmworker
housing. The 2017 Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Agricultural Census estimates there are
approximately 593 hired farmworkers in
Alameda County, with 305 estimated to be
permanent labor and 288 estimated to be seasonal
workers. Increasing the supply of housing
affordable to lower income households could
potentially benefit farmworkers. Therefore, the
City is committed to increasing the supply of
affordable housing for low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income households (Programs A,
G, H, I, and Y).

Emeryville permits an employee housing-related
use as an accessory resident manager’s and
caretaker’s quarters, defined in Section 9-2.702(f)
as a dwelling unit in connection with a principal
nonresidential use on the same lot, to be occupied
by a person who must be present on the site for
managerial or security reasons and who is the
owner, lessee, or an employee of the owner or
lessee of the nonresidential use. The City
commits to revising the Municipal Code to
permit employee housing that serves six or fewer
persons as other single-family uses of the same
type in the same zone across all zones that allow
single-family residential uses in compliance with
the California Employee Housing Act (Health
and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6)
(Program LL).

Planning Regulations will be updated to both
streamline and define agricultural worker
housing. This includes ministerially approving of
agricultural worker housing that meets the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section
17021.8. The updated definitions will identify
that any agricultural worker housing made up of
less than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units or
spaces can be classified as agricultural land use
and permitted in the same manner as agricultural
uses consistent with Health and Safety Code
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 48 | CONSTRAINTS
Section 17021.6. Modifications, if approved will
be implemented in 3 years (Program LL).

4.2.1.4.9 Transitional and Supportive Housing
Supportive housing is defined by Section
50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code as
housing with linked on- or off-site services with
no limit on the length of stay and which is
occupied by a target population, as defined in
Health and Safety Code Section 53260 (i.e., lowincome person with mental disabilities, AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, or
persons whose disabilities originated before the
age of 18). Services linked to supportive housing
usually focuses on assisting people with
retaining their housing, and living and working
in the community, and/or health improvement.

Transitional housing is defined in Section
50675.2(h) of the Health and Safety Code as rental
housing for stays of at least six months but where
the units are recirculated to another program
recipient after a set period. It may be designated
for a homeless individual or family transitioning
to permanent housing. This housing can take
many structural forms, such as group housing
and multifamily units, and may include
supportive services to allow individuals to gain
necessary life skills in support of independent
living.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section
65583, transitional and supportive housing types
are required to be treated as residential uses and
subject only to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone. Transitional and supportive housing,
as defined in the Health and Safety Code, are
permitted by right without a CUP in residential
zones.

The City allows transitional and supportive
housing, subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential dwellings of the same
type in the same zone. More specifically, singleunit or two-unit transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted by right in the
RM zone, and multi-unit projects are
conditionally allowed in the RM zone and
permitted by right in the RMH, RH, MUR, and
MURS zoning districts, consistent with California
Government Code Sections 65583 and 65650.

4.2.1.4.10 Domestic Violence Shelter
Emeryville allows domestic violence shelters
with an approved major CUP in the RM, RMH,
RH, MUR, and MURS zoning districts. Per
Section 9-2.209 of the Municipal Code, domestic
violence shelters are defined as a facility where
victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other
specialized services in compliance with
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section
18290.

4.2.1.4.11 Emergency Shelters
The California Health and Safety Code (Section
50801[e]) defines an emergency shelter as
“housing with minimal supportive services for
homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of
six months or less by a homeless person. No
individual or household may be denied
emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
In 2019, the City approved a temporary
emergency shelter for families at the former City
Recreation Center at 4300 San Pablo Avenue, in
the MUR zone. The project was operated by the
East Oakland Community Project (EOCP). The
site had been previously earmarked for a lowincome senior housing project. The developer selection, planning entitlement, and building
permit processes for such a project would be
In 2019, the City approved a temporary emergency shelter for families at the former City Recreation Center at 4300 San Pablo Avenue.

The project was operated by the East Oakland Community Project and served 25 homeless families.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 49
expected to take about two years, during which
time the site was able to be used for the
temporary emergency family shelter. As of
October 2022, the City had selected a developer,
entered into a Lease Disposition and
Development Agreement (LDDA) with them,
and is in the process of reviewing the preliminary
application for entitlements under the
Streamlined Permitting process.

The City’s Municipal Code allows emergency
shelters by right in the MURS zone, requiring
ministerial approval of a zoning compliance
review application by the Community
Development Director, with consultation from
the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal.

Emergency shelters are also conditionally
permitted in the MUR, MUN, OT
(Office/Technology), OT/DH (Office/Technology
Doyle-Hollis North), and INL (Light Industrial)
zoning districts, requiring an approved major
CUP. Sites in the MURS, MUR, MUN, OT,
OT/DH, and INL zoning districts are well served
by transit, services, and amenities. As shown in
Table 4-3, there are a total of 25 parcels on 8.72
acres where emergency shelters could potentially
be built. As described in section 3.6.7.1.1, during
the 2022 Point in Time count, 91 homeless
individuals were counted in Emeryville. The 25
parcels described in Table 4-3 have ample land
area to accommodate one or more facilities with
91 beds. At 200 square feet per bed, 91 beds could
be accommodated in a building of approximately
19,000 square feet as follows:
• In a one-story building on a site that is
approximately a half-acre (0.5), or
• In a two-story building on a site that is
approximately a quarter acre (0.25), or
• In a three-story building on a site that is
approximately one-sixth (0.16) of an acre
Existing structures on the parcels summarized in
Table 4-3 are likely not structurally appropriate
for adaptive reuse. However, the existing
structures are older and not an impediment to the
redevelopment of the sites. To facilitate the
production of emergency shelters, the City will
remove the CUP on emergency shelters in the
MUR and INL zones subject only to a by right
process and consider allowing them with a CUP
in the P zone (Program LL).

Table 4-3: Capacity for Emergency Shelters
Zone
Vacant Underutilized
Number
of Parcels Acres Number of Parcels Acres
INL 0 0 5 1.46
MUR 6 3.75 11 3.42
MURS 0 0 1 0.0.9
TOTAL 6 3.75 17 4.97
TOTAL
Parcels 25
TOTAL
Acres 8.72
Source: City of Emeryville, 2021
The City adopted objective managerial standards
to encourage and facilitate the development of a
new emergency shelter or conversion of a
building with another use for use as an
emergency shelter. Per Section 9-5.1804 of the
Municipal Code, development standards for
emergency shelters in Emeryville include:
• Number of Beds. An emergency shelter
may have up to 60 beds.
• Waiting Area. A waiting and intake area
with a minimum of 10 square feet per bed
shall be provided.
• Outdoor Activities. Outdoor activities,
including, but not limited to, on-site
waiting, client intake areas, and charitable
food distribution, may only be conducted
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
and shall be screened from public view to
the extent feasible.
• Location Requirement. No emergency
shelter shall be established within 300 feet
of any other emergency shelter. The
distance between any two emergency
shelters shall be measured in a straight
line, without regard to intervening
structures, from the closest property line of
each shelter.
• Lighting. Adequate external lighting for
security shall be provided.
• Security. Parking and outdoor facilities
shall be designed for security for residents,
visitors, and employees.
• Management Plan. The shelter operator
shall have a written management plan
including provisions for staff training,
neighbor relations, security, screening of
residents to ensure compatibility with
services provided at the facility, and
programs for residents.
• On-Site Staffing. A minimum of one staff
member per 20 beds shall be on duty and
awake when the facility is in operation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 50 | CONSTRAINTS
• Compliance with Federal, State, and
Local Regulations. Emergency shelters
shall comply with all federal, state, and
local licensing requirements.
• Compliance with Life Safety
Regulations. Emergency shelters shall
comply with all applicable building, fire,
and health and safety codes, including
maximum occupancy restrictions.

Emeryville does not require a minimum number
of parking spaces and relies on an estimated
parking demand ratio to determine the
maximum number of parking spaces allowed.

While emergency shelters are not required to
provide any parking spaces, the estimated
parking demand ratio to determine the
maximum parking spaces allowed is listed as to
be determined (TBD) in Table 9-4.404 of the
Municipal Code. Per Section 9-4.404, where
emergency shelters are permitted with
ministerial approval (MURS zone), the
Community Development Director determines
the estimated parking demand based on the
characteristics of the specific use in question and
other similar uses. Where emergency shelters are
permitted with discretionary approval (the MUR,
MUN, OT, OT/DH, and INL zones) the Planning
Commission or City Council shall determine the
estimated parking demand based on a
recommendation from the director.

To comply with California Government Code
Section 65583(a)(4), the City commits to updating
its parking standards to establish a parking
standard that provides sufficient parking to all
emergency shelter staff and to reviewing the
emergency shelter standards and revising as
needed to be consistent (Program LL).

4.2.1.4.12 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
As part of Program LL, the City will amend its
Municipal Code to allow Low-Barrier Navigation
Centers by right in mixed-use zones and
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses
if it meets specified requirements in compliance
with California Government Code Sections
65660, 65664, and 65666.

For a navigation center to be considered “low
barrier,” its operation should incorporate best
practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Permitting the presence of partners if it is
not a population-specific site, such as for
survivors of domestic violence or sexual
assault, women, or youth
• Pets
• Ability to store possessions
• Providing privacy, such as private rooms
or partitions around beds in a dormitory
setting or in larger rooms with multiple
beds.

4.2.1.5 Housing for Disabled Persons
California Government Code Section 65583
requires that the Housing Element analyze
potential and actual constraints on the
development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for persons with disabilities and
demonstrate local efforts to remove
governmental constraints that hinder the locality
from meeting the need for housing for persons
with disabilities (California Government Code,
Section 65583(a)(4)). The element must include
programs that remove constraints or provide
reasonable accommodations for housing
designed for persons with disabilities (California
Government Code, Section 65583(c)(3)). This
section and Program O address these
requirements.

4.2.1.5.1 Residential Care Facilities
State law requires residential care facilities
serving six or fewer persons to be (1) treated the
same as any residential use; (2) allowed by right
in all residential zones; and (3) subject to the same
standards, fees, taxes, and permitting procedures
as those imposed on the same type of housing in
the same zone. These laws ensure that housing
opportunities are available for people with
disabilities and that such uses are not
discriminated against. The City currently permits
residential care facilities serving six or fewer
persons by right in all residential zoning districts
(RM, RMH, RH, MUR, and MURS zones). “By
right” means that the use is principally permitted
with a ministerial process. The City will adopt
Objective Design Standards in early 2023 which
will be a means to address the potential for
subjectivity in the City’s approval processes
(Program C). Residential care facilities include
the subcategory of Residential Care Facility for
the Elderly, which are care facilities that serve
persons 60 years of age and older, as defined by
Section 9-2.21 of the Municipal Code. To expand
the use of care facilities for any number of
occupants, the City has included Program LL to
amend the Municipal Code to allow statelicensed residential care facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions
that apply to residential uses in the same zone.

Emeryville does not impose any separation
requirements for limited (six or fewer residents)
residential care facilities or general (seven or
more residents).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 51

4.2.1.5.2 Accessible Parking
While the City updated its site development
regulations for parking in 2020 to eliminate
minimum required parking standards, it
maintains required number of accessible parking
stalls, which are regulated by Title 24 of the
California Building Standards Code. Under the
new parking regulations in Section 9-4.403 of the
Municipal Code, all new development that elect
to provide standard parking stalls must provide
accessible parking stalls and existing
development that reduce parking must maintain
its existing accessible parking. New construction
with an estimated parking demand of greater
than 25 spaces is required to provide accessible
parking even if no other parking is proposed
(typically applying to new commercial projects of
10,000 square feet or more). For residential uses
serving persons with disabilities, the estimated
parking demand ratio per Section 9.404 of the
Municipal Code is as follows:
• General residential care facilities (seven or
more residents) - 0.25 spaces per bed
• Large group residential (seven or more
residents) - 0.25 spaces per bed
• Limited residential care facilities (six or
fewer residents), small group residential
facilities (six or fewer residents), and
senior housing developments and lowincome housing developments – 0 spaces required

4.2.1.5.3 Building Codes
This section discusses building codes as related
to persons with disabilities. A broader discussion
of building codes can be found in the Permits and
Procedures subsection later in this chapter. The
City enforces Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations, which regulates the access and
adaptability of buildings to accommodate
persons with disabilities. The City enforces
federal and state accessibility laws through the
building plan check and permit process. The City
permits existing and new homes to be retrofitted
or fitted for features that provide for accessibility
and independent living for persons with
disabilities.

Further, the City maintains an Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator within the
Public Works Department. The ADA
Coordinator for Emeryville is responsible for
supervising city compliance with the ADA. This
includes:
• Implementing accommodation, auxiliary
aid, and barrier removal requests
• Resolving ADA grievances filed by
citizens
• Creating and maintaining blue curbs and
other handicapped parking places with the
Public Works Department

4.2.1.5.4 Definition of Family
Fair housing laws prohibit restrictive definitions
of family that discriminate against households
based on the number, personal characteristics, or
the relationship of occupants to one another.

Consistent with state law, the City defines a
family as “two (2) or more persons occupying a
dwelling unit and living together as a single
housekeeping unit and sharing common living,
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members
of a family need not be related by blood but are
distinguished from a group occupying a hotel,
club, fraternity or sorority house,” as stated in
Section 9-8.206 of the Municipal Code. The City
further defines a “household” as all persons who
occupy a dwelling unit as their usual place of
residence (Section 9-8.208).

4.2.1.5.5 Reasonable Accommodation
Pursuant to the federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act, the ADA, and the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act, Emeryville’s
Municipal Code (Section 9-7.904) provides for
reasonable accommodation by allowing
modifications to the application of land use
policies and zoning regulations for persons with
disabilities. These provisions are intended to
provide a clear process for the submittal and
processing of requests for reasonable
accommodation. Requests for accommodation
are reviewed by the ADA coordinator and the
Planning and Building Director, who must issue
a decision within 45 days. The determination to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny a
request is based on the following findings:
• The person who is the subject of the
request for reasonable accommodation is
protected under federal and state fair
housing laws.
• The requested accommodation is
necessary to make specific housing
available to an individual protected under
the federal and state fair housing laws.
• The requested accommodation does not
impose an undue financial or
administrative burden upon the City.
• The requested accommodation does not
require a significant alteration of the
planning, zoning, and development laws
and procedures of the City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 52 | CONSTRAINTS
• There are no alternatives aside from the
requested exception accommodation for
the benefit of the applicant.

Any person can appeal to the decision of the
Director of the Planning Commission by filing
the appeal of decision of fair housing
accommodation request provided by the
Department. Assistance in filing an appeal is
available through the Department to ensure that
the appeal process is accessible to the applicant
and will need to contain a statement on reasons
for appeal.

In summary, the City of Emeryville continues to
institute accessible procedures to ensure that
people of all abilities have opportunities to secure
housing in the community.

4.2.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS AND PARKING

REQUIREMENTS
Residential development standards and parking
requirements are intended to maintain and
preserve the aesthetic quality of Emeryville’s
residential neighborhoods. Standards address
physical qualities, such as structure heights, yard
setbacks, and open space requirements. They are
not meant to limit residential development;
instead, they are aimed at creating attractive and
inviting buildings at appropriate scales and in
consideration of adjacent properties. The City’s
development and zoning standards are available
on the City’s website pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65940.1 (a)(1)(B)).

4.2.2.1 Density, Building Intensity, and
Height
Density, building intensity (or FAR), and
building height are established in the Land Use
Element and implemented by the Municipal
Code. As discussed in context of the General
Plan, density, FAR, and building height are not
directly correlated with land use designations
and zoning districts and are instead established
by the General Plan Floor Area Ratios Map,
General Plan Maximum Building Height Map,
and General Plan Residential Densities Map. (To
refer to these maps, see the City’s Land Use
Element.) Each map designates a base maximum
ratio (FAR and density) or limit (height) per area
and a maximum development bonus ratio/limit
that may be conditionally permitted for projects
demonstrating a significant public benefit, such
as public open space, family-friendly housing,
and sustainable design. The community benefit
bonus requires an approved CUP.

FAR expresses the ratio of building square
footage to land square footage and allows for
flexibility in design as long as other development
standards (such as height and setbacks) are
compliant. As shown in Table 4-4, Emeryville
permits base FAR ranges from up to 0.5 to up to

3.0. Intensities are low in the eastern residential
neighborhoods and the western end of the
peninsula, gradually increasing to the highest
values at the Powell Street/Christie Avenue core
area. With exception to areas with a permitted
4320, 4322, 4324 and 4326 Essex Street (right to left) illustrate the diversity of building height and bulk in the RM zone in the Triangle Neighborhood.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 53
base FAR of 1.0, the bonus FAR permitted is
twice the allowed base FAR. The City will permit
by right 3- and 4-unit multi-unit projects in the
RM district with no density requirement, as long
as it is in compliance with FAR and height limits.

Base FAR will also be increased to 1.0 and Bonus
FAR will be eliminated in the RM Zone.

Modifications, if approved will be implemented
in 3 years. (Program LL).

Table 4-4: Maximum Floor Area Ratio
Map
Designation
Maximum Permitted Building
Intensity (FAR)
Base Bonus

0.5/1.0 Up to 0.5 Up to 1.0

1.0 Up to 1.0 None

1.0/1.6 Up to 1.0 Up to 1.6

1.5/3.0 Up to 1.5 Up to 3.0

2.0/4.0 Up to 2.0 Up to 4.0

3.0/6.0 Up to 3.0 Up to 6.0
Source: Emeryville Municipal Code, 2021
As shown in Table 4-5, maximum base height
ranges from 30 to 75 feet. Similar to FAR, allowed
height gradually increases from east Emeryville,
typified by older residential neighborhoods, to
the Powell Street/Christie Avenue area,
supporting a high-rise core within this area.

Maximum height, coupled with FAR, was
specifically determined on a neighborhood basis
to character and scale, either to preserve existing
neighborhoods (such as the historic Park
Avenue) or encourage high-rise development
(such as the Powell Street Core). With exception
to areas with a map designation of 30,
development projects in all other areas can be
awarded a bonus height. In the 40/75, 50/100, and
75/100 map designations, the maximum bonus
height is more than double the base allowable
height.

Table 4-5: Maximum Height
Map
Designation
Maximum
Permitted Height General Associated
Neighborhoods Base Bonus
30 Up to 30 None
Triangle and Doyle
Street
neighborhoods
30/55 Up to 30 Up to 55
North Hollis and
Park Avenue areas
Watergate
residential complex
40/75 Up to 40 Up to 75
Transitional areas
between low-rise
and high-rise
neighborhoods
50/100 Up to 50 Up to 100
Sherwin Williams,
East Bay Bridge,
and sites west of
the railroad
75/100+ Up to 75 75 to over
100 Powell Street Core
Source: Emeryville Municipal Code and General Plan, 2021 Overall, the allowable base FAR and height
support high-density development citywide.

Density is one of the most important factors that
affects the feasibility of housing that is affordable
to households with lower incomes. Per California
Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), the
default density applicable to Emeryville
presumed to be suitable for lower-income
housing is 20 units per acre, which, within
Emeryville is the lowest allowable base density.

This indicates that affordable housing can be
accommodated anywhere in the city without
need of the community benefit bonus to achieve
higher densities. However, should a
development project need to pursue a higher
density through a community benefit bonus, a
bonus density is available in any of the map
designations (unlike height or FAR, where
bonuses are only available to some map
designations).

Table 4-6 shows the base densities and bonus
densities that correspond with the designations
on the City’s Maximum Residential Densities
Map (see Land Use Element). Residential density
is only mapped on areas where the underlying
General Plan land use classification allows
residential uses. This includes the older
neighborhoods in east Emeryville (Triangle and
Doyle Street neighborhoods) that permit the
lowest density (20 units per acre), along San
Pablo Avenue, Park Avenue, and Hollis Street
permitting moderate density (between 35/60 to
50/100 units per acre) and the high-density
corridor between I-80 and the railroads,
permitting the City’s highest allowable densities
(70/135 to 85/175 units per acre). Blank areas in
the City’s Maximum Residential Densities Map
indicate land use classifications that do not
permit residential uses: Mixed-Use with
Nonresidential and Industrial. The
corresponding zoning districts (MUN and INL
and INH, respectively) only permit emergency
shelters and live/work units; no other residential
uses are permitted.

Table 4-6: Maximum Density
Map
Designation
Maximum Permitted Density
Base Bonus
20/35 Up to 20 Up to 35
35/60 Up to 35 Up to 60
50/100 Up to 50 Up to 100
70/135 Up to 70 Up to 135
85/170 Up to 85 Up to 170
Source: Emeryville Municipal Code and General Plan, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 54 | CONSTRAINTS
While the General Plan Densities Map only
establishes a maximum residential density,
development proposals in the city are typically
for projects close to or in excess of the base
maximum density. This indicates the base
density can be achieved while meeting the
requirements of other residential development
standards, including setbacks, unit size, and
open space. Table 4-7 describes these residential
development standards.

4.2.2.1.1 Representative Projects
Through the City’s Community Benefits Bonus
program, projects are frequently built with
density and FAR significantly higher than the
base allowed. As shown in Table 6-5, recent
examples include:

1. The Intersection Mixed-Use Project (Maz
Site), resulted in 105 units (11 of the 105
are BMR) on a 1.1 acres. This is a density
of 95.5 units per acre, in an area with a
base maximum density of 50 units per
acre and a bonus maximum density of
100 units per acre. The project FAR is

2.24, in an area with a base maximum
FAR of 1.5 and a bonus maximum FAR
of 3.0.

2. Sherwin-Williams Buildings B1 and B2,
resulted in a combined 194 units (33 of
the 194 are BMR) on two acres. This is a
density of 97 units per acre, in an area
with a base maximum density of 50 units
per acre and a bonus maximum density
of 100 units per acre. The project FARs
are 3.42 for Building B1 and 2.79 for
Building B2, in an area with a base
maximum FAR of 1.5 and a bonus
maximum FAR of 3.0.

4.2.2.2 Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
The purpose of the PUD is to encourage the
creative development of large sites so as to
permit flexibility in physical design, achieve
attractive designs which encourage large-scale
site planning, and ensure that the applicable
provisions of the General Plan are established
early in the formation of such development
proposals. The creation of a PUD is considered by
the City Council with a recommendation from
the Planning Commission to adopt a preliminary
development plan and subsequent final
development plans. A preliminary development
plan and final development plan may also be
processed concurrently, however, the Planning
Commission’s approval of the final development
plan is contingent upon City Council approval of
the preliminary development plan.

The proposed PUD and adoption of a
preliminary development plan must be
consistent with the General Plan, including its
development standards and land use designation
of the site, and not have significant adverse
impacts on the environment. The proposed site
may be no less than one acre, suitable for the uses
permitted, compatible with the surrounding
area, and comply with any overlay zones. A PUD
must provide public benefit to qualify for bonus
floor area ratio, height, and/or residential
density.

4.2.2.3 Parking Requirements
In 2020, the City updated its parking
requirements to eliminate parking minimums,
effectively removing the requirement for
providing parking (with the exception of
accessible parking, previously described).

Additionally, existing parking spaces established
prior to updating the parking requirements may
be reduced or eliminated entirely, per Section 9-

4.403(a)(1). This includes parking spaces that
were required as a condition of approval for
discretionary projects, which can be reduced or
eliminated with an approved minor CUP. The
Municipal Code retains allowable maximum
parking requirements, limiting the maximum
number of parking spaces a project can provide
to 10 percent more than the estimated parking
demand (included as Table 4-8). Estimated
parking demand is determined by use type.

Projects that propose parking spaces exceeding
the maximum allowable require an approved
CUP and must demonstrate that (1) the
additional parking is required to meet the
anticipated demand of the proposed use, and (2)
the additional parking will not result in an
overdependence on automobiles and/or
adversely impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
access to the site or other adjacent uses. The City
further minimizes the requirements for parking
within specific districts of the city to reduce
reliance on vehicles: the maximum parking
allowances are reduced 50 percent for projects
proposed in the city’s Transit Hub Overlay Zone
and local-serving uses with a gross floor area of
5,000 square feet or less are exempt from offstreet parking and loading provisions.

Discretionary projects may be conditioned by the
hearing authority to include measures that
reduce parking demand, such as promoting use
of public transit, bicycling, and walking, and/or
allowing modified working hours or
telecommuting. The City does not have the
ability to impose conditions on ministerial
projects.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 55
Table 4-7: Residential Development Standards

Zone Unit Type
High Density
Residential
(RH)
Medium High
Density
Residential
(RMH)
Medium
Density
Residential
(RM)
Mixed Use with
Residential
(MUR), not
abutting
residential
Mixed Use Residential
(MUR), abutting other
residential zones
Accessory
Dwelling Unit Live/Work Multi-Unit
Front yard setback (minimum)
If the two
adjacent lots are
developed1
Average of
adjacent front
yards
Average of
adjacent front
yards
Average of
adjacent front
yards
None
When street frontage
abuts a lot in a
residential zone, setback
shall be the same as
required on the adjacent
residential lot2
Subject to the
same setbacks
as existing
structures5
Pursuant to the
zone in which
the unit is
located
Pursuant to
the zone in
which the
unit is
located
If only one of the
adjacent lots is
developed
Same as front
yard on
developed lot
but not less
than 5 feet
Same as front
yard on
developed lot
but not less than
5 feet
Same as front
yard on
developed lot
but not less
than 10 feet
If neither of the
adjacent lots are
developed
5 feet 5 feet 10 feet
For all corner lots 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet
Other setbacks (minimum)
Street side 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
None
When street frontage
abuts a lot in a
residential zone, setback
shall be the same as
required on the adjacent
residential lot
Subject to the
same setbacks
as existing
structures5
Pursuant to the
zone in which
the unit is
located
Pursuant to
the zone in
which the
unit is
located Interior side 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
10 feet plus an
additional 2 feet for each
1 foot by which the
height of the building on
the nonresidential lot
exceeds 30 feet
Subject to the
same setbacks
as existing
structures5
Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 4 feet
Minimum Lot Area and Width
Minimum Lot
Area (square
feet)
— — 2,500 — — — — —
Minimum Lot
Width — — 25 feet — — — — —
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 56 | CONSTRAINTS

Zone Unit Type
High Density
Residential
(RH)
Medium High
Density
Residential
(RMH)
Medium
Density
Residential
(RM)
Mixed Use with
Residential
(MUR), not
abutting
residential
Mixed Use Residential
(MUR), abutting other
residential zones
Accessory
Dwelling Unit Live/Work Multi-Unit
Unit size
Minimum
(square feet)3 — — 500 — — 150 750 —
Maximum
(square feet) — — — — —
1,200 or greater
than the largest
principal unit its
associated with,
whichever is
greater
2,000 —
Open space
Usable open
space per unit
(square feet)4
— — — — — 200 60 60
Source: City of Emeryville Municipal Code, 2021
1 Detached garages and accessory buildings shall not be considered in determining existing front setbacks. 2 Where a lot has frontage on two streets, and both such frontages are adjacent to property in a residential zone, the setback from the street line on each frontage shall be the same as required on the adjacent residential lot. 3 Minimum dwelling unit area is not prescribed by the Municipal Code for any zones except the RM zones. However, all dwelling units shall comply with applicable building code requirements in Title 8 of the Municipal Code. 4 For all other residential uses other than multi-unit uses, new buildings or additions that exceed 10,000 square feet shall provide a minimum area of common open space and/or privately owned public open space (POPOS) that totals at least 5% of the gross floor area. Single unit and two-unit residential uses are exempt from this requirement. 5 No setback is required if a garage, carport, or other existing structure is converted to or replaced by an accessory dwelling unit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 57
Table 4-8: Residential Parking Standards As parking requirements for standard parking are effectively removed, required parking does
not pose a constraint on housing development in
Emeryville.

4.2.2.4 Community Benefit Bonuses
If a public benefit can be demonstrated, the City
offers bonuses for FAR, height, and/or residential
density. Qualifying community benefits include
open space, public improvements, utility
undergrounding, zero net energy, additional
family-friendly units, small businesses, and
“flexible community benefit” for an undefined
community benefit not included in the list (such
as universal design features beyond those
required by applicable building codes).

Qualifying community benefits are approved by
the Planning Commission. Flexible benefits are
approved by the City Council with
recommendation from the Planning
Commission.

The City previously adopted Universal Design as
a community benefit option for obtaining
development bonuses. Universal Design
standards make homes more usable and
accessible for all people, including people with
disabilities. The City will evaluate how to
incorporate Universal Design features into the
Planning Regulations beyond what is currently
being implemented. (Program UU).

An approved community benefit bonus is the
only available permit type that allows a project to
exceed the maximum base FAR, height, and
residential density. While Emeryville has other
permits that allow deviation from development
standards (e.g., variances and exception to
standards), per Section 9-7.702 (Variance
Applicability) and Section 9-8.802 (Exception to
Residential Use Estimated Maximum Parking Demand
Single unit 1 space
ADUs1 No parking required
Two units and multi-unit
Resident parking 1 space/unit
Guest parking (for 5+ units) 0.2 spaces/unit
Two units and multi-unit (senior and low-income housing2) Resident parking 0.5 spaces/unit
Guest parking (for 5+ units) 0.2 spaces/unit
Domestic violence shelter 0.25 spaces/bed
Group residential
Small None
Large 0.25 spaces/bed
Mobile home park 1 space/mobile home
Live/work unit 1.53
Residential care facility
Limited No Requirement
General 0.25 spaces/bed
Supportive housing 0.25 spaces/bed
Transitional housing 0.25 spaces/bed
Emergency shelter 4,5 TBD
Source: City of Emeryville Municipal Code, 2021
1 If parking is provided for an ADU, that parking can be provided in tandem with parking for existing residential parking spaces and/or provided in required setback. If a garage or carport is converted to or replaced by an ADU, no replacement parking is required. 2 Senior housing means housing that is restricted to older adults, in which at least one resident of each unit must be a “senior citizen,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 51.3. Low-income housing means housing that is restricted to low, very low, or extremely low income households, as defined for Alameda County by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 3 Estimated parking demand for live/work units can be calculated as either 1.5/spaces per live/work unit or 1.5 spaces per 1,000 gross feet, whichever is greater.
4 The estimated parking demand is to be determined (TBD), deems the estimated parking demand shall be determined based on the characteristics of the specific use in question and other similar uses. 5 The City commits to updating its parking standards to establish a parking standard that provides sufficient parking to all emergency shelter staff and to reviewing the emergency shelter standards and revising as needed to be consistent (Program BB).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 58 | CONSTRAINTS
Standards Applicability), FAR, height, and
density are not applicable standards that can be
considered. Further, applicants that apply for a
community benefit bonus cannot receive a
density bonus through the State Density Bonus.

While community benefits must clearly exceed
normal requirements, the qualifying community
benefits are specifically stated with objective
standards to determine the bonus awarded based
on a point system (Section 9-4.204(e)). To support
the development of affordable housing, at least
half of the bonus points are required to be earned
through providing affordable housing units. This
applies to nonresidential projects and residential
projects, with nonresidential projects required to
pay an additional affordable housing impact fee.

The number of bonus points awarded shall be
determined for providing affordable units at
various income levels in accordance with Table
4-9 below.

As Emeryville’s housing units are predominantly
one- to two-bedroom units (Table 3-10),
additional family-friendly units are particularly
important to offer more appropriately sized
housing units for families. Emeryville offers five
points for each additional 5 percent of total units
that have two or more bedrooms in addition to
those required by Section 9-5.2003, of which at
least 1 percent must have three or more
bedrooms. The project must also comply with the
applicable provisions of the Emeryville Design
Guidelines pertaining to family-friendly
residential unit design.

To approve a community benefit bonus for FAR,
height, or density, the City Council must make
the following findings per Section 9-4.204(f).

1. In the RM Medium Density Residential
zone:
• That the proposed project is
compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood with regard to
building scale, form, materials, and
street orientation.
• That the proposed project has been
designed to minimize the
appearance from the street of
driveways, parking spaces,
maneuvering aisles, and garage
doors as much as possible given the
size and shape of the lot, and that at
least 70 percent of the street frontage
is devoted to active non-parking
uses, except that a driveway of up to
10 feet in width shall be allowed.

2. In all other zones:
• That the proposed project will
provide community benefits
sufficient to earn the number of
points required for the bonus
amount requested, pursuant to
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of Section
9-4.204.
• That the proposed community
benefits for the project are significant
and clearly beyond what would
otherwise be required for the project
under applicable code provisions,
conditions of approval, and/or
environmental review mitigation
measures.

Table 4-9: Bonus Points for Affordable Units in Project Bonus Points
Awarded
Rental Projects Ownership Projects
TOTAL Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income Moderate Income
5 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5%
10 13.0% 2.9% 4.5% 5.5% 21.0%
15 13.5% 3.1% 4.7% 5.8% 21.5%
20 14.0% 3.2% 4.9% 6.0% 22.0%
25 14.5% 3.3% 5.0% 6.2% 22.5%
30 15.0% 3.4% 5.2% 6.4% 23.0%
35 15.5% 3.5% 5.4% 6.6% 23.5%
40 16.0% 3.6% 5.6% 6.8% 24.0%
45 16.5% 3.7% 5.7% 7.0% 24.5%
50 17.0% 3.9% 5.9% 7.2% 25.0%
Source: City of Emeryville Municipal Code 9-4.204(d)(1), 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 59
• That the proposed community
benefits for the project are acceptable
and appropriate in this case and will
provide tangible benefits to the
community.

3. Bonus height over 100 hundred feet:
• That the proposed project will
provide community benefits
sufficient to earn at least 100 points
pursuant to subsections (d) and (e) of
Section 9-4.204.
• That the proposed project will
minimize impacts on public views,
wind, and shadows at the street
level.
• That the proposed project will be
adequately separated from other
buildings over 100 feet tall, with
consideration given to solar access.

4.2.3 STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
In compliance with California Government Code
Section 65915, the City provides density bonuses
for residential development projects that agree to
provide affordable housing units. Density
bonuses can reach up to 35 percent and are based
on both the type and amount of benefits
provided. The following types of projects are
eligible for a density bonus:
• A residential development project that
agrees to construct at least 10 percent of its
units for low-income households
• A residential development projects that
agrees to construct at least 5 percent of its
units for very low-income households
• A senior citizen housing development or
mobile park that limits residency based on
age
• A residential development project where
10 percent of its units are in a common
interest development for persons and
families of moderate income, provided
that all units in the development are
offered to the public for purchase
• A residential development project that
donates land to the City
• A residential development project that
includes childcare facilities
• A condominium conversion project
Note that density bonuses for affordable housing
are distinguished from the community benefit
bonuses. Developers may apply for a density
bonus or the community benefit bonus, but not
both (Section 9-5.501).

ABs 2753, 2372, 1763, 1227, and 2345 were passed
in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and revised density bonus
law to provide additional benefits for qualifying
projects, including increasing the maximum
percentage density bonus from 35 to 50. To
ensure the City’s development requirements are
consistent with recent state law, the City will
review Chapter 5, Article 5 of the Municipal Code
for compliance with ABs 2753, 2372, 1227, 1763,
and 2345 and to provide requirements within the
Municipal Code (Program A).

4.2.4 PERMITS AND PROCEDURES

4.2.4.1 Permit Processing
As a small city, Emeryville’s zoning permit
process is generally less time consuming than
that of many East Bay cities. Staff is able to
provide a higher level of customer service than
seen in larger cities.

Administrative planning approvals, including
staff-level (minor) design review, conditional use
permits, and sign permits, take about three days
to three weeks to process. Examples of
administrative approvals that result in new
residential units are projects in the RM zone
where there are one or more existing residential
units and more are added that don’t exceed base
density or base floor area ratio (typically 0.5 FAR
in the RM zone). Program LL will expand the
types of projects that will be permitted in the RM
zone to include three and four unit developments
of up to 1.0 FAR. Planning Commission
approvals (use permit, design review, variance,
sign permit, subdivision) take about two months
for simple projects, once the application is
complete. Appeals to the City Council may add
up to two months. A request for a planned unit
development, an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, or a General Plan Amendment will
likely take longer due to required hearings by the
Planning Commission and City Council. The City
will investigate the ability to eliminate the need
for a Public Meeting to determine if the case
warrants an Appeal Hearing. The elimination of
this Public Meeting will accelerate the time for a
project to be approved. (Program B)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 60 | CONSTRAINTS
For larger projects (projects that exceed base floor
area ratio, density, or height), the developer is
asked (but not required) to meet with neighbors
prior to seeking approval from the Planning
Commission. Informal study sessions with the
Planning Commission, City Council, or both are
also recommended for larger projects prior to
filing an application. Study sessions are
beneficial to the applicant because any concerns
by the Planning Commission and City Council
can be aired prior to large investment into design.

Likewise, applicants receive preliminary review
by staff to determine conformance with zoning
and the General Plan and to identify the permits
required. By the time the project appears before
the Planning Commission, significant issues have
been addressed.

Emeryville’s permit procedures are
straightforward. The City has no design or
historical review boards. Analysis associated
with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) can prolong project review, but many
projects are eligible for urban infill exemption.

Building permits and the related reviews
(energy, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire)
are processed together. For a mid-size,
uncomplicated project with complete drawings
and other submittal requirements, it generally
takes about six weeks to produce first comments
and two to three weeks to respond to the
developer’s response, for a total of two to three
months, depending on the developer’s response
time. Larger, more complex projects can take
several additional months to receive building
permits.

4.2.4.2 Time Between Entitlements and
Building Permits
As shown in Table 4-10, between 2016 and 2020,
the average number of days between an approval
of entitlements and the submission of a building
permit application for single-family projects was
182 and for multifamily projects was 426.

Source: City of Emeryville, 2021
As identified in Program NN, the City will
continue to track residential development
projects and make diligent efforts to contact
applicants that have not pulled building permits
or final maps have not been obtained to discover
why units have not been constructed within 2
years.

Table 4-10: Time Between Entitlements and Building Permits Single-Family Project Name Entitlement Approved Building Permit App Submitted # of Days 1056 45th Street, Unit C 2/25/2016 4/21/2016 56
5876 Beaudry Street 8/25/2016 10/13/2016 49
1271 64th Street 12/8/2016 12/7/2017 364
Oceanview Townhomes 7/24/2018 4/9/2019 259

Average # Days 182
Minimum # Days 48
Longest # Days 364
Multifamily Project Name Entitlement Approved Building Permit App Submitted # of Days The Intersection 8/22/2013 12/24/2013 124
Estrella Vista 1/22/2015 9/26/2016 613
Marketplace (C ) 5/28/2015 11/24/2015 180
Marketplace (D) 6/25/2015 11/13/2015 141
Bayview Emeryville 3/24/2016 7/9/2020 1568
Sherwin Williams (B1/B2) 2/22/2018 8/6/2018 165
Sherwin Williams (C/D) 2/22/2018 9/24/2018 214
Nellie Hannon Gateway 10/20/2020 11/30/2021 406

Average # Days 426
Minimum # Days 124
Longest # Days 1,568
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 61
As identified in Program NN, the City will
continue to track residential development
projects and make diligent efforts to contact
applicants that have not pulled building permits
or final maps have not been obtained to discover
why units have not been constructed within 2
years.

4.2.4.3 Requests to Build at Lower
Densities
As stated earlier, Emeryville has no low-density
residential zones because there are no
neighborhoods exclusively zoned for singlefamily housing, such as a residential low-density zoning district. Single-unit and two-unit
residences are allowed by right in the RM zoning
district but are not permitted in any other zoning
district that allows residential uses. Requests
from developers during the 5th cycle were
consistent with these requirements and were
consistent with the assumed densities in the 5th
cycle site inventory.

4.2.4.4 Senate Bill 35 Approvals
SB 35 requires jurisdictions that have failed to
meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) to provide streamlined, ministerial
entitlement process for housing developments
that incorporate affordable housing. According
to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development’s “SB 35 Statewide
Determination Summary,” released in June 2019,
Emeryville is one of 213 jurisdictions subject to
the streamlined ministerial approval process for
proposed developments with at least 50-percent
affordability.

As of October 2021, Emeryville has processed one
project under SB 35 (San Pablo Affordable
Apartments), permitting a 90-unit, 100-percent
affordable housing project through a ministerial
process.

To comply with the requirements of SB 35, the
City will establish a written policy or procedure
and other guidance as appropriate to promote the
streamlining approval process and standards for
eligible projects, as set forth under California
Government Code Section 65913.4 (Program B).

4.2.4.5 Conditional Use Permits
CUPs provide flexibility and address
complexities encountered with Emeryville’s infill
development. Because of the city’s unique land
use history and its small size, projects often have
to consider site irregularities, complex
environmental conditions, and adjacent
industrial or commercial land uses.

The City has a minor CUP to reduce costs and
processing times for certain qualifying projects,
such as conditionally permitted uses in existing
buildings (except in RM zones) and the
preservation and reuse of a significant or
residential structure. The fee for a minor CUP is
$575. If a major CUP is required because the
project goes over base FAR, units per acre, or
height bus is less than three residential units, then
the project requires a deposit of $2,000. Larger
projects require a $3,000 deposit and are charged
on a cost recovery basis. The processing time,
depending on the size and complexity of the
project and environmental review, can range
from two months for simple projects up to the
better part of a year for complex projects
requiring redesign and an environmental impact
report.

Municipal Code mandate that specific findings
be made upon approval of a CUP. Emeryville’s
findings, listed here, are based on standard
findings provided by the state Office of Planning
and Research:
• The proposed use is consistent with the
General Plan.
• The location, size, coverage, density,
design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use will be compatible with, and
will not adversely affect, the surrounding
area, including neighborhood character,
street design and capacity, safety, noise,
and lighting.
• The proposed use is consistent with the
capability of the water supply, wastewater
disposal, fire, and police systems to
operate adequately and cost effectively.
• The proposed use at its proposed location
will provide a service or facility that will
contribute to the general well-being of the
surrounding neighborhood or
community.
• The proposed use complies with all
applicable standards and requirements of
the Municipal Code.

4.2.4.6 Design and Site Plan Review
The Municipal Code establishes a design review
procedure for development proposals that
involve construction or exterior alterations to
ensure development is consistent with the
Emeryville Design Guidelines and/or design
guidelines in applicable area plans (North Hollis
Area Urban Design Program, San Pablo Avenue
Urban Design Plan, South Bayfront Design
Guidelines, Park Avenue District Plan, and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 62 | CONSTRAINTS
Shellmound Design Guidelines). Design review
is a discretionary process, with minor design
review projects processed administratively
requiring approval by the Community
Development Director and major design review
projects requiring approval from the Planning
Commission during a public hearing. Single-unit
and two-unit residential projects qualify for
minor design review process and can be
processed administratively. Any residential
project that does not qualify for minor design
review (or is exempt, such as ADUs) requires
major design review and approval from the
Planning Commission, such as new multi-unit
residential projects. Design review applications
are reviewed concurrently with any applicable
use permit, variance, or Planned Unit
Development (PUD) application.
1080-1082, 1084, 1086, and 1090 43rd Street in the Triangle Neighborhood, demonstrate some of the diversity in building types and design in the RM zone.

The applicable review authority can approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a design review
project based on the following findings
(applicable to both minor and major design
review):

1. The design of the project is consistent
with the General Plan, including, but not
limited to, its urban design goals and
policies.

2. The design of the project conforms to the
Emeryville Design Guidelines and any
other applicable design guidelines or
criteria. If strict compliance with the
provisions of such design guidelines or
criteria is not achieved, the applicant
must convincingly demonstrate that the
intent of the guidelines or criteria is met.

3. The project is of a high design quality
that is compatible with, and will not
adversely affect, the surrounding area.

For minor design review, the fee is $575. Major
design review requires a $3,000 deposit and is
charged on a cost recovery basis. For minor
design review, the processing times generally
range from 14 to 30 days. With larger projects that
are more complex, processing times vary and can
sometimes take up to a year.

In 2021, the City has begun reviewing the
Emeryville Design Guidelines in an effort to
create objective design and development
standards for multifamily and residential mixeduse projects to comply with the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330, and SB
35, as well as to resolve ambiguity in the Family
Friendly Guidelines. (See Program C.) The City
will adopt Objective Design Standards in early
2023 which will be a means to address the
potential for subjectivity in the City’s approval
processes and deemed to meet standards such as
high design quality and compatibility. However,
it should be noted that under the City’s existing
design and site plan review procedures, as of
October 2022, no applications have been denied
due to lack of high design quality or
compatibility.

The City conducts zoning compliance review for
all construction and new uses to ensure they
comply with applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code. Zoning compliance review is a
ministerial application required before the City
can issue a design review permit or building
permit. An approved zoning compliance review
is required for ADUs and emergency shelters
(where allowed by right). As this permit is
ministerial, there are no associated findings for
approval and conditions cannot be applied.

4.2.4.7 Building Code and Code
Enforcement
The mission of the Emeryville Building Division
is to provide information and assistance to those
planning a construction project in Emeryville, as
well as providing timely services for projects
already under construction. Project design teams
are encouraged to meet with the building official,
the plan check engineer, and Fire Department
staff in the early stages of the project to discuss
significant code issues that will impact the
project. By working out potential problems early,
applicants can usually proceed more efficiently
through the plan review stage of a project. On
January 1, 2020, the 2019 California Building
Code went into effect in California. The City of
Emeryville has transitioned to this new code.

Every three years, the State of California adopts
new codes that contain the latest advances in
construction practices and engineering concepts.

The California Building Standards Commission
adopts the California Building Codes based on
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 63
“model” codes produced by professional
organizations. Local agencies must adopt these
codes, but may make amendments to address
geological, climatic, or topographical conditions
provided the modifications are no less restrictive
than the state standards.

The Adopted Building Codes in effect January 1,
2020 as follows:
• 2019 California Building Code Part 2;
Volume 1 and 2
• 2019 California Residential Code
• 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code
• 2019 California Mechanical Code
• 2019 California Plumbing Code
• 2019 California Energy Code
• 2019 California Electrical Code
• 2019 California Fire Code
The City of Emeryville adopted the 2019
California Building Code through two
ordinances. The first repealed and replaced
Chapter 1-10 of Title 8 of the Emeryville
Municipal Code “Building Regulations”. The
amendments include Standards for Construction
Fire Safety. The standards are intended to
prescribe minimum safeguards for new building
construction projects to provide safety from
combustible materials. The Plumbing code was
amended to require shut-off valves to decrease
the chances of a fire or explosion in the event of
earthquake. Similar code provisions have been
adopted in the East Bay region. The second
replaced and repealed Chapter 5 of the Title 4 of
the Emeryville Municipal Code, “Fire Code”. The
amendment requires an automatic fire
extinguishing system such as sprinklers to all
new structures (1) in all new structures that are at
least 3,000 square feet in floor area, 35 feet in
height, or three stories tall irrespective of height;
(2) in all existing buildings of 3,000 square feet or
more if the building is subdivided into multitenant spaces or condominiums, or there is a change in use or occupancy; and (3) in all
renovated buildings or condominium units if the
value of the improvements is equal to or greater
than 50% of the replacement cost of the building
or condominium unit. The City adopted a
residential all-electric reach code for new
construction that applies to residential buildings
and residential occupancies in mixed-use
construction. In addition, the City adopted a
requirement that residential up to ten stories
install solar panels on the entire “solar zone” as
defined in Title 24 (the state code requires
identifying the solar zone up to 10 stories but
only requires installation up to three stories). No
specific requirements for existing buildings or
appliance types were made. All-electric
construction has been shown to be cost-effective,
and in most residential scenarios it is less
expensive to construct than mixed-fuel. City staff
have not received negative comments from
developers or found any data suggesting that
there is any delay associated with all-electric
construction. These local amendments have
historically been adopted by the City of
Emeryville. They are part of the current
Emeryville Building Regulations and Fire Code.

The City has made some minor modifications to
the building codes. Local amendments are
minimal and related to safety procedures and
energy savings. Such amendments may
materially increase the cost of residential
construction, however not significantly. Similar
amendments have been adopted in jurisdictions
throughout the county. The City has not imposed
any building codes other than those mentioned
previously. Therefore, the new building codes do
not present a potential or actual constraint to the
development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing
The code enforcement program focuses on
enforcing ordinances and laws that require
abatement to properties that are dangerous to the
public or are a public nuisance. Building
inspectors respond to complaints, issuing notices
of violations and informing property owners
about rehabilitation programs. However,
qualifying for assistance through the
rehabilitation programs is based on the income of
the owner. Building owners are given a
reasonable period of time to correct code
violations, and the buildings are reinspected. If
violations are not corrected, the owners can be
cited or nuisance abatement proceedings can be
initiated.

In response to construction issues in large
multifamily projects with modern design
features, the Building Division now requires
third-party testing at key stages in the
development process. While this requirement
adds to construction costs, it has already proven
effective in preventing potentially significant
issues that would later impact project owners and
residents. While added costs may constrain
development, this has been determined to be an
important and successful method for ensuring
quality construction and creating longer-term
stability in multifamily housing.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 64 | CONSTRAINTS

4.2.5 FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges planning and building fees and
impact fees to cover staff costs and ensure new
development contributes to the added costs of
providing necessary services and amenities. Fee
schedules are updated regularly and are in
alignment with fees typical of jurisdictions in the
East Bay. The City’s planning fees are typically
less than other jurisdictions in the East Bay. While
the master fee schedule is posted annually on the
City’s website, interested parties should contact
City staff to confirm fee amounts. Program F
commits the City to evaluating how it collects
impact fees for new housing and modifying its
practices as needed to ensure that smaller, more
affordable units are not unfairly penalized with
higher costs and that impact fees do not
inadvertently incentivize larger, more expensive
projects. The program also commits the City to
complying with Assembly Bill (AB) 602’s
transparency requirements.

Planning application fees are due at the time of
filing. For cost recovery, a deposit is required up
front and billings will be made as costs incur.

Building permit and impact fees are collected in
three phases. Plan review fees and energy fees are
due at plan check submittal. At the time the
permits are issued, the following fees are due:
building, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical
permit fees, Fire Department fees, general plan
maintenance fee, sewer connection fees,
development impact fees, traffic impact fees, and
school and public art fees. Any business license
fee, as well as any remaining planning fee, are
due with the final inspection.

At 30 stories, the Pacific Park Plaza condominium building at 6363 Christie Avenue is the tallest building in Emeryville. It is located across the street from Christie Avenue Park, shown in the foreground of this photo.

The City collects planning and subdivision fees to
cover the costs of providing community services.

New housing typically requires payment of the
following fees: school impact, sewer connection
and, building permit. These fees comprise a
significant part of housing costs in the City of
Emeryville. In addition, subdivisions and
multifamily projects may incur the cost of
preparing environmental impact reports, traffic
studies, soils reports, and filing fees for tentative
and final maps. Such fees are typically based on
the hourly rates of City employees or a hired
consultant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 65
Table 4-11: Planning and Application Fees
Planning and Subdivision Fees

ACTION CITY FEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/FEES
Environmental Review
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Initial Study At Cost, charged per formula1 Deposit full contract amount for environmental consultant prior to start of work.

Environmental Impact Report, including initial study if required At Cost, charged per formula1 Deposit full contract amount for environmental consultant prior to start of work.

Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption $97
Negative Declaration $2,480.25
Environmental Impact Report $3,445.25
Construction Development Permits
Building Permit 0.80% of construction valuation2
Includes Sign and Demolition. $ 167 minimum Phased Construction Applicant requests to proceed with first Full permit fee, including all permit types phase of construction prior to issuance of all building permits.) and plan check fees, plus 25%, due at issuance of first permit.

Permit Renewal $ 167 Expired Permits requiring 1 inspection for final Temporary Occupancy Permit $254 Building/tenant space not classified for assembly use (new Variances At Cost, charged per formula1 $1000 deposit
Conditional Use Permit
Major Conditional Use Permit – Flat Fee $575
Major Conditional Use Permits - Deposit Residential, up to 3 units At Cost, charged per formula1 $2,000 Deposit Demolition of significant or residential structure At Cost, charged per formula1 $5,000 Deposit All other At Cost, charged per formula1 $3,000 Deposit
Temporary Use Permits $575
General Plan Amendment At Cost, charged per formula1 $3,000 Deposit Rezoning At Cost, charged per formula1 $3,000 Deposit
Site Plan Review 65% of Building Permit Fee 50% of Building Permit Fee for Residential under $100,000.00:

Architectural Review
Planned Unit Development At Cost, charged per formula1 $5,000 Deposit Specific Plan
Development Agreement At Cost, charged per formula1 $3,000 Deposit DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 66 | CONSTRAINTS
Planning and Subdivision Fees

ACTION CITY FEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/FEES
Subdivision
Major Subdivisions, including residential condominium
conversions
At Cost, charged per formula1 $3,000 Deposit plus cost of any technical assistance such as engineer's review
Minor Subdivisions including residential condominium
conversions
$1,143
Lot Line Adjustments $1,143
Parcel Mergers $1,143
Certificate of Compliance $1,143
Impact Fees
Sewer Connection $1,499 Per single family dwelling equivalent3 All other Uses $298 Per plumbing Trap
Traffic Fees for Traffic Impact, Art in Public Places, or Bay/Shellmound Assessment District may apply4. For guidelines and calculations of these fees, consult the Building Division
Source: City of Emeryville Master Fee Schedule, 2021
1 Planning Staff charged at calculation of direct salary, fringe benefits plus 45.76% overhead rate Consultants charged at Cost plus 10% administrative fee 2 Construction valuation shall be determined by the Chief Building Official, and shall be based on the valuation declared by the applicant, or on the most recent “Building Cost Index” published by Engineering News Record and adjusted for the San Francisco Bay Area, whichever is higher 3 Single Family Dwelling Equivalent is defined in Emeryville Municipal Code Section 7- 8.305 as follows: "Each single-family living unit in a multiple-family dwelling, apartment house, condominium, or any other multiple-family structure shall be considered one (1) SFDE, except units which contain two (2) rooms or less or one (1) bedroom or less. Each living unit which contains one (1) bedroom or less or not more than two (2) rooms total shall be considered a one-half (1/2) SFDE
4 These fees have been established by and are collected on behalf of other departments or agencies, are listed here for reference only, and are subject to change. Please consult Building Division to determine current fees.

The City collects three development impact fees:

Affordable Housing, Parking and Recreation
Facilities, and Transportation Facilities. The fee
amounts vary per use type and are calculated on
either a per-unit basis, by square foot, or bed. In
addition to the impact fees outlined in Table 4-
11, Emeryville Unified School District assesses
school impact fees for residential units that are
500 square feet or more at $4.08 per square foot
and for live/work units at $2.37 per square foot.

Based on the fees outlined in Table 4-12, a 2,000-
square-foot single-family home (single unit)
would require development impact fees
(inclusive of school fees) of $15,509. The
estimated development impact fees for a rental
10-unit multifamily project (multi-unit) with 800-
square-foot units would be $403,610 for the
whole project ($40,361 per unit). The affordable
housing impact fee has a significant impact on
rental projects; a condominium multifamily
project with 10 800-square-foot units would incur
a total development impact fee of $90,320 ($9,032
per unit).

School facilities development fees are waived for
developments that provide affordable housing
set-aside units. Additionally, to relieve any
undue burden on developers who are required to
provide moderate-income set-aside units under
the Affordable Housing Set-Aside Program, the
City of Emeryville may subsidize the cost of any
traffic fees, building fees, and other City fees
applicable to the set-aside units.

To illustrate the cumulative effect of fees on a
project, four examples are provided in Table 4-

13. DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 67
Table 4-12: Residential Development Impact Fees
Residential Use Affordable Housing Park and
Recreational Facility Transportation Facility Total Impact Fees Single Unit $0 $4,399 $2,950 $7,349 / dwelling unit
Two Unit and Multi Unit
Rental – Apartment $31,032 $4,236 $1,829 $37,097 / dwelling unit In Transit Hub Overlay $31,032 $4,236 $1,770 $37,038 / dwelling unit Owner – Condominium $0 $4,236 $1,532 $5,768 / dwelling unit In Transit Hub Overlay $0 $4,236 $1,476 $5,712 / dwelling unit Owner – Townhome $0 $4,339 $1,532 $5,931 / dwelling unit In Transit Hub Overlay $0 $4,339 $1,476 $5,875 / dwelling unit Domestic Violence Shelter $0 $1,657 $651 $2,308 / bed
Group Residential $0 $1,657 $651 $2,308 / bed
Mobile Home Park
Rental $31,032 $4,236 $1,829 $37,097 / dwelling unit
Owner $0 $4,339 $1,532 $5,931 / dwelling unit
Residential Care Facility $4.71 $6.40 $2.20 13.31 / square foot Supportive Housing $0 $1,657 $651 $2,308 / bed
Transitional Housing $0 $1,657 $651 $2,308 / bed
Live/Work Unit $4.71 $1.79 $1,917 $6.50 / square foot + $1917 / unit
Emergency Shelters $0 $1,657 $651 $2,308 / bed
Source: City of Emeryville, 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 68 | CONSTRAINTS
Table 4-13: Sample Fee Scenarios
Apartments: 3900 Adeline 101 units
Construction Cost $22,065,943
Building Permit and Other Fees $1,040,679
Approximate Planning Fees $40,585
Total Fees $1,081,264
Total Fees per Unit $10,706
Construction Cost per Unit $218,475
Proportion of Fees to Development
Costs 5%
Apartments: Ave at Bay Street –
Parcel D 223 units
Construction Cost $55,890,683
Building Permit and Other Fees $3,228,168
Approximate Planning Fees $65,699
Total Fees $3,293,867
Total Fees per Unit $14,771
Construction Cost per Unit $250,631
Proportion of Fees to Development
Costs 6%
Apartments: Estrella Vista 87 units
Construction Cost $44,394,026
Building Permit and Other Fees $1,947,069
Approximate Planning Fees $22,952
Total Fees $1,970,021
Total Fees per Unit $22,644
Construction Cost per Unit $510,276
Proportion of Fees to Development
Costs 4%
Apartments: The Intersection 108 units
Construction Cost $20,759,614
Building Permit and Other Fees $1,114,674
Approximate Planning Fees $52,092
Total Fees $1,166,766
Total Fees per Unit $10,803
Construction Cost per Unit $192,219
Proportion of Fees to Development
Costs 6%
Source: City of Emeryville, 2021
As indicated in these examples, planning and
building fees are a small percentage of the total
cost of developing housing in Emeryville.

4.2.6 SITE IMPROVEMENT

REQUIREMENTS
Because many sites are small and being reused,
improvements consist of upgrading storm
drains, and water and sewer lines if needed for
intensification of use and placing on-site utilities
underground. For larger projects requiring major
conditional use permits (that exceed base floor
area ratio, density, or height) the City uses
standard conditions of approval that are applied
to projects, as warranted, that include public
improvements along the frontage of the property.

Requirements are designed to improve the safety
and livability of the project area and city and may
include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees,
street reconstruction, bicycle facilities, traffic
signals, utility lines, and street furniture. The
objective standards being developed under
Program C will add greater clarity to these
requirements and eliminate subjectivity.

4.2.7 LOCAL ORDINANCES
The City has an inclusionary housing ordinance
and a short-term rental ordinance, which are not
considered to be a constraint on housing. These
are described herein. The City does not have any
moratoriums on new housing.

4.2.7.1 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
In 1990, the City of Emeryville adopted the
Affordable Housing Set-Aside Ordinance (now
referred to as the Affordable Housing Program),
an inclusionary housing ordinance, which is part
of the Emeryville Municipal Code. Previously,
the Affordable Housing Program ordinance
required that all projects with 30 or more units set
aside 20 percent of inventory for affordable
housing to moderate-income households, which
was expanded to include very low-income
households in June 2008. In 2014 the Ordinance was
adopted and renamed the Affordable Housing
Program (AHP). The Affordable Housing Program
is implemented through the City of Emeryville
Community Development Department and
currently requires the following inclusionary
levels in residential developments:
• In ownership residential developments of
10 or more units, 20 percent of units must
be set aside for and affordable to
moderate-income households. The City
imposes resale conditions for 45 years after
recordation of each grant deed to keep
units in the Affordable Housing Program
and maintain affordability for moderateincome households. • New rental residential projects (both new
construction and conversion) can either
pay affordable housing impact fees to
mitigate the project’s impact on the need
for affordable housing in the city (see
Table 3-8) or elect to provide 12 percent of
dwelling units as on-site affordable rental
units. Of the affordable rental units, 8
percent of units must be affordable to lowincome households and 4 percent affordable to very low-income
households. The affordable rental units
will be provided for a minimum period of
55 years.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 69

4.2.7.1.1 Production of Affordable Housing
Under the Affordable Housing
Program Ordinance
Much of the residential development built in
Emeryville during the 1990s was the result of
public-private partnerships between developers
and the City through its former Redevelopment
Agency. The agency provided financial
assistance through its Low- and ModerateIncome Housing Fund for several residential projects developed by private, for-profit and
nonprofit residential developers, and in one case,
the Alameda County Housing Authority. Some
of these developments did not exceed the 30-unit
threshold in place during that time, while others
provided a percentage of affordable units greater
than the inclusionary requirement by leveraging
Agency assistance with other federal, state, and
private sources.

BMR Units subject to the requirements of the
Affordable Housing Program have been created
through a variety of mechanisms between 2014
and 2022, including:
• 3900 Adeline, Parc on Powell and The
Emery (currently under construction)
were subject to the Affordable Housing
Program Ordinance and added 33 very
low-, 20 low, and 55 moderate-income
units were added to the City’s affordable
housing stock
• Created voluntarily, Avalon Public
Market and The Intersection added 25
low-income units and 18 moderate
income units were added to the city’s
affordable housing stock;
• Created under the State Density
Program, Bayview (currently under
construction) added 11 very low-income
units) to the city’s affordable housing
stock;
• Due to City-provided financial assistance
at Emme, Estrella Vista, and Nellie
Hannon Gateway (building permit
pending), 150 very-low and 54 lowincome units were added to the city’s affordable housing stock.

The inclusionary units provided through the
Affordable Housing Program have helped the
City address critical housing needs and are
discussed further in Chapter Six. Given the
significant amount of development in Emeryville
over the past decade, it is clear that the ordinance
has not acted as a constraint on housing
development.

The City offers a number of options to mitigate
potential hardships in complying with the
Affordable Housing Program. These include:
• To avoid undue economic burden or cost
to the applicant providing affordable
units, the developer can apply for a
density bonus to allow up to 50-percent
density increase or apply for the
community benefit bonus to increase the
maximum FAR, height, and density, but
not both, per Section 9-5.412.
• To mitigate the burden on developers
providing affordable units, the City may
subsidize the cost of traffic impact fees,
building permit fees, and any other
fees/exactions required, per Section 9-

5.414.
• If the developer can show economic
hardship in providing affordable units, the
developer can, with City approval, reduce
the amenity level and square footage of the
affordable units below that of the marketrate units, providing all units meet the applicable building and housing codes,
per Section 9-5.413.
• The applicant may apply for a reduction,
adjustment, or waiver of the Affordable
Housing Program requirements if the
applicant can demonstrate the
requirements would result in
unconstitutional taking of property or any
other unconstitutional result, per Section
9-5.417.
• The developer, with City approval, has the
option of transferring credit for affordable
units constructed at one location within
the city to satisfy the ordinance
requirement, per Section 9-5.402(f).

If a developer proceeds with an economic
hardship claim, in practical terms the manner in
which it is processed is the following: The
developer is required to share its financial pro
forma with City staff so that the City can review
it to determine whether the AHP requirements
make the project financially unviable. The
developer is able to present this case to the City
Council, which may take action to reduce the
impacts of the ordinance through one of the
measures cited previously.

The City Council has approved projects where a
lesser inclusionary percentage was required in
exchange for deeper affordability. In these cases,
City staff worked with the developer to
determine a cost-neutral point at which the
provision of units at low- or very low-income
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 70 | CONSTRAINTS
levels, in lieu of moderate-income units, would
not negatively impact the development costs.

In addition to the incentives and concessions
outlined in the Affordable Housing Program
directly, the City commits staff time and financial
resources to facilitate implementation of the
Affordable Housing Program in the following
ways:
• Staff participates actively with the
developers’ marketing and sales/leasing
teams in crafting marketing plans for the
below-market rate (BMR) units aimed at
successfully leasing up or selling the BMR
units.
• The City provides developers with its
mailing list of over 7,000 people who have
expressed interest in Emeryville housing
to assist in marketing outreach.
• The City participates in open houses and
information workshops for prospective
tenants and purchasers of BMR units
within the developments.
• The City actively markets new BMR units
(including serving as a distribution point
for BMR unit applications) at the City Hall
information area, the City’s website and
social media platforms, and through
citywide mailings.
• If the developer is unable to sell some or all
of the BMR ownership units at the end of
the marketing period, the City can
purchase the units or allow the owner to
sell the unit to an over-income household
with an affordable resale requirement.

4.2.7.2 Short Term Rental Ordinance
The City adopted their short-term rental (STR)
ordinance in 2017. These regulations can be
found in Article 21 to Chapter 5, and Chapters 2,
3, and 7, of Title 9 of the Municipal Code
regarding short-term rental of all or part of a
dwelling. STR’s are permitted only in single-unit
detached houses, and only as an accessory use for
fewer than 30 days. The City found it necessary
to establish such requirements to regulate STRs
in the interest of public health, safety, and other
impacts on land use and housing.

Regulations were put on STRs to address
concerns on land use impacts that may results in
loss of residential character and exacerbate the
shortage of affordable housing stock within the
city. Impacts of STR as it related to housing issues
includes use of residential space for commercial
use and reduction of housing supply driving up
rents. The City will continue to monitor the
impacts of STRs on long-term housing
options.

4.3 Environmental
Considerations
Other than the considerations described herein,
there are no known environmental or other
conditions that are constraining sites identified in
the land inventory. This includes the shapes of
the parcels and easements.

4.3.1 HAZARDS
The sites in the Housing Element land inventory
were screened for potential hazards, including
Tsunamis, Liquefication, Sea Level Rise (SLR),
Landslides and Floods (see Table 6-4). None of
these potential hazards preclude development in
Emeryville. More detailed information is
provided in the Resources Section.

4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATIONS
Environmental review, in compliance with state
and federal requirements, runs concurrent with
other aspects of the local development approval
process. Pursuant to CEQA, if a project has no
significant impacts or the impacts can all be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level, an
initial study and mitigated negative declaration
is adequate. This process usually takes two to
three months. If the project has potentially
unavoidable significant impacts, it requires an
environmental impact report (EIR), which can
take four to six months and sometimes longer.

Use of an exemption for urban infill housing
projects is often used to expedite environmental
review if there are no identified impacts. As a
small city, Emeryville’s environmental concerns
are limited to a few areas. Landslides are not of
concern because the entire city is on flat terrain.

The city is not in a flood hazard zone, and
seismicity issues are addressed by building
codes. Sensitive biologic resources are confined
to bayshore areas that are designated and zoned
for parks and open space. Toxic contamination
from previous industrial uses has been a key
environmental concern. Noise is also a localized
problem associated with the location of sensitive
receptors relative to commercial and light
industrial uses and the existence of freeways and
a major rail line.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 71

4.3.3 TOXIC CLEANUP
Site characterization, health risk assessment, and
site remediation in accordance with state
mandates can present major development
expenses. The City has implemented and will
continue to implement a Brownfield Program to
use grant funds to clean up City-owned land and
to distribute assessment and cleanup loans to
private property owners. This program has been
instrumental in expediting the cleanup of many
sites and will remain important. (See Program S.)

4.3.4 NOISE
The I-80 and I-580 freeways and the Union Pacific
and Amtrak rail facilities continue to be a major
source of noise in the western and southern
portions of Emeryville. With a growing
residential population in a mixed-use
environment, there is an increasing awareness of
noise from nonresidential uses, including newer
high-tech uses. The Emeryville Municipal Code
prohibits excessive and annoying noises from all
sources and limits the hours for construction and
other noisy activities. However, some noises
occur on a continual or continual but intermittent
basis, such as freeway and train noise, and is
emitted by mechanical equipment, such as
heating and cooling facilities. The Conservation,
Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan
contains policies and actions to address noise.

4.3.5 INFRASTRUCTURE
Public facilities and infrastructure have a direct
influence on a city’s ability to accommodate
residential growth. As described in the Resources
section, all sites in the inventory have access to
facilities and infrastructure, including dry
utilities. To comply with SB 1087, the City will
immediately forward its adopted Housing
Element to EBMUD so they can grant priority for
water and sewer service allocations to proposed
developments that include units affordable to
lower-income households. (See Program N.)

4.3.5.1 Water Service
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
supplies water and provides wastewater
treatment to areas of Alameda and Contra Costa
counties, including Emeryville. EBMUD owns,
operates, and maintains the water distribution
system that brings Sierra Nevada snowmelt and
seasonal runoff through a distribution and
treatment system to Emeryville. Every 10 years,
EBMUD performs a comprehensive demand
projections study to understand water demand
and supply projections for a 30-year horizon. The
most recent update was completed in 2020 and
projected demand and required supply through
2050. As reported in EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan, the water demand forecasting
methodology relied on long-term planning
documents approved and adopted by the local
and regional land use agencies. Specifically,
“Growth projections in EBMUD’s future water
demand is a reflection of planned land-use
changes and redevelopment projects forecasted
by the local and regional land use agencies”
(EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan, 2020).

As demonstrated in the Urban Water
Management Plan, EBMUD shows adequate
capacity to accommodate demand through 2050
through a diversified and resilient portfolio that
includes recycled water and conservation
programs.

EBMUD’s Board of Directors approved Policy

3.07, which ensures that priority for new water
service connections during restrictive periods is
given to proposed developments within
EBMUD’s existing service area that include
housing units affordable to lower-income
households in accordance with California
Government Code Section 65589.7. Policy 3.07
also states that EBMUD will not deny an
application for services to a proposed
development that includes affordable housing
unless certain specific conditions are met, which
could include a water shortage emergency
condition, or if EBMUD is subject to a compliance
order by the Department of Public Health that
prohibits new water connections.

As an older city, Emeryville has had a water
supply system in place for many years. The
former industrial users demanded large
quantities of water to serve their businesses, so
the system was built to accommodate large
capacities. The system is regularly maintained
and upgraded to serve densification. Currently
the water supply system has capacity for growth.

Where there is insufficient localized capacity to
serve proposed development, upgrades or
installations are required as conditions of project
approval.

4.3.5.2 Sewer Service
As reported in EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan, EBMUD’s wastewater service
district (known as Special District No. 1, or SD-1)
treats domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater for several East Bay cities, including
Emeryville. Each of these communities operates
sewer collection systems that discharge into one
of five EBMUD sewer interceptors. The City
operates a municipal sanitary sewer collection
system that conveys wastewater from Emeryville
and portions of Oakland. Except for one pump
station and a force main at the Emeryville
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 72 | CONSTRAINTS
Marina, the City of Emeryville’s collection
system is generally a gravity-fed system,
consisting of over 15 miles of sanitary sewer
mains ranging in size from 6 to 30 inches.

Additionally, the City’s collection system carries
wastewater from approximately 11 miles of
sanitary sewer collection system owned and
maintained by the City of Oakland. Emeryville’s
collection system is divided into five drainage
basins, each of which connects to the EBMUD
north sanitary sewer interceptor, which is
generally located along the east side of Interstate

80. The EBMUD interceptor carries sewer flows
from the East Bay communities’ collection
systems to its wastewater treatment plant. The
plant provides secondary treatment for a
maximum flow of 168 million gallons per day
(mgd). Primary treatment can be provided for up
to a peak flow of 320 mgd. The average dry
weather flow from 2010 to 2019 was
approximately 54 MGD. The de-chlorinated
wastewater is discharged through an outfall 1.2
miles off the East Bay shore into the San Francisco
Bay. Solids are pumped to digesters for
stabilization and are then dewatered and hauled
offsite. Methane generated by the digesters is
used to produce renewable energy. In addition to
the main wastewater treatment plant, EBMUD
operates three wet weather treatment facilities.

These facilities were constructed in the late 1980s
to handle all the wet weather flows generated
from infiltration and inflow (I&I) into the satellite
agencies’ collection systems. The volume of wet
weather flow is generally as high as 15 times the
average dry weather flow. During periods of wet
weather, the wet weather facilities are designed
to provide primary treatment to the wet weather
sewage flow prior to discharge into San Francisco
Bay. This Housing Element is consistent with the
Emeryville General Plan which, as part of it and
its environmental impact report (EIR), was
assessed for development impacts including
utility and sewer capacity. There is adequate
sewer capacity to serve the City’s 6th cycle
RHNA.

4.3.5.3 Dry Utilities
Dry utilities are readily available throughout the
city from the following companies:
• Cable: Xfinity, DISH Network, DIRECTV,
AT&T, Sonic
• Phone: Xfinity, Verizon, AT&T
• Internet services: Xfinity, Verizon, AT&T

4.4 Non-Governmental
(Market) Constraints
This section evaluates non-governmental factors
that may impact the affordability and supply of
housing.

4.4.1 MACROECONOMY
One constraint to housing construction that is
frequently cited by economists and developers is
the large gap between household income and
housing costs. Many Emeryville residents on
average earn wages that are perilously close to or
well below the expected annual cost of living. The
expected annual cost of living (including food,
utilities, transportation, housing, healthcare, and
miscellaneous expenses) for a married couple
with children is $128,285 (www.zerodown.com,
C2ER (Council for Community and Economic
Research), accessed January 26, 2022). This does
not include state or federal income tax. As of
2019, the median household income (for all
household sizes) in Emeryville was $102,725
While Emeryville’s economy includes many
well-paying jobs in technology and
biotechnology, it also includes many low-paying
jobs in retail, services, and tourism.

4.4.2 PROPERTY OWNERS’

DECISIONS
The decision to develop a property remains with
the property owner, though the City controls
land use through zoning and related regulations.

Private property owners can constrain the market
when they wait to develop or sell their land in
anticipation of an increase in value through
market changes or up-zoning. The City cannot
require residential development on land
permitted for other uses, unless an applicant
wishes to use a housing density bonus. Several
Programs are included to encourage property
owners to develop their properties including
Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, H, and L.

4.4.3 LAND COSTS AND

AVAILABILITY
Factors affecting the costs of land include
overall availability within a given subregion;
environmental site conditions and constraints;
public service and infrastructure availability;
aesthetic considerations, such as views; the
proximity to amenities; and parcel size. An
online survey of available vacant land on
Zillow.com, Redfin.com, and Landwatch.com
completed in November 2021 did not identify
any vacant parcels for sale in Emeryville.

However, as shown in Table 4-14, the CoStar
Group (a company that specializes in real estate
data) tracks the sale of vacant (and nonvacant)
parcels. The five vacant parcels in Table 4-14
were sold in 2020 and 2021. They have an average
sales price of $16,765,191 per acre ($384.88 per
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 73
square foot). Of the four apartment building sales
in Table 4-14, the average sale price was
$2,162,500 with an average price per unit of
$278,604. There is limited vacant land in
Emeryville, land acquisition costs generally
include the purchase of an existing commercial or
residential structure. own in Table 4-14, several
multifamily apartment buildings sold in 2020
and 2021.

Lack of available land (including vacant land and
nonvacant land that is suitable for
redevelopment) can act as a constraint on the
development of housing. Land costs can act as a
constraint on the development of housing if a
prospective developer sees the land costs as an
impediment to developing a profitable product.

To address these constraints, the City has
included Programs E and D.

4.4.4 HOME SALE COSTS
As demonstrated in the Housing Needs
Assessment, the median home sales price of
individual condominiums and townhomes in
Emeryville in 2020 was $530,000 according to a
real estate market report prepared by Caldecott
Properties. A market analytics report from the
Costar Group that was prepared in January 2022
also reported $530,000 as the market price for
homes in the “Emeryville subregion” which
includes Emeryville and some areas beyond its
borders. As shown in Table 4-14, several
condominiums sold in 2020 and 2021. Of the six
condominium sales in Table 4-14, the average
sale price was $683,833 with an average price per
square foot of $456.17. To assist prospective
homebuyers in making homeownership more
affordable, the City will implement Programs I,
M, and P.

Table 4-14: Sample of Sales Comparables, 2020-2021
Type Address Size Price Price/Area Year Built
Apartments 1051 48th St 4 Units $1,495,000 $373,750/Unit 1956 Apartments 4327 Essex St. 5 Units $1,220,000 $244,000/Unit 1900 Apartments 1034 47th St. 15 Units $4,925,000 $328,333/Unit 1918 Apartments 1032 47th St 6 Units $1,010,000 $168,333/Unit 1909 Auto Repair 5315 San Pablo Ave 1,650 SF $480,000 $291/SF 1958 Distribution 1307 66th St 9,170 SF $3,600,000 $393/SF 2001 Flex/ Condo Industrial Condo, 4080 Watts St 4,200 SF $1,000,000 Condo Sale $238/SF 1959 Freestanding New Season's Market, 6201 Shellmound St 38,725 SF $13,914,367 Part of Portfolio $359/SF 2017
Freestanding
The Public Market
5903-6005 Shellmound
Emeryville, CA 94608
135,197 SF $42,748,458
Part of Portfolio $316/SF 1988
Industrial/ Condo Bessler Building, 4053 Harlan St 1,742 SF $930,000 Condo Sale $534/SF 1945 Industrial/ Condo Flex Condo, 1175-1195 Park Ave 3,612 SF $985,000 Condo Sale $273/SF 1912 DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 74 | CONSTRAINTS
Type Address Size Price Price/Area Year Built
Land 1284-1302 67th St 0.912 AC $1,913,330
Part of Portfolio $2,097,565/AC -
Land Multi-Property Sale, 5900 Shelmound St 0.38 AC $10,787,093 Part of Portfolio $28,386,744/AC -
Land The Public Market, 5900 Shellmound St 1.64 AC $46,624,415 Part of Portfolio $28,429,681/AC -
Land Sherwin St 0.591 AC $13,500,000 $22,828,416/AC -
Land 1230 67th St 0.45 AC $937,596
Part of Portfolio $2,083,547/AC -
Loft/Creative Space 4070 Hubbard St 8,202 SF $2,775,000 $338/SF 1948 Manufacturing 6200 Hollis St 16,600 SF $4,200,000 $253/SF 1958 Office 6101 Christie Ave 15,290 SF $6,900,000 $451/SF 1948 Office 1255 Powell St. 10,077 SF $5,600,000 $556/SF 1983 Office Bldg B, 1480 64th St 90,594 SF $84,566,874
Part of Portfolio $933/SF 2002
Office/ Retail/ Condo 3801 San Pablo Ave 591 SF $318,000 Condo Sale $538/SF 2009 R&D Bldg A, 6401 Hollis St 137,102 SF $44,933,126
Part of Portfolio $328/SF 1945
Restaurant 9 Anchor Dr 11,006 SF $376,000 $34/SF 1973
Retail Condo 3996 San Pablo Ave 842 SF $365,000 Condo Sale $433/SF 2005 Retail Condo 1352-1366 Powell St 700 SF $505,000 Condo Sale $721/SF 2004 Showroom 1309 66th St 7,743 SF $1,825,000 $236/SF 1984
Telecom Hotel/ Data Hosting 6440-6490 Bay St 11,264 SF $5,850,000 $519/SF 1960 Warehouse 5325-5333 Adeline St 14,044 SF $2,650,000 $189/SF 1959

4.4.5 CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction costs vary from site to site and may
increase or decrease depending on project size,
construction type (wood frame versus steel), the
number of funding sources involved, developer
capacity, and the level of amenities or services
being provided in the development. Labor costs
are also a significant factor and can be a financial
constraint for a development project.

4.4.5.1 Multifamily Home Construction
Costs
As shown in Table 3-17, based on four recent
projects at various stages of planning or
completion, average cost to construct
multifamily housing in Emeryville (not including
land costs) is estimated to be $437.50 per square
foot in hard costs. The four representative
projects include one completed in 2020, and as of
August 2021, one under construction, one
proposed, and one entitled.

These high costs can be viewed as a constraint to
affordable housing development because the cost
of the units far exceeds the revenue potential
from the affordable units. As stated in Programs
A, E, F, H, L, and W the City will work with
affordable housing developers to identify and
maximize available funding assistance programs.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 CONSTRAINTS | 75

4.4.6 AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
The cost and availability of financing can impact
a household’s ability to purchase a home or to
perform necessary maintenance and repairs. As
shown in Table 4-15, conventional mortgage
loans for homes range between 2 and 4 percent
for a standard fixed-rate loan with a 30-year term.

In recent years, interest rates have decreased,
reaching historic lows, but are starting to
increase. Increases in interest rates can have a
dramatic impact on housing affordability. For
example, for a home loan for $200,000 and a 20-
percent down payment ($40,000), the difference
in the monthly payment between a 3.5-percent
interest rate ($718) and a 4.5-percent interest rate
($811) is nearly $100. The difference paid over the
life of the loan (assuming a 30-year, fixed-rate
loan) exceeds $33,000. For a larger loan, the
difference in monthly payments for loans with
these interest rates would be even more
pronounced.

Interest rates are determined by national policies
and economic conditions, and there is little that
local governments can do to affect these rates.

Jurisdictions can, however, offer interest rate
write-downs to extend home purchase
opportunities to lower-income households. In
addition, government-insured loan programs
may be available to reduce mortgage downpayment requirements. The City has committed to Programs I, J, and M to support
homeownership, for households at Low- and
Moderate-Income levels.

The cost and availability of financing from
private and governmental sources can impact a
developer’s ability to develop a multifamily
project. Recently, the City provided financial
assistance to these developments: Emme
(resulted in 29 very-low income units), Estrella
Vista (resulted in 70 very-low income units and
16 low-income units) and Nellie Hannon
Gateway (Entitled) (will result in 51 very-low
income units and 38 low income units). (See
Program L, S.)
Through Program D, the City will analyze
initiatives such as developing a loan program for
homeowners to construct ADUs affordable to
lower-income households.

Table 4-15: Mortgage Interest Rates
Interest Annual
Percentage Rate
Conventional Loan
30-year fixed 2.875% 2.996%
15-year fixed 2.250% 2.398%
5-year AdjustableRate Mortgage 2.000% 2.537%
Federal Housing Administration Rates
30-year fixed 3.125% 4.184%
Veterans Loans
30-year fixed 2.250% 2.484%
Source: http://www.wellsfargo.com, 2021; http://www.usbank.com, 2021

4.4.7 IDENTIFYING AND
MITIGATING NONGOVERNMENTAL

CONSTRAINTS
As residential developments are approved by the
City and building permits or final maps have not
been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts
to contact applicants to learn why units have not
been constructed within two years after
approval. If these impediments are due to
nongovernmental constraints, such as
accelerating construction costs, shortages of labor
or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent
appropriate and legally possible, the City will
seek to identify actions that may help to remove
these constraints. In addition, the City will aim to
work with stakeholders to identify
nongovernmental constraints or other
circumstances that may impede the construction
of housing in Emeryville and work
collaboratively to find strategies and actions that
can eliminate or reduce identified constraints
(Program NN).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 76 | CONSTRAINTS
This page intentionally left blank.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING | 77

5. Assessment of Fair Housing
The purpose of this chapter is to assess fair housing issues in the community and identify strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Core elements of this chapter include analyses of segregation, integration, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.

In 2009, the Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) received entitlements to create the Magnolia Terrace project at 4001 Adeline Street. The project restored a relocated building into five independent units for people with developmental disabilities. The project offers long-term, affordable, accessible apartment units for adults and households with developmental disabilities, with leasing preferences for very low-income households..

5. DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 78 | ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing
elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must
contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH)
consistent with the core elements of the analysis
required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under California law, AFFH means “taking
meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
In order to comply with AB 686, the City of
Emeryville (City) has completed the following
outreach and analysis.

5.1 Outreach
At its core, community outreach helps a
community function better and Emeryville wants
to continue to be a community that functions for
everyone. To ensure that the City included as
many members as possible of the Emeryville
community in the Housing Element process, the
City reached out to a variety of housing service
providers and the public to gain a better
understanding of what their housing needs are
and what Emeryville could do better to meet
those needs in the future. The City will continue
to: (1) ensure the voices of all members of the
community, including those from
underrepresented groups, are included in
planning processes (Program EE); (2) that
residents are educated and have a resource to
assist them in addressing fair housing laws
(Program DD); and (3) that all community
members, especially those that are
disadvantaged, have equal access to
programs/services through targeted marketing
(Program FF). Through implementation of this
outreach strategy, the City believes it will ensure
meaningful action is taken to achieve its Fair
Housing Goal (H-4).

5.1.1 FAIR HOUSING PROVIDERS
As a part of the Housing Element outreach
process, the City consulted multiple stakeholders
to provide input on the Housing Element update.

Various stakeholders that serve Emeryville
residents were interviewed in a one-on-one
virtual meeting or phone call from September
2021 to December 2021 to discuss the state of
housing in Emeryville. Consultations included
targeted outreach to fair housing providers
serving the Emeryville area and surrounding
jurisdictions. Findings related to fair housing are
outlined below:

A fair housing provider communicated that their
organization has received an increasing number
of complaints from low and moderate-income
homeowners, who are struggling to maintain and
improve their older households. This fair
housing provider believes that these issues occur
due to financial institutions approving unrealistic
mortgages, misrepresenting information to
clients on financial documents, and refusing to
lend capital to those with traditionally poor
credit. Predatory lenders seek out low and
moderate income- individuals and families, with
the goal to become homeowners, and manipulate
these vulnerable community members to signing
unrealistic home loans. It was suggested that the
City could strengthen its home repair programs,
increase the amount of low interest rate housing
loans and second structure loans, and direct
financial institutions to expand the breadth and
flexibility of criteria that allows traditionally bad
credit borrowers to receive loans. The City has
committed to expanding the Predatory Lending
Prevention and Foreclosure Prevention Strategy
(adopted in in 2007), which includes resident
outreach, education, emergency mortgage
assistance, and coordination with HUDapproved housing counseling agencies. The City intends to continue this program to protect
vulnerable homeowners as an important strategy
in the City’s anti-displacement efforts (Program
J). The City also intends to continue to market
homeowner repair and rehab programs to low
income homeowners and will evaluate the need
to offer additional rehab loan programs (Program
X). The City will also continue to offer
homeownership programs, including down
payment assistance programs and Below Market
Rate housing. The City is developing new
guidelines for the down payment assistance
program to improve participation in the program
and is considering other actions and/or programs
to support lower income households to
successfully access homeownership
opportunities (Programs M, and I).

A fair housing provider that was interviewed
stated that disability related fair housing
violations has grown to be the most common type
of complaint that a fair housing organization
receives though it may not be an accurate account
of the fair housing violation discrimination cases
occurring. A fair housing provider observed that
disability related fair housing violations are
typically clearer and more evident than
discrimination from other protected classes (e.g.,
race, gender, and religion), which may be less
overt. The most common fair housing related
cases from the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing were related to
disability. Discrimination against non-disability
protected classes may be more difficult to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING | 79
recognize than disability cases because there may
not be an immediately recognizable
determination or action that showcases that a
person is discriminating against a member of a
protected class outside of a disability. For
example, it may be easy to recognize when a
reasonable accommodation request is denied.

Even if disability related fair housing violations
are not the most common type of fair housing
complaint, all other complaints to the fair
housing organization are still valid and should be
addressed and investigated. Therefore, the City
will continue to increase access to fair housing
resources for residents, including offering home
maintenance and fair housing education
trainings for property owners (Program X and
DD), creating a targeting marketing program for
fair housing informational materials in
neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty (such
as the Triangle and San Pablo Corridor
neighborhoods) (Program FF), and develop a
marketing program specifically for local
resources and programs for persons with
disabilities, including educational materials on
reasonable accommodation, housing rights, and
access to legal aid (Program O).

5.1.2 FAIR HOUSING SURVEY AND

LIVE POLLING
The City asked the public to prioritize actions the
City could commit to in its Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Program through
surveys available on the City’s website and
through live polling during two virtual
presentations; more information on these
questions can be found in Appendix B. There
were two meetings (Housing Committee Meeting
and Community Workshop) and one online
survey. The two respective meetings occurred on
July 7th, 2021 and February 23rd, 2022 and the
survey was available on the City’s website from
July to August 2021. Participants were asked to
identify the most impactful actions in three
categories: Housing Choice, Place-based
Conservation and Revitalization, Displacement
Prevention. The choices that participants were
asked to consider were inspired by the list of
suggested actions in HCD’s Guidance Memo
(April 2021) for complying with AB 686.

According to survey and workshop respondents,
the three most impactful actions related to
Housing Choice include a modification to the
Below Market Rate (BMR) program, creation of
an inclusionary housing program for BMR rental
units in new rental developments, and the
acquisition of additional affordable housing in
mixed income developments. Several other
actions were also considered impactful, though
to a lesser impact, such as the development of a
city-wide affordable rental registry and targeted
mixed income strategies. The City will directly
address the most impactful priorities through
implementing actions to purchase BMR
ownership units that are at risk of becoming
market-rate units, (Program I), examine
reestablishing an inclusionary requirement for
rental that will study allowing a reduction in the
inclusionary percentage requirement to support
developing units with deeper affordability levels
(Program A), and by providing financial incentive
for the restriction of additional BMR rental units for
special needs populations (Program K).

For Place-based Conservation and Revitalization,
survey and workshop respondents highly
favored actions that prioritized the targeted and
intentional investment in areas most in need and
address negative environmental, neighborhood,
housing and health impacts associated with
certain land uses. Several other actions were
considered highly impactful, including
recruiting residents from concentrated poverty to
serve on local government decision-making
bodies and proactive code enforcement. This
directly aligns with Policy H-4-6, which states that the City will maintain and enhance the quality of life
within neighborhoods, including those identified as
low-resource and/or disadvantaged, by providing
adequate maintenance to streets, sidewalks, parks
and other community facilities. The City will
address these priorities through implementation
actions such as recruiting low income residents to
serve on local advisory bodies, like the Housing
Committee (Program EE), improving pedestrian,
bicycle and mass transit access along 40th Street
(Program II), ensuring that housing developments
incorporate usable outdoor open space for
multigenerational use (Program R), and by
continuing to administer and promote the
brownfields program, which provides lowinterest loans and grants to remediate previously industrial or commercial sites and make them
suitable for new uses, such as affordable housing
(Program S).

To prevent displacement of existing residents
from their homes and communities, participants
believed that creating a rent review board and/or
mediation program, foreclosure assistance, or
multilingual tenant legal counseling services
would be very impactful. Other highly impactful
actions include implementing rent stabilization
programs beyond what is required by California
Civil Code 1946.2 and increased outreach in the
existing multi-lingual tenant legal counseling
program to advertise the availability of multiple
languages. The City will address these priorities
through the foreclosure assistance program
(Program J), continuing to contract with a HUDDocuSign Envelope ID: 112FC387-99B6-4FEE-9DE0-FE4EACFDE6A3 80 | ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
approved fair housing counseling organization
and ensuring all marketing material for fair
housing programs are provided in multiple
languages (Program DD and FF), and by continue
to partner with a 3rd party Housing Service Provider to advise residents and landlords on the requirements
under the Tenant/Landlord Eviction and Harassment
Ordinance (Program QQ).

5.2 Opportunity Areas
The California Government Code Section 65583
(10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Emeryville to
analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas
of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity,
and disproportionate housing needs, including
displacement risk. Although this is the Housing
Element for the City of Emeryville, Government
Code Section 65583 (subds. (c)(9), (c)(10), 8899.50,
subds. (a), (b), (c)) requires the City to address
patterns locally and regionally to compare
conditions at the local level to the rest of the
region. To that end, the City follows HCD’s
AFFH Guidelines and expands the analysis to
include regional maps and data to analyze the
differences between Emeryville and surrounding
cities (Berkeley and Oakland), the East Bay Area,
and the Bay Area region as a whole.

Since 2017, the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) and California Department
of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) have developed annual maps of access to
resources such as high-paying job opportunities;
proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods;
and other healthy economic, social, and
environmental indicators to provide evidencebased research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping”
and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access
to opportunities within their community.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to
identify areas within the community that provide
good access to opportunity for residents or,
conversely, provide low access to opportunity.

The information from the opportunity mapping
can help to highlight the need for housing
element policies and programs that would help
to remediate conditions in low-resource areas
and areas of high segregation and poverty and to
encourage better access for lower-income
households and communities of color to housing
in high-resource areas. TCAC/HCD categorized
census tracts into high, moderate, or lowresource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental
factors that can perpetuate poverty and
segregation, such as school proficiency, median
income, and median housing prices. The
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps use a regional
index score to determine categorization as high,
moderate, and low-resource. Emeryville falls
within the Bay Area TCAC region, which
includes all the Bay Area counties. Within the Bay
Area, the top 40 percent of census tracts are either
Highest or High-resource and the remaining 60
percent of census tracts are evenly divided into
Moderate and Low-resource.
• Highest Resource: Top 20-percent
highest-scoring census tracts in the region.