CITY OF BERKELEY

Housing Element Update

2023-2031

⬚ figure

ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION 70,669-N.S.

ADOPTED ON JANUARY 18, 2023 AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2023

Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element

On January 18, 2023, the Berkeley City Council approved and adopted a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the period 2023-2031 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.)

On January 30, 2023, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided formal comments following a 60-day review of the draft version that was submitted on December 1, 2022. HCD’s review also incorporated the edits and amendments made by City Council and submitted on January 23, 2023.

Pursuant to the City Council Resolution, the City made non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element in order to respond to the comments received from HCD to achieve certification.

RESOLUTION NO. 70,669-N.S.

A RESOLUTION TO (A) CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2022010331) AND ADOPT RELATED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND (B) APPROVE AND ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031.

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires every city and county in California to adopt a General Plan for its long-range development, and further, to periodically update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that each City shall include a Housing Element in its General Plan, and that the Housing Element be updated regularly on a schedule set forth in the law to reflect current conditions and legal requirements; and

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley ("City") adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update of the Berkeley General Plan on April 28, 2015 with Resolution No. 67,008-N.S.; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City of Berkeley, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (SCH No. 2022010331) ("EIR" or "Final EIR"); and

WHEREAS, on January 14, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") to analyze the environmental effects of the Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed Draft EIR scoping hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2022, to receive comments on the scope and content of the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Draft EIR was issued on August 30, 2022 along with the publication of the Draft EIR itself, both of which were made available to the general public and governmental agencies for review and comment; and

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and took public testimony, which was preceded by the distribution of notices in accordance with State and local noticing requirements; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability/Release of a Final EIR was issued and a Final EIR was published on November 30, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the August 2022 Draft EIR and the November 2022 Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, all documents constituting the record of this proceeding are and shall be retained by the City of Berkeley Planning and Development Department, Land Use Planning Division, at 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, California; and

WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and

WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and

WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita... California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and

WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 8,943 housing units, comprised of 2,446 very-low income units, 1,408 low-income units, 1,416 moderate-income units, and 3,664 above moderate-income units; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(5)), and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and

WHEREAS, the City prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element in conformance with State and local planning law and practices, considering local conditions and context, including economic, environmental, and fiscal factors; and

WHEREAS, State law generally states that the Housing Element and the City’s zoning must support housing for all income levels, and residential densities under 30 units per acre do not support construction of housing for lower income households (Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv)); and

WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes an inventory of sites that can accommodate new housing sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA obligation at each income level; and

WHEREAS, more than fifty-percent (50%) of the sites identified to accommodate the City’s low-income RHNA obligation are non-vacant. However, the City specifically finds that based on age, low building to land value, low Floor Area Ratio relative to zoning trends, condition of non-residential structures, local land use trends including the redevelopment of auto-related uses, banks, low-intensity retail and commercial uses, church properties, and adjacency to new residential development, the existing uses on such non-vacant parcels identified in the sites inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be integrated with new residential uses or discontinued during the planning period, and therefore will not constrain development or redevelopment of additional residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period, and so such sites can meet their development potential; and

WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and

WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 17 months, including three public workshops, six outreach events, three online surveys, two walking tours, approximately 28 stakeholder interviews and meetings, four City Council work sessions, five Planning Commission meetings, and presentations before the Homeless Services Panel of Experts, Commission on Disability, Landmarks Preservation Commission, Zoning Adjustments Board, Commission on Aging, Energy Commission, Children, Youth and Recreation Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Civic Arts Commission, and the City/UC/Student Relations Committee; and

WHEREAS, public input influenced the development of the housing goals and policies, housing opportunity sites, and housing program of the Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial review, following 30-day public review between June 13 and July 14, 2022, and incorporating revisions over the course of 18 business days between July 15 and August 10, 2022 (Gov. Code Section 65585); and

WHEREAS, on September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022, HCD provided the City with a number of preliminary comments about the draft Housing Element. City staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and analysis based on preliminary comments and a revised draft was made available for public comment from October 18 through October 25, 2022 and City staff held office hours on October 24, 2022. On November 1, 2022, the City submitted a revised draft Housing Element to HCD for follow-up review; and

WHEREAS, on November 8, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The letter noted that the Housing Element would meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the letter’s requirements. On November 23, 2022, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the additional descriptions, analysis, and clarifications requested by HCD and sought public comment on the draft; and

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2022, the City submitted the revised draft Housing Element to HCD for subsequent review with a cover letter listing in detail the City’s response and revisions to address HCD’s comment letter in order to bring the draft Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and

WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was prepared pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 22.04.020, Amendment-Procedures required-Planning Commission and City Council, and Gov. Code Section 65355; and

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and its six appendices, including the findings and changes recommended by HCD, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, and public comments, and recommended that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no recirculation of the EIR is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and that are identified in the CEQA Findings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, hereby adopts and incorporates by reference into this Resolution the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the significant environmental effects of the Project (Exhibit B to Attachment 3, in the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings pursuant to the General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element of the General Plan:

1. The 2023-2031 Housing Element and its FEIR comply with the provisions of CEQA.

2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is internally consistent, and is consistent with the rest of the City’s General Plan.

3. The 2023-2031 Housing Element process was developed through diligent effort by City staff to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(9)).

4. The 2023-2031 Housing Element consists of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Furthermore, the Housing Element identifies adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community (Gov. Code Section 65583).

5. The 2023-2031 Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housing by analyzing and taking action to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10) and 65584.0). The Housing Element provides an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity, and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. In particular:

   a. The Housing Element proposes to allow for multi-unit development in all residential zones, including R-1;

b. The RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity;

c. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing low and middle income (“LMI”) household trends by disproportionately placing lower income units in LMI areas at a higher rate. A larger proportion of moderate and above moderate income units are in LMI areas compared to lower income units;

d. The RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas (“R/ECAPs”). Of the units included in the sites inventory, 26.6% are located in R/ECAPs. A significantly smaller proportion of lower income units are located in R/ECAPs compared to moderate and above moderate income units;

e. The RHNA strategy helps fair housing conditions by placing future lower income households in in high resource areas. Approximately 60% of RHNA units, including 67.3% of lower income units, are in highest or high resource tracts. There is only one low resource tract (Southside), and the City allocated a mix of units of various income levels in this tract;

f. Appendix E identifies goals and actions to address four identified fair housing issues, including expanding fair housing testing and outreach, pursuing strategies to produce more affordable housing and protect tenants from displacement in cost-burdened neighborhoods, seeking grants to fund affordable housing, establishing a development arm of the Berkeley Housing Authority to develop new affordable units, funding home modifications for lower income households, creating opportunity for infill middle housing in single-family districts, and developing a housing preference policy to assist residents at risk of displacement;

g. In response to HCD’s feedback, the Housing Element now evaluates programs relative to specific neighborhoods for purposes of AFFH, such as targeting fair housing outreach and enforcement, rental housing safety programs, and rental assistance programs in Central and South Berkeley where there are higher proportions of lower income households and cost-burdened renters.

h. Program 36 – Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring includes a mid-term evaluation of the RHNA strategy and development progress, including a commitment to make adjustments as appropriate to achieve the City’s goals, including AFFH.

6. HCD staff reviewed the City's Draft Housing Element as required by Section 65585(b) of the Government Code, and the City's responses, described in the staff report, have been included as part of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.

7. Based upon the comments from HCD and the City's responses to those comments, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element and its appendices, which has addressed and has incorporated findings from HCD, as shown in Attachment 1 to the January 18, 2023 report to the Berkeley City Council recommending adoption of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 2023-2031 Housing Element supersedes and replaces the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council intends to complete the HCD review process to obtain their finding of substantial compliance and certification and hereby authorizes the City Manager to make non-substantive changes to the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element in response to comments received from HCD to achieve certification.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Gov. Code Section 65357.

The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Berkeley City Council on January 18, 2023 by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Harrison, Humbert, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Attest:

Rose Thomsen, Deputy City Clerk

Jesse Arreguin, Mayor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Overview...................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Housing Element Requirements ................................................................................................................ 9 1.4 General Plan Consistency......................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Public Participation................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Goals and Policies ............................................................................................................................................ 15 3 Housing Needs .................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Summary of Key Findings......................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 20 3.3 Income and Employment Characteristics ................................................................................................ 27 3.4 Special Needs Populations........................................................................................................................ 34 3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 44 3.6 Housing Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 58 4 Housing Constraints ......................................................................................................................................... 62 4.1 Governmental Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................... 97 5 Housing Resources........................................................................................................................................... 104 5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing................................................................................................. 104 5.2 Resources for Housing Protection, Preservation, and Production ....................................................... 113 5.3 Public/Private Partnerships...................................................................................................................... 116 5.4 Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 117 5.5 AFFH Actions Summary............................................................................................................................. 155 5.6 Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................................ 162

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events ...........................................................12

Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890-2020) ...................................................................21

Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring Cities (2000-2020) ........................21

Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040 .................................................................22

Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019) ........................................................................22

Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000-2019) .................................23

Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County ....................................24

Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019).........................................................................25

Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019) ..................................................25

Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000-2019) ..........................................................................................26

Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) .............................................................................26

Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County .............................................27

Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) .........................28

Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories .......................................................................................................29

Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure ..............................................................................................29

Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017) .................................................................................30

Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) .....................................................................30

Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) ....................................................................................31

Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019) ......................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010-2021) ....34

Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and Households .......................................................34

Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015-2022) ...............................35

Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019) ........36

Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) ...........................................36

Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019) .................................................................37

Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019) ...................................................................................................37

3

Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020) ........................................ 38

Table 3.17: Senior Households¹ by Tenure and Income Group ................................................................ 39

Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019) ...................................................... 41

Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019).............................................................................. 42

Figure 3.14: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2017) ......................................................... 43

Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2020) ........................................... 44

Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020) ...................................................................... 45

Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010-2020) ....................................................................................... 45

Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019) .............................. 46

Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019) ..................................................................... 47

Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019) ......................................................... 47

Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019) .............................................................................................................. 48

Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019) ........................................................................ 49

Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019) ........................................................................ 49

Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre- and Post-Costa-Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021) ............................... 51

Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000-2020) ............................... 51

Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021) ....................................................................... 51

Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001-2020) ........................................................................................... 52

Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010-2021) ............................................................................. 52

Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021) .......................................................... 53

Table 3.28: Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate ............................................................................. 56

Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units ............................................ 56

Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ................................... 59

Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017) ...................................................................................... 60

Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017) ................................ 61

Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017) ............................................................................ 61

Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................................ 63

Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 ............................. 64

Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 .................................. 64

Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses ................................................................................ 66

Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times ................................................................................................... 76

Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone ................................................81 Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone .......................82 Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone ................................................................86 Table 4.9: Comparison of Planning Fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond.................................92 Table 4.10: Fee Comparison for Sample Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Development93 Table 4.11: Development Information Provided on Berkeley's Website................................................96 Table 4.12: Home Mortgage Application Data for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD (2020) .............................................................................................................................................................................103 Table 5.1: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031 ...................................................................................104 Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021)...............106 Table 5.2: BART Station Sites .......................................................................................................................107 Table 5.3: Remaining RHNA..........................................................................................................................107 Table 5.4: Summary of 6th Cycle Opportunity Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA...................109 Table 5.5: Summary of RHNA Strategies ...................................................................................................110 Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory .......................................................................................................112 Table 5.6: Summary of AFFH Actions.........................................................................................................155 Table 5.7: Summary of Quantified Objectives (2023-2031).....................................................................162

1 INTRODUCTION

City of Berkeley’s Mission: Provide excellent service to the Berkeley community; promote a diverse, accessible, affordable, safe, healthy, environmentally sound and culturally rich city; innovate; embrace respectful, democratic participation in local decision-making; respond efficiently and effectively to neighborhood and commercial concerns; and do so in a fiscally sound manner.

Incorporated in 1909, Berkeley is centrally located within the Bay Area in Alameda County. While much more than just a university town, Berkeley benefits from the University of California’s cultural and educational facilities and its positive impact on the local economy. Along with the University, other top employers include the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, and the City of Berkeley. As one of the older cities in the East Bay, Berkeley has a number of lively pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that developed along former streetcar routes and near the University. It has many pleasant, livable residential neighborhoods with many attractive older homes. It has largely avoided the newer car-oriented suburban sprawl and strip mall style of commercial development found in other parts of the Bay Area.

Berkeley last updated its 5th cycle Housing Element in 2015. In the time since, Berkeley’s policies and actions have been shaped by worldwide, national, and local events including federal anti-immigration practices, the murder of George Floyd and resulting protests focused on racism and policing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased impacts due to climate change including severe local air quality impacts from wildfire smoke in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Berkeley has taken local action to address these pressures and affirm its values of equity, inclusiveness, and innovative action.

Berkeley became the first sanctuary city in the U.S. in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 2016 to support its residents, regardless of documentation. In 2018, Berkeley City Council declared a Climate Emergency and a goal of becoming a Fossil Fuel Free City as soon as possible; in 2019, Berkeley adopted the nation’s first prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. Berkeley has acknowledged and is working to address racially discriminatory practices that impact housing, displacement, and policing. In 2021, Berkeley City Council approved a resolution to end Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley, declared racism as a public health crisis, and developed a Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce that began work to create a model of equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

Plans adopted by Berkeley since 2015 that reflect Berkeley’s values and actions, and shape the patterns, amenities, and quality of development in Berkeley include:

• Berkeley Resilience Strategy (2016). Advances community connections, preparedness, and equity in Berkeley.
• Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan (2016). Prepares for and prioritizes the physical enhancements of Berkeley’s transportation network to improve access, safety, and mobility for all users.

• Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017). Aims to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, attractive, easy, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and bicycling abilities.
• Measure O: Affordable Housing Bond (2018). Provides $135 million of funding from bond revenue to pay for affordable housing projects, including creating and preserving affordable housing for low-income households, working families, and individuals including teachers, seniors, veterans, the homeless, and persons with disabilities. Berkeley voters passed Measure O in November 2018 with 77.5% approval. Since the passage of Measure O, 972 units of affordable housing have either been built, are under construction, or are in predevelopment.
• Berkeley Strategic Plan (2018). Identifies the long-term goals and short-term priorities that the City government will focus on the benefit the Berkeley community. Its goals include creating affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members; being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment; and championing and demonstrating social and racial equity.
• Age-Friendly Berkeley Plan (2018). Works on improving the experience of older adults in Berkeley with a focus on housing and economic security, transportation and mobility, health and wellness, and social participation and civic engagement.
• Green Infrastructure Plan (2019). To guide the identification, implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects within the City of Berkeley.
• Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019). To prepare for and mitigate the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters.
• Vision Zero Action Plan (2019). An equity-focused, data-driven effort to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our city streets by 2028.
• Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap (2020). Identifies goals, strategies, and actions to create a fossil fuel-free transportation system that integrates with and supports the City’s ongoing efforts to increase walking, biking, and public transportation, and ensures equitable access to the benefits of clean transportation.
• Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (2020). Articulates a community vision and planning framework for an important Priority Development Area that will serve as a guide for the City and other public agency decision-makers, community members, and other stakeholders over the next 20 years.
• Vision 2050 Framework (2020). A long-term plan to build, upgrade, and repair Berkeley’s aging infrastructure to be more sustainable and resilient in order to meet the serious challenges of the future, including climate change and is driven by a set of core values: equity, public health and safety, a strong local economy, resiliency, and sustainability.
• Pedestrian Plan (2021). Establishes a clear path forward for pedestrian infrastructure improvements by focusing its recommendations and goals squarely on equity and safety.
• Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy (2021). A ground-breaking plan to transition existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives

in a way that benefits all residents, especially members of historically marginalized communities.

This Housing Element Update must meet state law, as detailed in Section 1.2 Overview and 1.3 Housing Element Requirements, and define the specific goals, polices, and programs that will support Berkeley’s portion of the regional population growth. It must also do so in a manner that reflects Berkeley’s mission, values, and is consistent with its plans and work towards sustainability, safety, and equity.

As Berkeley continues to grow and develop, housing density will increase. This increased density can have many benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved health, and more access to affordable housing.

Berkeley’s Housing Element Update identifies policies and programs to provide and preserve healthy, resilient housing at a range of prices, with special attention given to special needs housing, homelessness prevention, and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). In doing so, it helps to realize Berkeley’s sustainable future as a Fossil Fuel Free City, powered by 100 percent renewable electricity, with safe transportation options to vibrant commercial areas and institutions, providing social and community connections for all residents.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT

The Housing Element’s purpose is to identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. The Housing Element is an eight-year plan, extending from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element will primarily address:

• Preserving and improving the existing housing stock
• Providing housing for special needs populations
• Supplying enough new housing to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s need
• Affirmatively furthering fair housing

1.2 OVERVIEW

State law requires that each jurisdiction prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan (Government Code §65302(c)). Since a General Plan serves as a jurisdiction’s blueprint for future development and growth, the Housing Element plays a critical role in the overall Plan. A Housing Element is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize the housing needs of the City and determine ways to best meet these needs, while balancing community objectives and resources.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element has five chapters:

1. Introduction. Provides an overview of the purpose, scope, and organization of the Housing Element.

2. Goals and Policies. Outlines the City’s commitments to providing and preserving housing opportunities in the City.
3. Housing Needs. Summarizes the City’s community profile, including demographic and housing characteristics, and an assessment of the associated housing needs.
4. Housing Constraints. Assesses the potential constraints to housing development and preservation, including governmental and non-governmental constraints.
5. Housing Resources. Provides a collection of resources available for meeting the City’s existing and projected housing needs, including a sites inventory and housing implementation programs, and assesses the direct or indirect impacts in furthering fair housing choice.

In addition, this Element includes several Appendices:

• Appendix A. Publicly Assisted Housing
• Appendix B. Development Standards
• Appendix C. Sites Inventory
• Appendix D. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments
• Appendix E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Appendix F. Outreach and Engagement

Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the City needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The State and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, the region’s metropolitan planning organization), carry out this process and allocate to each jurisdiction a share of California’s new housing need based on the community’s demographic trends, proximity to transit and employment, and other characteristics. As part of the Housing Element, the City must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.

When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must consider California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Guidelines (Government Code §65585). Jurisdictions must periodically review the Housing Element to evaluate (1) the appropriateness of its goals and policies in meeting the state’s housing goals, (2) its effectiveness in attaining the City’s housing goals and (3) the progress of its implementation (Government Code §65588).

1.3 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS

All Housing Elements must comply with several State laws. The preparation of the Housing Element is guided by California Government Code, Article 10.6. The law governing the contents of Housing Elements is among the most detailed of all elements of the General Plan. According to Section 65583 of the Government Code:

*The Housing Element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-

built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

Housing Element Law requires “An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.” The law requires:

• An analysis of population and employment trends, including the UC Berkeley student population
• An analysis of household characteristics
• An inventory of suitable land for residential development
• An identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right
• An analysis of the governmental and non-governmental constraints on the improvement, maintenance, and development of housing
• An analysis of special housing needs
• An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation
• An analysis of publicly assisted housing developments that may convert to non-assisted housing developments

The purpose of these requirements is to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community, and to set forth policies and schedules which promote preservation, improvement, and production of diverse housing types for all income levels throughout Berkeley.

Senate Bill (SB) 1087 (2005; Government Code §65589.7) requires cities to provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower-income housing. The Housing Element will be provided to these agencies immediately upon adoption.

1.4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

State law requires every California city to adopt a general plan that contains seven mandatory topics called "elements," but cities are given flexibility in how elements are named and organized. The mandatory elements in the Berkeley General Plan are Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Management (which addresses noise and conservation), Housing, Open Space & Recreation, and Disaster Preparedness & Safety. Cities may also adopt other optional elements. Berkeley has added Economic Development & Employment, Urban Design & Preservation, and Citizen Participation as optional elements.

All elements carry equal weight and are designed to be consistent with each other. State law (Government Code §65300.5) requires that “...the General Plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies....” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within the City.

The Housing Element is being updated at this time in conformance with the 2023-2031 update cycle for jurisdictions in the ABAG region. The City has reviewed the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan Elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element reflect the intent and policy direction contained in other General Plan Elements. As amendments are made to the General Plan, the City will also review and revise the Housing Element for ongoing consistency.

1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The 2023-2031 6th cycle Housing Element Update includes input from a variety of public outreach efforts. A dedicated webpage is available on the City’s website:

https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update.

The webpage includes a list of upcoming events, overview of the Housing Element update process, a timeline of key benchmarks, project documents, resources, and a summary of past events. The webpage also has the option to subscribe to a mailing list and an email address (housingelement@cityofberkeley.info) to contact with questions or concerns.

In a diligent effort to include all segments of the Berkeley community, the Housing Element team reached out to City boards and commissions that advise on housing-related issues, such as the Homeless Services Panel of Experts, Housing Advisory Commission, Rent Stabilization Board, Commission on Disability, Commission on Aging, and the Children, Youth and Recreation Commission. In addition, the outreach team conducted small group interviews with homeless interest groups, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, UC Berkeley's student housing commission, and representatives from local faith-based institutions. Renters were engaged through pop-up events at grocery stores, a renter-specific online survey, and a stakeholder meeting that brought together renters from various different income levels.

Public Input and the Housing Element Update

Input from the City’s outreach events and meetings helped define the Housing Element Update priorities and goals, and provide direction on the sites inventory, housing policies and programs, and zoning efforts. The most common theme of comments received relate to housing affordability and housing supply. In response, nearly half of the 35 policies identified in the Housing Element are in support of housing affordability and production goals.

Public input also provided direction in how the community would like to see these broader goals achieved. For example, in response to Council referrals and a sizeable volume of feedback indicating interest in upzoning and increasing density in low-density neighborhoods, the City is prioritizing the timeline for Program 29 -Middle Housing, which would amend the zoning code to allow multi-unit development on single lots.

Staff also relied upon feedback gathered from stakeholder meetings to improve draft policies and programs. For example, Program 12 -Workforce Housing aims to provide low to moderate-income housing to middle-income households with the goal of attracting and supporting professionals who

work in the City of Berkeley, such as teachers, healthcare workers, retail clerks, artists, and more. It was created with continued assistance from numerous community stakeholder groups that passionately advocated for the inclusion of such a program in the Housing Element.

All public comments provided to the City during the public comment period were reviewed by the Housing Element team and made available publicly on the Housing Element website. As mentioned above, the feedback received resulted in direct edits to the Housing Element Update.

Summary of City Meetings and Community Engagement Events

The following is a summary of workshops, meetings, surveys, and other outreach methods used during the update process. Key information from the public participation events and surveys are included in Appendix F Outreach and Engagement.

Table 1.1: City Meetings and Community Engagement Events

13

Public Draft Housing Element Update

Pursuant to AB 215, the initial draft 2023-2031 Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from Monday, June 13, 2022 through Thursday, July 14, 2022. Two subsequent revised public drafts were made available for seven days each prior to submitting to HCD for subsequent review.

• June 13 – July 14, 2022 (30 days): A public review draft of the Housing Element was made available for comment on the City’s website, including an accessible large print version that was shared with the Commission on Disability. Over the course of the public review period, three emails including links to the draft documents were sent to members of the public who indicated interest in the Housing Element Update. The City received a total of 563 comments.
• July 15, 2022 – August 10, 2022 (18 business days): Staff incorporated revisions based on public feedback received and submitted its Initial Draft Housing Element to HCD for 90-day review on August 10, 2022.
• September 23, 2022 and October 10, 2022: The City received preliminary comments from HCD and staff incorporated revisions based on HCD comments.
• October 18, 2022 – October 25, 2022 (7 days): The City published a Revised Draft “v2” for public comment and held office hours on October 24, 2022. The City received 11 comments.
• November 1, 2022: Staff incorporated revisions based on public comments and resubmitted Revised Draft “v3” to HCD for follow-up review.
• November 8, 2022: The City received HCD’s formal comment letter listing revisions necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.
• November 23—November 30, 2022 (7 days): The City published and noticed a revised Public Draft “v4” for subsequent public comment.

2 GOALS AND POLICIES

Through extensive outreach and engagement - at public workshops, board and commission meetings, City Council worksessions, stakeholder interviews and small-format meetings, tabling events, and surveys - the Housing Element team has compiled a comprehensive set of goals and policies that reflect feedback received. The goals and policies guide decision-making to address the housing needs and constraints identified in Chapters 3 and 4. The set includes six goals, as well as 35 policies to enact those goals.

Goal A Housing Affordability

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

Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal B Housing Preservation & Improvement

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

Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal C Housing Production

Berkeley should provide adequate housing capacity to meet its current and future housing needs, including coordinating with the UC and other agencies. New housing should be developed to expand opportunities and choices to meet the diverse needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, and should be safe, healthy and resilient.

Policies

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

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

H-17 Transit-Oriented New Construction

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

H-18 Accessory Dwelling Units Encourage and facilitate addition of accessory dwelling units on properties with single-family and multi-unit homes.

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

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

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

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

Goal D Special Needs Housing & Homelessness Prevention

Berkeley should expand the supply of housing for special needs groups, including housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes.

Policies

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

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

H-25 Family Housing Support and encourage housing projects that include units affordable and suitable for households with children and large families.

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

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

H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing

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

Goal E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

The City should continue to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing choices in Berkeley.

Policies

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

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

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

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

Goal F Mitigate Governmental Constraints

Berkeley should identify and mitigate barriers to the construction and improvement of housing.

Policies

H-33 Reduce Governmental Constraints Periodically review City fees and regulations to ensure that they do not unduly constrain housing development.

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

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

3 HOUSING NEEDS

The purpose of this chapter is to identify characteristics of Berkeley’s population and housing stock in order to understand the City’s housing needs. These include the unmet needs of existing residents and future needs resulting from anticipated demographic changes.

This chapter is organized as follows:

1. Summary of Key Findings
2. Population and Household Characteristics
3. Income and Employment
4. Special Needs Populations
5. Housing Stock Characteristics
6. Housing Challenges, including cost burden and overcrowding

The City used a variety of sources to collect the information that follows, including:

• Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by ABAG
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”)
• U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS)
• California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates
• Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (which are based on the ACS)
• Data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD)

As of the writing of this report, the 2020 Census results have not yet been released, with the exception of the preliminary population estimates for redistricting purposes. It is also important to note that some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data may differ.

3.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

• Population. Berkeley’s population grew by 9 percent from 2010 to 2020, to 122,580 people. ABAG projects that the City will grow 15 percent by 2040, to 140,935, which is an additional 18,355 people. (Goal C Housing Production)
• Demographics. Seniors ages 65 to 74 are the fastest growing age group in the City, and now comprise 9.2 percent of the population (compared to 6.5 percent in 2010). While young adults ages 15 to 24 remain the largest age group in the City (27 percent), the proportion of adults ages 25-34 grew by 25 percent since 2010 and now make up 18 percent of the population. (Policies H-25 Family Housing and H-26 Senior Housing)
• Race and Ethnicity. The Asian and Hispanic/Latinx populations continue to grow, with Asians comprising 21 percent (19 percent increase since 2010) and Hispanic/Latinx residents comprising 11 percent (13 percent increase since 2010) of the population. The Black/African

American population in Berkeley continues to decline and currently makes up 7.7 percent of the total population. (Policy H-29 Fair Housing)

• Household Income. The median household income in Berkeley was $95,360 in 2019, according to the American Community Survey. Based on HUD’s income definitions, about 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income. (Goal A Housing Affordability)
• Ownership Cost. Housing costs have been rising since 2011 and the average Berkeley home value was over $1.5 million in September 2021, according to the Zillow Home Value Index. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability for an explanation of the Zillow Home Value Index. (Policy H-6 Low-Income Homebuyers)
• Rental Cost. Median rents ranged from $2,950 for a studio to $5,648 for 4-bedroom units, according to a survey of available units conducted in November 2021. Median rents for rent stabilized units were about $1,000 per month less for units with two or fewer bedrooms. See Section 3.5.5 Housing Costs and Affordability. (Policy H-5 Rent Stabilization)

3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 POPULATION GROWTH AND PROJECTIONS

The City of Berkeley experienced rapid population growth from its founding in the late 19th century through the 1940s (Figure 3.1). Growth within the City leveled off between 1950 and 1970, and experienced decline through the 1970s at a rate of just over one percent per year. From 1980-2000 the population was fairly steady at just over 100,000 people. Since 2000, the City’s population has grown steadily, increasing approximately nine percent each decade. The Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population was 122,580 in 2020.

Table 3.1 provides a comparison of population growth in Berkeley, the State, Alameda County and surrounding communities. Between 2000 and 2010, Berkeley grew at a faster rate than the County and its neighboring cities; however, growth in the City was comparable to the State overall. Between 2010 and 2020, Berkeley’s growth rate was slightly lower than the County, but higher than that of the State. The majority of neighboring communities saw similar growth rates (approximately 7 to 11 percent), with the exception of San Leandro (3.5 percent).

Berkeley’s population is anticipated to continue to grow steadily between 2020 and 2040 according to the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 projections (Table 3.1). The City’s population is anticipated to reach about 136,000 by 2030 and 141,000 by 2040.

Figure 3.1: Changes in Berkeley Population (1890-2020)

⬚ figure

Sources: Decennial Census, 1890-2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.

Table 3.1: Population Change in State, County, and Neighboring Cities (2000-2020)

Sources: Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.

21

Figure 3.2: Berkeley Population Projections through 2040

⬚ figure

Sources: US Decennial Census, 2010; ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections, 2018. Note: Population for 2020 differs between the ABAG projections and CA DOF due to differences in methodology.

3.2.2 AGE DISTRIBUTION

Residents ages 15 to 24 comprised the largest age group in both 2010 and 2019, followed by people ages 25 to 34 (Table 3.2). Berkeley’s high proportion of young adults is due to the presence of UC Berkeley within the City. While the population ages 15 to 24 stayed relatively flat between 2010 and 2019, the population ages 25 to 34 increased by 25 percent, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete. Berkeley also experienced a significant increase in population ages 65 to 84, which may indicate an increasing need for housing appropriate for seniors in the community.

Table 3.2: Berkeley Age Distribution (2010 and 2019)

22

| Age 85+ | 1,972 | 1.8% | 1,708 | 1.4% | -13.4% | | Total | 112,580 | 100.0% | 121,485 | 100.0% | 7.9% |

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.2.3 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION

Table 3.3 illustrates the changes in racial and ethnic composition of Berkeley’s population between 2000 and 2019. Over this time period, the proportion of Asian and Pacific Islander residents increased steadily, comprising 16 percent of the population in 2000 and 21 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of Latinx residents also increased to about 11 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of the Black population has declined by approximately 5.6 percent since 2000, and Black residents comprised just under 8 percent of the population in 2019. The proportion of White residents has remained relatively constant over the last two decades at approximately 54 to 55 percent of the overall population.

When compared to Alameda County as a whole, the City of Berkeley is somewhat less diverse (see Figure 3.3). Alameda County has greater proportions of Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latinx populations than Berkeley. Conversely, the proportion of White residents is greater in Berkeley (53 percent, compared to 31 percent in the County).

Table 3.3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley (2000-2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

23

Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.2.4 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

According to the Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Households may contain related or unrelated individuals; however, the definition of household excludes group quarters, such as student dormitories. Household growth is a good indicator of housing unit production. Other metrics, such as household size, composition, and tenure can be related to factors such as age, cultural background, income level, and housing availability and cost.

According to the American Community Survey, there were an estimated 45,352 households residing in Berkeley in 2019, an increase of approximately 2,163 households since 2010.

Household Size and Type

According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the average household size was 2.44 persons and the average family size was 2.90 persons. Average household size and average family size have both increased slightly since 2010 (see Table 3.4). The City's average household and family sizes remain below the averages for Alameda County as a whole, which had an average household size of 2.82 and average family size of 3.37 in 2019.

Although the distribution of household types in Berkeley has remained relatively steady between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of nonfamily households has decreased slightly. However, the

majority of Berkeley households were still nonfamily households in 2019 (54 percent). The proportion of seniors living alone has increased slightly since 2019.

In Berkeley, there are nearly as many single-person households as there are married couple households (34 percent and 35 percent, respectively). This is in contrast to Alameda County, where the majority of households are family households (67 percent), and single-person households comprise just 24 percent of all households (see Figure 3.4).

Table 3.4: Berkeley Household Characteristics (2019)

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2006-2010, 2015-2019)

Figure 3.4: Berkeley and Alameda County Household Types (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Household Tenure

Housing tenure refers to whether housing units are owner occupied or renter occupied. In Berkeley, the majority of households are renters and the proportion of renter occupied and owner occupied units has remained relatively constant since 2000 (see Table 3.5). By contrast, the majority of Alameda County housing units are owner occupied.

Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) shows significant differences in tenure based on the race of the householder. The rate of owner occupancy is significantly lower than the overall rate of 43 percent for all minority racial groups and Hispanic/Latinx households. In contrast, the owner occupancy rate for White householders is higher than the overall rate at 51 percent.

Table 3.5: Household Tenure (2000-2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Figure 3.5: Tenure by Race of Householder (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note: For this data, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Therefore, the groups included in this table are not all mutually exclusive.

Group Quarters

Group quarters are a distinct housing type that includes emergency and transitional housing, nursing homes, juvenile homes, residential treatment centers, and student dormitories. Unsurprisingly, Berkeley has a sizeable proportion of the population residing in group quarters due to dormitories and other student housing associated with the University. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, just under 11 percent of Berkeley’s population resides in group quarters. This is an increase of less than one percent from 2014. The proportion of County residents living in group quarters is much lower at about two percent.

While group quarters are a critical housing type for certain segments of the population, group quarters are not counted as units when meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). In order to receive RHNA credits, the units must be recorded by the State Department of Finance (DOF) as a housing unit. However, discussions with the State indicated that housing units owned by the University are treated by DOF as group quarters, not as housing units, regardless of the physical structural characteristics. Therefore, university-owned housing does not receive RHNA credits.

Table 3.6: Group Quarters Population in Berkeley and Alameda County

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2010-2014, 2015-2019)

3.3 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS

3.3.1 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Household income is a dominant factor impacting housing needs in a community. With the exception of a small number of households owned with little or no mortgage, a household’s ability to afford housing is directly related to household income.

Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019) illustrates the change in median household income from 2000 to 2019 for Berkeley and Alameda County. Berkeley’s median household income increased by 114 percent between 2000 and 2019, including a 27 percent increase between 2000 and 2010 and a 68 percent increase between 2010 and 2019.

While Berkeley and the County’s median household income has increased similarly over the last two decades, Berkeley’s median has remained below that of the County. This is likely due to Berkeley’s large student population, of which over 90 percent live off campus. Students tend to have very low incomes which would skew the City’s median household income downward. However, students are generally not considered “lower income” for the purposes of public housing programs because they often rely on support from families or public loans.

Figure 3.6: Median Household Income, Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2019)

⬚ figure

Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates (2010, 2019)

3.3.2 HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORIES

State and federal housing assistance programs utilize income categories established by state and federal law. For the Housing Element and other state programs, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established the five categories listed in Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories. Together, the extremely low, very low, and low income categories are referred to as lower income. Although they differ slightly in their definitions, both state and federal income categories are based on the area median income or AMI. The AMI refers to the median income for a metropolitan statistical area. For 2021, HCD determined the AMI for a four-person household in Alameda County was $125,600.

For federal housing programs, eligibility is established for households with incomes up to only 80% of the AMI. Under the federal definition, these households are considered moderate income. These federal definitions are used for plans required by federal regulations (i.e., Consolidated Plans). The HCD definitions (shown in Table 27) are used in the Housing Element whenever possible; however, some datasets, such as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) utilized in this section, do not provide breakdowns by the HCD income categories.

Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure provides information on household income by tenure for Berkeley households. Overall, 42 percent of Berkeley’s households are considered lower income, earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. However, renter households are much more likely to be lower income than owner households (60 percent of renter households compared to 19 percent of owner households). Similarly, over 75 percent of owner households earn over 100 percent of the AMI, compared to just 32 percent of renter households.

Berkeley’s breakdown of households in various income categories is similar to Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole, see Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017). However, Berkeley has

a higher proportion of households earning less than 30 percent of the AMI when compared to the region.

Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017) shows stark differences in household income levels when broken down by race. American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/API, and Black/African American households are all more likely to fall within one of the lower income categories, when compared to Berkeley households as a whole.

Table 3.7: HCD Income Categories

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021

Table 3.8: Household Income by Tenure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release). Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County).

Figure 3.7: Households by Income Group (2017)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release).

Figure 3.8: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2017)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release). Note: Income groups in this table are based on HUD calculations for AMI for the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (includes Alameda and Contra Costa County).

30

3.3.3 EMPLOYMENT

The employment characteristics of residents can significantly influence their housing needs and choices. Factors such as the earning potential for various types of employment and the location of employment influence an employee’s ability to find affordable housing within a reasonable distance of their workplace.

Employment within the City of Berkeley is dominated by educational and health services. Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020) shows the top employers within the City of Berkeley. The University of California, Berkeley is the City’s largest employer, comprising 20.3 percent of the City’s total employment and employing more workers than all of the other top ten employers combined.

While Table 3.9 illustrates the top employers located within the City of Berkeley, Table 3.10 and Figure 3.9 summarize the types of occupations held by Berkeley residents and the industries in which they work, whether or not their place of employment is located within Berkeley. However, there are notable similarities between Berkeley’s top employers and the dominant industries and occupations held by Berkeley residents. The health and educational services industry employs the greatest proportion of Berkeley residents (43 percent). To a lesser extent, the health and educational services industry is also the top employer in Alameda and the Bay area, employing about 30 percent of workers. About 27 percent of Berkeley employees work in the financial and professional services industry, similar to Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. The agriculture and natural resources, construction, information, manufacturing and wholesale, and retail industries each make up less than 10 percent of resident employment.

The majority (67 percent) of Berkeley residents are employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (Figure 3.9). Once again, this is consistent with Berkeley’s top employers, particularly the University and National Laboratory. The proportion of Berkeley residents employed in these types of occupations is significantly higher than in the County and the Bay area as a whole, where about 50 percent of workers are employed in management, business, science and arts occupations. About 15 percent of Berkeley residents have sales and office occupations, followed by service occupations (12 percent).

Table 3.9: Top Ten Berkeley Employers (2020)

Source: City of Berkeley, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020.

Table 3.10: Resident Employment by Industry for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Figure 3.9: Resident Employment by Occupation in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2019)

⬚ figure

32

Alameda County

⬚ figure

Bay Area

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

3.3.4 UNEMPLOYMENT

The unemployment rate within a community is an indicator of the health of the economy as well as an indicator of the number of households with limited income and therefore, limited housing choices.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the unemployment rates for Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area from 2010 to 2021. Unemployment rates were high in the early 2010s as the economy recovered from the Great Recession. Unemployment levels reached a ten-year low in 2019, below three percent; however, unemployment rates skyrocketed in the second quarter of 2020 due to the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Since then, unemployment has dropped steadily; however, rates continue to be higher than pre-pandemic levels.

Figure 3.10: Unemployment Rates in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2010-2021)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021).

Note: Unemployment rates for Berkeley are derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. Since this assumption is untested, these data should be examined in broad terms, rather than focusing on exact percentage rates.

3.4 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS

Certain groups may face additional challenges in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. As defined by State Housing Element Law, the “special needs” groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, female-headed households with children, persons experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, and extremely-low income households. These groups are at a greater risk of experiencing housing-related issues, such as overcrowding or cost burden (expending greater than 30 percent of household income on housing expenses). Additionally, these special needs groups are not mutually exclusive and some households or individuals may fall into more than one special needs group. Table 3.11 summarizes Berkeley’s special needs populations and households and each group is discussed in further detail in the following sections.

Table 3.11: Berkeley Special Needs Populations and Households

Sources: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019); U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on 2013-2017 ACS; EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey. Notes:

1. All data is from the 2015-2019 ACS, except: Persons experiencing homelessness is from the EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count; and Extremely Low-Income Households is from the CHAS dataset.
2. Farmworkers includes all persons employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries.
3. Extremely Low-Income Household data is based on the 2013-2017 ACS (most recent CHAS data available).

3.4.1 PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS

The most recent point-in-time homeless count for the City of Berkeley occurred in February 2022. In the initial data available for 2022, there were a total of 1,057 individuals experiencing homelessness residing within Berkeley, which is about 14 percent of Alameda County’s total homeless population. The number of persons experiencing homelessness in Berkeley and Alameda County has increased steadily since 2015, though it went down by 51 individuals in Berkeley in 2022 (see Table 3.12).

The characteristics of the homeless population, such as gender and household type, provide important insights into the needs of this group which can guide decisions related to the provision of services. In February 2022, about 24 percent of persons experiencing homelessness were sleeping in a shelter (emergency shelter, transitional housing, or safe haven) and about 76 percent were unsheltered (Table 3.13). The majority of unsheltered persons were sleeping either in a tent or on the street (67 percent) or in a vehicle (33 percent). In 2019, only five percent of the homeless population were persons in families, while the remaining 95 percent were single individuals.

Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019) provides information about the gender and race of Berkeley’s homeless population in 2019. About two-thirds of Berkeley’s homeless population is male. Notably, 57 percent of the homeless population is Black, although just eight percent of Berkeley’s total population is Black (see Figure 3.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Berkeley and Alameda County).

Table 3.12: Homeless Population in Berkeley and Alameda County (2015-2022)

| Alameda County | 4,040 | 5,629 | 8,022 | 9,747 | |

Table 3.13: Berkeley Homeless Population by Location and Household Type (2022 and 2019)

Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 and 2019 Homeless Count and Survey

Figure 3.11: Berkeley Homeless Population by Gender and Race (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: EveryOne Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey

Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness

Berkeley is part of Alameda County’s Continuum of Care (CoC) and has adopted the EveryOne Home Plan (the Strategic Plan for the CoC). The goals of the Plan are:

• Prevent homelessness and other housing crises
• Increase permanent housing opportunities for homeless and high-risk households
• Provide wrap-around services to ensure housing stability and quality of life
• Measure success and report outcomes

To that end, the North County Coordinated Entry System Housing Resource Center is located in Berkeley and conducts assessments to match homeless individuals to available services including shelters, transitional housing, and other services such as mental and physical health services and addiction counseling. As of 2020, the City provided 226 year-round shelter beds, 28 seasonal shelter beds, 20 transitional housing beds, and over 500 supportive housing units.

3.4.2 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Individuals with disabilities often have special housing needs due to factors such as the need for accessibility, fixed low incomes or limited employment opportunities, and higher health care costs. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, approximately nine percent of Berkeley’s population has one or more disabilities. This is consistent with Alameda County as a whole, where approximately ten percent of the population has a disability.

Disabilities are most common among seniors and about 25 percent of the senior population has one or more disabilities (see Table 3.14). Table 3.15 provides information on the prevalence of various types of disabilities for the adult population as a whole and for the senior population. Cognitive difficulties are the most common disability type for both population groups, followed by ambulatory difficulties, and independent living difficulties. Individuals with ambulatory difficulties and/or self-care difficulties may require accessibility features in their home. Due to the age of Berkeley’s housing stock, assistance with adaptation of older units is often needed. Cognitive difficulties are defined by the Census Bureau as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem. Although a cognitive disability alone may not necessitate specific physical adaptations to the home, individuals with a cognitive disability may need access to additional mental health and social services.

Table 3.14: Persons with a Disability by Age Group (2019)

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

Table 3.15: Disability by Type (2019)

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

Developmental Disabilities

Developmental disability is defined by State law as “a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual...this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.”

Based on zip code-level data from the Department of Developmental Services, ABAG estimates that there are 440 individuals with developmental disabilities residing in Berkeley. About 63 percent of these individuals are adults and 37 percent are under age 18. The majority of persons with a developmental disability reside in their family home (68 percent) (see Table 3.16). Independent/supported living facilities are the second most common place of residence for persons with developmental disabilities at 22 percent.

Table 3.16: Residence Type of Persons with Developmental Disabilities (2020)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020))

Resource for Persons with Disabilities

Although many adults with developmental disabilities can live and work independently, group living environments can also provide an appropriate and supportive setting, particularly when an individual ages out of living in their family home. According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are three residential facilities for adults ages 18 to 59 within Berkeley with a combined capacity of 56 individuals. Additionally, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals. The Berkeley Municipal Code requires approval of a use permit for residential care facilities, the same process is required for other dwelling units in the residential zones. These requirements are discussed in further detail in the Constraints section of this Housing Element.

38

Several City programs assist homeowners with disabilities. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by nonprofit providers completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income households with a disabled member may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program. Additionally, homeowners may apply for a reasonable accommodation to get relief from zoning and building code requirements that hinder accessibility related improvements.

3.4.3 SENIORS

As Americans’ life expectancy increases, seniors make up an increasing segment of the population. Berkeley’s population ages 65 to 74 was the fastest growing age group between 2010 and 2019 and seniors ages 65 and over made up over 14 percent of the total population (see Table 3.2). Additionally, senior-headed households comprise nearly 28 percent of all Berkeley households. Table 3.17 summarizes the tenure and income level of senior households in Berkeley. There are significantly more owner households than renter households; however, renting senior households are much more likely to fall within the extremely low or very low income groups. Additional affordable, appropriately sized rental units are likely necessary to meet the housing needs of this group. Additionally, as previously noted, about one quarter of Berkeley seniors have one or more disabilities. Therefore, accessibility is another important factor in the provision of housing for Berkeley’s seniors.

Table 3.17: Senior Households¹ by Tenure and Income Group

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Notes:

1. For the purposes of this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older.
2. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI) the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties).

Resources for Seniors

According to the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, there are four residential care facilities for seniors located in Berkeley, with a combined capacity to house 127 individuals.

In 2016, the City began the Age-Friendly Berkeley initiative (https://www.agefriendlyberkeley.org), which identified affordable housing and home modifications as priority issues. Currently, several City programs assist senior homeowners. The Home Modifications for Accessibility and Safety program operated by Rebuilding Together and the Center for Independent Living completes home improvement projects to improve accessibility within the home for seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, low and moderate income senior households may apply for a zero interest loan for home improvements through the Senior and Disabled Home Improvement Loan Program.

The City operates two senior centers, the North Berkeley Senior Center and the Henry Ramsey Jr. South Berkeley Senior Center to connect seniors to local resources and provide individualized assistance. The senior centers also operate a grab and go meal program available to all Berkeley residents over 60 that provides five frozen nutritious meals per week for a suggested donation of $15.

3.4.4 SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

Single-parent households, in particular single female-headed households, tend to have a greater need for affordable housing, childcare facilities, and other supportive services due to lower per capita income and higher living expenses. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there are 2,089 single-parent households with children residing in Berkeley. The majority of these households (74 percent) are headed by single females. When compared to Alameda County as a whole, Berkeley has a lower proportion of single parent households. In Alameda County, single-parent households made up 6.8 percent of all households, compared to 4.6 percent in Berkeley.

The Census Bureau utilizes a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country. In 2021, the poverty level for a four-person household was $26,500 and about 14 percent of female-headed households with children were living below that threshold. However, it should be noted that the proportion of this household type needing additional assistance is probably much greater due to the high cost of living in the area. To that end, HCD’s defined income limit for an extremely low-income four-person household in Alameda County was significantly higher than the federal poverty level at $41,100.

Resources for Single-Parent Families with Children

Single parent families with children can benefit from all programs that are intended to assist lower income households in Berkeley. One such program is the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority. This special needs group may benefit from the City’s youth programs in particular. The City offers an affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Center. Scholarship opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education.

3.4.5 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS

Large households are defined as households with at least five members. Large family households often include multiple children and/or extended family members, such as grandparents. Since

adequately sized housing units to serve the needs of large households are often limited, large households are considered a special needs group. Additionally, a lack of appropriately sized and affordable units can lead to large households living in overcrowded conditions.

Figure 3.12 illustrates households by size for Berkeley and Alameda County. Approximately four percent of Berkeley’s households have five or more members (1,827 households). This is notably lower than the County, where 11 percent of households are large households. Berkeley has significantly more one-person households compared to the County, likely due to the presence of the University. According to the U.S. Census bureau, students living in on or off campus student housing facilities are counted “by the bed”; students in private off-campus residences that are not limited to students are counted by their occupancy as a separate living quarter.

As shown in Figure 3.13, household tenure varies by household size. The number of large households that rent their home is similar to the number of large households that own their home, while owner occupancy is more prevalent among four-person households. For households consisting of three or fewer individuals, renting was more common than owner occupancy.

Figure 3.12: Household Size in Alameda County and Berkeley (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

41

Figure 3.13: Berkeley Household Size by Tenure (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Resources for Large Households

Lower income large family households are eligible to participate in the City’s affordable housing programs available to all lower income households. This includes the Section 8 voucher program operated by the Berkeley Housing Authority.

Although affordable units with three or more bedrooms are less common than smaller units, there are several housing projects within Berkeley that feature larger units. For example, the Savo Island Cooperative Homes project contains 22 three-bedroom units and 27 four-bedroom units which could accommodate larger families.

3.4.6 FARMWORKERS

Farmworkers are considered a special needs group because they tend to have lower incomes, disproportionately live in housing that is in poor condition and/or overcrowded, and are predominantly persons of color. There is no agricultural land in Berkeley; therefore, the farmworker population is low. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there were 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries in Berkeley, comprising about 0.1 percent of the City's population. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers.

Resources for Farmworkers

Since farmworkers make up such a small percentage of Berkeley’s population, specific programs for this special needs group are not necessary. Farmworkers residing in Berkeley can access general housing programs and services available to all lower income households in the City.

42

3.4.7 EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

Extremely low-income households are those making 30 percent or less of the area median income. For Alameda County, the HCD defined income limit for extremely low-income households ranged from $28,800 for a one-person household to $54,300 for an eight-person household in 2021. A total of 9,650 Berkeley households fall into this category, comprising 21 percent of all households residing in the City. As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the proportion of extremely low-income households is higher in Berkeley than in Alameda County, where 16 percent of households are extremely low-income.

The large majority (88 percent) of extremely low-income households rent their home (Figure 3.14). Therefore, high rents in the City are particularly burdensome to this special needs group. As discussed in greater detail in the Housing Problems section of this chapter, approximately 88 percent of extremely low-income households have a housing cost burden, meaning that over 30 percent of household income is spent on housing-related expenses (refer to Figure 3.20).

Figure 3.14: Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2017)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households

The City has focused funding to address the needs extremely low-income households on programs that enable households and individuals living in poverty to attain self-sufficiency, support at-risk youth to succeed in school and graduate, and protect the health and safety of low income households. Training and job placement programs for low income, under-employed or unemployed residents include Inter-City Services employment training, Biotech Academy, the Bread Project, Rising Sun Center for Opportunity Green Energy Training Services, Berkeley Youth Alternatives, UC Theater Concert Careers Pathways, and YouthWorks.

Extremely low-income households with children can also benefit from youth and childcare programs offered by the City, including affordable after school programs and youth leadership development programs at the James Kenney Community Center and MLK Jr. Youth Services Center. Scholarship

opportunities are available for lower income households. The City also provides free meals to children in the summer in partnership with the State Department of Education.

3.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

Berkeley’s urban landscape reveals a great deal about how the City was developed. Building styles, which are typically associated with a particular time period, vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even from street to street. In some places, different stages of development are revealed by an occasional remnant Victorian, or by the area’s general mixture of later styles. The early transportation hubs can still be detected by the evidence of commercial centers and building clusters from different decades.

Broadly speaking, the areas close to the University and Downtown had their initial construction in the 19th Century, though many of them were later substantially rebuilt. West Berkeley, and the village of Lorin in South Berkeley, also had their start in the 19th Century. The initial pattern was a response to the original transportation system of boats, streetcars, and trains. The areas in between remained largely open for some time and then filled in, especially in the first three decades of the 1900s. The expanded suburban development in the hills followed the opening of new streetcar lines, the 1906 earthquake, and ultimately the common use of the automobile.

Densities are greatest in the areas close to the University and Downtown, where there are multi-unit apartment buildings and large single-family homes converted to rooming houses or apartments. Density can also be found along the main arterials of the city in both older and new apartment buildings. The majority of the city is characterized by small lots with one to four units.

3.5.1 HOUSING GROWTH

According to the Department of Finance, there were 51,523 housing units in Berkeley in 2020. This represents a four percent increase from 2010 and a 10 percent increase since 2000 (see Table 3.18). Berkeley’s housing growth rate is lower than that of Alameda County. In the past twenty years, there has been a 13 percent increase in housing units in the County.

Table 3.18: Housing Growth in Berkeley and Alameda County (2000-2020)

Sources: Decennial Census, 2000; California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.

3.5.2 UNIT TYPE AND SIZE

As illustrated in Figure 3.15, detached single-family houses remain the most common housing type in Berkeley, comprising 41 percent of all units. However, when both small (2-4 units) and large (five

or more units) multifamily complexes are taken into account, multifamily units comprise 55 percent of the City’s housing stock. There are 218 mobile home units in the City.

Table 3.19 summarizes the number of housing units by type in 2010 and 2020. The majority of new units constructed in the last ten years are part of large multi-family buildings containing five or more units. Overall, the number of multi-family units in the City increased by seven percent while the number of single family units increased by less than one percent.

Figure 3.16 provides information on the size of Berkeley’s housing units. Two-bedroom units are the most common in the City, followed by three- to four-bedroom units. The majority of smaller units (studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units) are occupied by renters. Conversely, the majority of larger units are owner occupied.

Figure 3.17 provides a comparison of housing units by number of bedrooms for Berkeley, Alameda County, and California as a whole. Berkeley has a larger proportion of smaller units with two or fewer bedrooms when compared to the County and the State. Units of two or fewer bedrooms comprise 65 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, while smaller units make up 49 percent and 45 percent of the County and State’s housing stock, respectively. Similarly, larger units containing four or more bedrooms make up just 14 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock, compared to 20 percent of Alameda County units and 21 percent of California units. Berkeley’s unit sizes are generally consistent with the prevalence of smaller households, particularly single person households within the City.

Figure 3.15: Berkeley Housing Stock (Units) by Type (2020)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020.)

Table 3.19: Trends in Housing Types (2010-2020)

45

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2010, 2020.)

Figure 3.16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

46

Figure 3.17: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

3.5.3 VACANCY RATES

A certain number of vacancies in a community is necessary to moderate housing costs, provide some level of choice for households seeking housing, and provide incentive to keep units in decent condition. Vacancy rates for rental properties are typically higher than owner occupied properties because rental units tend to turn over more frequently. A vacancy rate is considered to be healthy if it permits adequate choices and mobility among a variety of housing units. A healthy rate is considered to be 5-6 percent for rental units and 2-3 percent for owner occupied units.

According to the American Community Survey, vacancy rates have decreased over the last several years (see Table 3.20) and are well below optimal levels. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent for owner occupied units and 2.4 percent for rental units. Vacancy rates in Alameda County are higher than in Berkeley; however, they are also below healthy levels.

Table 3.21 provides insight into the types of vacancies that exist within the City. The largest vacancy type in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area is "other vacant" (55%, 44%, and 36%, respectively). The Census Bureau defines "other vacant" as units that do not fit into any other year-round vacant category. It is possible that short-term vacation rentals account for a significant subset of this category. The proportion of units for sale and units for rent are lower in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area.

Table 3.20: Vacancy Rates in Berkeley and Alameda County (2019)

47

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019) Note: Overall vacancy includes units that are seasonally occupied units.

Table 3.21: Vacancy by Type (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)) Note: "Other Vacant" as defined by the Census Bureau is a housing unit that does not fit into any other year-round vacant category.

3.5.4 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK AND HOUSING CONDITION

The age of a community’s housing stock can provide insight into the level of maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Generally, structures over 30 years old are likely to have significant rehabilitation needs which may include a new roof, foundation repairs, and new plumbing. Berkeley has a significant proportion of older units, with nearly half of all units constructed before 1939 (see Figure 3.18). Overall, 95 percent of Berkeley’s housing stock will be over 30 years old by the end of this housing element planning cycle and 86 percent will be over 50 years old.

According to the 2014-2019 American Community Survey, the median year structure built for the City’s housing stock is 1942. However, the City’s owner occupied housing stock is significantly older with a median age older than 1939, compared to a median age of 1958 for renter occupied units. Regardless of tenure, rehabilitation and maintenance is an ongoing need to preserve the quality of the City’s housing stock.

Lack of sufficient plumbing and kitchen facilities is another indicator of substandard housing condition. Although units without sufficient plumbing or kitchens are rare in Berkeley, renter households are more likely to reside in a unit with one of these issues. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates that about 0.6 percent of owner occupied units and about 2.1 percent of renter occupied units lack sufficient kitchen facilities. Lack of sufficient plumbing is rarer, with 0.3 percent of owner occupied units and 1.2 percent of rental units lacking sufficient plumbing (Table 3.22).

48

Local building and code enforcement divisions can also provide insight into the condition of housing units in the community, based on complaints filed, inspections, code violations, and other observations. In 2021 there were a total of 303 code enforcement cases reported, of which 238 were resolved. The average time needed to resolve a case was 53 days. Approximately 15 to 18 percent of complaint-based code enforcement cases were identified as blight cases (approximately 35 cases in 2022), which suggests that there are potentially more units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. A more accurate number of housing units in need of rehabilitation is approximately between 1,000 to 2,500 units, or less than five percent of the City’s total housing stock.

Table 3.22: Substandard Housing Issues by Tenure (2019)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019))

Figure 3.18: Housing Units by Year Structure Built (2019)

⬚ figure

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2015-2019)

3.5.5 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY

Housing costs have a significant impact on the prevalence of housing issues within a community. High housing costs in comparison to household income have a direct impact on the types of units a household can afford, whether they incur a housing cost burden, or whether they live in overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the cost of renting and homeownership in Berkeley. An affordability analysis is also included in this section. Additional information on housing problems such as cost burden and overcrowding, is included in the Housing Problems section later in this chapter.

49

Rent Stabilized Units

The City of Berkeley adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance in 1980, which limits annual rental increases for units built prior to 1980. According to the Rent Stabilization Board, there are approximately 19,414 rent stabilized units within the City of Berkeley as of March 2021. Since 2005, the annual adjustment for rents has been 65 percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the metropolitan area.

However, in compliance with the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, landlords are allowed to establish market rate rents when a unit is vacated and leased to a new tenant in units constructed before enactment of the law (known as “vacancy decontrol”). Once reoccupied, the annual rent increases are limited by the local jurisdiction’s rent stabilization provisions. As shown in Table 3.23, vacancy decontrol has had a significant impact on the affordability of rent controlled units. The average rent ceiling for tenancies starting after 1999, when full implementation of the Costa-Hawkins Act began, is nearly two and a half times higher than units with tenancies starting before 1999.

Table 3.24 provides the median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Median rents increased at a much greater rate between 2010 and 2020, when compared to the previous decade, with the cost of two-bedroom and smaller units outpacing increases in median income over the same time period. Median rents for new tenants in 2020 ranged from $1,750 for a studio apartment to $3,850 for a three-bedroom apartment.

The Ellis Act, first effective in 1986, gives property owners the right to remove apartment buildings from the rental market for development or repurposing. The term “Ellised” has been utilized to refer to a property owner’s removal of a multifamily property from the rental market. The State does not require the owner to report on the reason a property has been Ellised. However, the Ellis Act does authorize local governments to place restrictions on properties that have been Ellised to ensure that this process is not abused. Berkeley has adopted these various restrictions in the Ellis Implementation Ordinance and has monitored compliance with the Ellis Act and Ellis Implementation Ordinance since their introduction.

As of June 2020, 154 properties have been Ellised, totaling 457 units, since 1986.¹ According to the Rent Stabilization Board’s data on Ellised properties, the majority of properties removed from the rental market contain just one or two units. Only three properties containing ten or more units have been removed from the rental market.

In September 2017, then Governor Brown signed into law AB 1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix,” which restored the authority of local jurisdictions to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new rental housing projects. Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23.328 Inclusionary Housing currently requires that all residential housing projects, including rental, that result in a total of five or more dwelling units must include at least 20 percent of the total number of units as inclusionary. The units must be sold or rented to very low and/or low income households.

Table 3.23: Average Rents for Pre- and Post-Costa-Hawkins Act Tenancies (2021)

Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”.

Table 3.24: Median Rents for New Tenancies in Rent Stabilized Units (2000-2020)

Source: City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, “Market Medians: January 1999 through March 2021”.

Market Rate Rental Units

Table 3.25 summarizes a survey of units listed for rent on Zillow in November 2021; therefore, it contains information for both market rate units and units that are subject to rent stabilization. As shown, median rents from the Zillow survey are significantly higher than the median rents for rent stabilized units listed in Table 3.24. Since the Ordinance applies only to units built before 1980, rent stabilized units are all within older buildings. The survey showed a significant proportion of units available for rent, particularly studios and one-bedrooms, were part of new large multifamily complexes. High rents in these new complexes drive up the median rent for smaller units. Larger units with three or more bedrooms are less common within the City, which may create difficulties for larger households to find affordable, appropriately sized units.

Table 3.25: Advertised Rents in Berkeley (November 2021)

Source: Zillow.com listings of units for rent in Berkeley, accessed November 11, 2021.

Homeownership Market

51

Home values in this section are based on the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). The ZHVI is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Figure 3.19 illustrates home values in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area for 2001 through 2020. Although values dropped slightly during the Great Recession, home values have increased steadily in all three geographies since 2011. Home values in Berkeley continue to be significantly higher than regional home values.

Between December 2010 and September 2021, there was a 129 percent increase in Berkeley home values. As shown in Table 3.26, the sharpest increase in home values occurred between 2010 and 2015. However, it should be noted that home values increased over 15 percent during the nine-month period between December 2020 and September 2021. In September 2021, the typical value for a single family home in Berkeley was over $1.6 million. The typical value for a condominium was $915,000.

Figure 3.19: Typical Home Values (2001-2020)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index). Note: This data includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series

Table 3.26: Berkeley Home Values by Type (2010-2021)

52

Source: Zillow.com, Zillow Home Value Index. Notes:

1. Zillow Home Value Index
2. Most recent data available

Housing Affordability

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines housing affordability as paying no more than 30 to 35 percent of the household’s gross income (depending on income and tenure) on housing expenses. In addition to rent or mortgage payments, housing expenses include utilities, taxes, and insurance. Table 3.27 provides an estimate of affordable rents and home prices by income level, based on HCD’s 2021 household income limits for Alameda County. These figures are general estimates only and based on conservative assumptions such as low down-payment, and do not take into account the tax benefits of homeownership. These estimates can be compared to the typical rents and home values in Berkeley as discussed in the previous sections to provide a general picture of affordability.

Based on the home values presented in Table 3.26 and the affordable home prices presented in Table 3.27, lower income and moderate income households cannot afford to purchase a single family home or condominium in Berkeley.

As indicated in Table 3.24 median rents for new tenancies in rent stabilized units range from $1,750 for a studio to $3,850 for a three-bedroom rental unit. Based on Table 3.27, extremely low and very low income households cannot afford this level of rent without incurring a significant cost burden. Low, median, and moderate income households may be able to afford a rent stabilized unit with two or fewer bedrooms. Larger units with three bedrooms remain unaffordable, posing an issue for large households.

When the entire rental market is considered rather than rent stabilized units only (see Table 3.25), the median rents are unaffordable for all lower income and median income households. Moderate income households may be able to afford some units without incurring a cost burden; however, they may be smaller and result in overcrowded conditions.

Table 3.27: Housing Affordability Matrix (Alameda County, 2021)

Sources: 2021 HCD Income Limits; Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Veronica Tam & Associates, 2021.

Assumptions:

1. Income limits are the 2021 HCD limits for Alameda County.

2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.
3. Utility costs are based on Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2021.
4. Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.
5. Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.
6. Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.

3.5.6 UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE HOUSING

State Housing Element law requires the Housing Element to include an evaluation of the potential for currently deed-restricted affordable rental units to convert to market-rate housing within the next ten years, or from 2023 to 2033. This section includes an inventory of all deed-restricted rental housing in Berkeley, evaluates their potential for market-rate conversion, and presents potential options for preserving at-risk units.

Assisted Housing Inventory

There are over 2,300 deed restricted affordable rental units within the City of Berkeley. A complete listing of properties containing affordable rental units is contained in Appendix A. In compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, all units constructed to fulfill inclusionary requirements are deed restricted to remain affordable in perpetuity and are not at risk of being converted to market-rate housing. Density bonus units are restricted for a term of 55 years. Therefore, projects that have both inclusionary units and density bonus units may have multiple affordability terms. Table 3.28 provides a listing of the publicly assisted rental units at risk of conversion to market rate housing over the next ten years (through 2033). A total of three projects (92 units) are at-risk for potential conversion to market rate units between 2023 and 2033. See also Appendix A Inventory of Publicly-Assisted Housing.

All three of the at-risk projects are reliant on project-based subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that are currently renewable on an annual basis and do not have other known restrictions recorded on the property which would prevent conversion to market rate. These vouchers allow the project owner to collect HUD’s Fair Market Rent, restrict occupancy to lower income residents, and assure that the resident will only be responsible for that portion of rent equal to 30 percent of their income. Because these vouchers are contingent on annual appropriations from the federal government, the vouchers must be renewed annually; therefore, the units are constantly “at risk” from possible federal policy changes. Additionally, all three properties are beyond their original affordability expiration date and the owners could decide not to renew their subsidy in any given year. However, over time, data and experience have shown that many owners continue to renew their contracts beyond the original expiration date, providing evidence that the link between affordability expiration date and conversion is not inevitable. This is particularly true for projects owned by mission-based housing nonprofit organizations. All three of these properties are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations and the City has no indication that the owners intend to convert the units to market rate; therefore, the risk of conversion to market-rate units is low.

55

Table 3.28: Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate

Preservation Options

There are a total of 92 units at-risk of converting to market rate within the next ten years. Preservation of at-risk units can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including provision of rental subsidies to tenants, facilitation of the transfer of units to nonprofit organizations or purchase of similar replacement units by nonprofit organizations, purchase of the affordability covenant, and new construction of replacement units.

Rent Subsidy. One potential option for preservation of at-risk units is to provide rent subsidies to tenants to cover the gap between the affordable rent and market rent. Assuming availability of funding, the City could provide a voucher to very low income households, similar to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The level of subsidy required is estimated to equal the market rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low income household. Table 3.29 estimates the subsidies required to preserve housing affordability for the units within the three at-risk projects. Based on the assumptions utilized, over $2.1 million in rent subsidies would be needed annually, resulting in a need of $43 million in subsidies over a 20-year period.

Table 3.29: Estimated Rental Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units

56

Sources: See Table 3.25 and Table 3.27. Note: The following assumptions were used to estimate subsidies:

1. Studio units were assumed to be occupied by a 1-person household; 1-bedroom units by a 2-person household; 2-bedroom units by a 3-person household; 3-bedroom units by a 4-person household; 4-bedroom units by a 5-person household
2. Affordable monthly rent for a very low income household is based on the 2021 AMI for Alameda County (found in Table 3.27).
3. Market Rent is based on median market rent as present in Table 3.25).

Transfer of Ownership. Transfer of ownership from a private owner to a nonprofit housing organization is another potential way to preserve at-risk units. However, all of the at-risk units within Berkeley identified in this analysis are already nonprofit owned.

Extension of Affordability Covenant. In some cases, affordability can be preserved by providing financial incentives to the project owner to maintain the affordability of the project. For example, the City of Berkeley has historically utilized Housing Trust Fund loans to complete rehabilitation work on affordable units. As part of the loan, the City requires the owner to extend the affordability covenant for an additional 55 years, thereby preserving affordability of the units. This mechanism has been utilized to extend affordability in projects such as Lorin Station and Rosewood Manor.

Replacement Costs. Many factors contribute to the cost of developing new housing, including project location, density, size and number of units, and type of construction. Based on a report completed by Street Level Advisors¹, the total construction cost for a new affordable housing unit in Berkeley is approximately $700,000. Utilizing this estimate, approximately $64.4 million would be needed to construct new units to replace all the units at-risk during the planning period.

Preservation Cost Comparison and Resources. Based on past City practice, utilizing Housing Trust Funds for rehabilitation of older affordable housing developments in exchange to an extension of the affordability term is perhaps the most viable preservation option. This approach was utilized to successfully preserve units in Rosewood Manor, a property that was identified as at-risk of conversion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

Approximately $43 million would be required to provide rent subsidies for all at-risk units over a 20-year period. However, these buildings would likely need rehabilitation during that time period due to age and operating a rent subsidy program would require significant administrative resources, adding to the total cost. Based on an estimated cost of $700,000 per unit, it would cost over $64

million to construct 92 replacement units. However, factors such as labor and materials costs and land costs can fluctuate significantly.

There are several nonprofit organizations operating in Berkeley which own and/or manage affordable housing developments. They include Resources for Community Development, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, BRIDGE Housing, Northern California Land Trust, and the John Stewart Company. The John Stewart Company and BRIDGE Housing are based in San Francisco while the other three organizations are based in Berkeley. In the event that the City was contacted by a property owner or received a Notice of Intent for the conversion of affordable units, the City would make contact with these organizations and others that have expressed interest in acquiring affordable rental housing.

Potential funding sources that may be used to acquire and/or rehabilitate at-risk housing include:

3.6 HOUSING CHALLENGES

Factors including household income, market rents and home prices, available unit sizes, and household size can all contribute to cost burden and/or overcrowded conditions. This section discusses the prevalence of overcrowding and cost burden within the City of Berkeley.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is utilized in this section. The CHAS utilizes data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to provide information on housing problems, including cost burden and overcrowding. The most recent data available is derived from the 2013-2017 ACS.

3.6.1 HOUSING COST BURDEN

A household is considered to have a housing cost burden if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing expenses. Housing expenses include rent or mortgage payments and utilities. For owner households, housing expenses also include taxes and insurance. Households with a cost burden may have trouble making rent, mortgage or utility payments, keeping up with home maintenance, or may have to forego other non-housing related necessities in order to keep up with

housing expenses. A household is considered as having a severe cost burden if housing expenses make up over 50 percent of the household’s gross income.

As summarized in Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017), 42 percent of all Berkeley households are cost burdened with 23 percent experiencing a severe cost burden. Cost burden is notably more prevalent among renter households, with over half of renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing expenses.

When compared to the region, cost burden is more widespread in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area as a whole. A total of 37 percent of Alameda County households and 36 percent of Bay area households are cost burdened.

As expected, cost burden occurs most frequently for households in lower income categories (see Figure 3.20). 76.2 percent of lower income households (13,485 out of 17,705) pay more than 30 percent of their income towards housing, including 78.5 percent of renter-occupied households (11,345 out of 14,455) and 65.5 percent of owner-occupied households (2,130 out of 3,250). 87 percent of extremely low income households pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 77 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. The proportion of households with a cost burden lessens as incomes increase. However, it is a prevalent issue impacting over half of lower income households, and one third of moderate income households.

Table 3.30: Cost Burden in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Figure 3.20: Cost Burden by Income Group (2017)

⬚ figure

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Overcrowding

As defined by HCD, overcrowding occurs when there is more than one person per room in a housing unit (including the living and dining rooms, but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding occurs when there is more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding typically occurs when households cannot afford a housing unit that is the appropriate size or when larger units are not available in the market. Households then either rent a unit that is too small or double up with another family in order to afford housing costs, resulting in overcrowding. Families that choose to live with extended family or in multi-generational living arrangements may also struggle to find units that are large enough at an affordable cost, particularly in a city like Berkeley where housing costs are high and there are fewer large units.

Overcrowding in less common in Berkeley than in the region. Just four percent of Berkeley households are overcrowded, which includes the UC student population, compared to almost eight percent in Alameda County and seven percent in the Bay area (Table 3.31).

As shown in Table 3.32, the proportion of lower income households living in overcrowded conditions is slightly higher than moderate and above moderate income households. Overcrowding impacts six percent of renter households, but just over one percent of owner households.

Table 3.31: Overcrowding in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay Area (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Table 3.32: Overcrowding by Income and Tenure (2017)

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS

This section of the Housing Element analyzes potential constraints to housing production in the City of Berkeley. State Housing Element Law requires the Housing Element to analyze two categories of potential constraints: governmental and non-governmental.

• Governmental constraints. May include factors such as local land use policies and zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and development and impact fees.
• Non-governmental constraints. May include construction and land costs, financing availability, physical constraints, and availability of infrastructure.

If constraints are identified, the City must take action or implement programs to remove or address them. As discussed in further detail below, the City strives to minimize constraints to development and implements numerous programs, policies, and procedures to address identified constraints.

4.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Planning policies and zoning regulations establish rules for how land may be developed, including the uses allowed and the intensity of development. Although local ordinances and policies are typically adopted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community’s residents, they may also result in constraints to the development of housing. Permit requirements, fees, and review procedures can also impact the cost, timeline, and approval certainty for residential development. This section discusses potential governmental constraints to housing development that may result from Berkeley’s policies, procedures, and regulations.

4.1.1 GENERAL PLAN

The City of Berkeley last completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2001. The Land Use Element of the General Plan guides the physical development of the City in conjunction with other Elements, including the Transportation Element, Urban Design and Preservation Element, and the Housing Element. A number of the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element support the production and ongoing maintenance of housing within the City. Specifically, the Land Use Element aims to increase the supply of affordable housing, encourage mixed-use development downtown and along commercial corridors, and increase resilience to natural disasters.

The Land Use Element assigns land use classifications to areas throughout the City. Classifications describe the range of land uses and intensities allowed within an area. It is important to note that these intensity guidelines are not used as standards to determine intensity on a specific parcel, providing more flexibility in analysis of individual projects. In the commercial and mixed-use designations, intensity is expressed in terms of floor area ratio (FAR) rather than dwelling units per acre, providing additional flexibility. Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations lists the general plan land use designations which allow for residential development, along with the range of building intensity. Berkeley has four residential land use designations in which residential development is the primary intended use. Residential development is also allowed within three of Berkeley’s commercial

designations (Neighborhood Commercial, Avenue Commercial, and Downtown). The Mixed Use – Residential designation is intended to preserve areas of the City for light industrial uses while allowing for residential development where appropriate.

Table 4.1: General Plan Land Use Designations

Note: These density and FAR guidelines are not used as standards to determine development intensity on a specific parcel. Source: City of Berkeley, General Plan Land Use Element, 2001.

Berkeley’s General Plan is not a governmental constraint to the development of housing. Residential development is encouraged through both the stated policies and objectives of the Land Use Element as well as the City’s land use designations and associated development intensities. The City has approved several projects with a density of over 200 dwelling units per acre in recent years, which is further evidence that the policies of the General Plan do not constrain development.

4.1.2 ZONING ORDINANCE

The Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool by which the City implements the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City is currently completing a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision Project. Phase 1 of the Project included amendments to improve the overall organization, formatting, and style of the Zoning Ordinance to make it more user friendly, clarify existing requirements, and lay the foundation for future substantive revisions. The changes included in Phase 1 became effective on December 1, 2021. Phase 2 of the Project is in progress and includes incremental updates to the City’s processes and procedures. The City is also in the process of developing objective standards for multi- unit development (see next subsection for additional details). Unless otherwise noted, this section discusses the Zoning Ordinance as currently adopted without the planned amendments.

Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance provides for a diverse array of housing types, from single-family dwellings that are regulated by typical zoning standards to multiple-family buildings constructed at high densities along the City’s commercial corridors.

Density and Development Standards

Nearly all of Berkeley’s zoning districts allow residential development. The only districts that do not allow residential-only or mixed-use are the MU-LI, M, and MM zones located in West Berkeley that are developed with and planned for manufacturing uses. The majority of opportunities for residential development are within areas zoned for multi-family and mixed-use, and development of new single-family residences is not common, though it is allowed in most districts.

A summary of the City’s development standards for residential and mixed-use projects are included in Appendix B of the Housing Element. For most zoning districts, residential development standards, such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. are similar to standards in other nearby cities.

Density is a key factor in identifying potential constraints to development. In addition to development being limited by maximum density requirements, other development standards can have the effect of preventing projects from being built at the maximum allowable density. However, in Berkeley the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance have not had this effect. The Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit-per-acre density standards. Other development standards related to setbacks, lot coverage, and open space have not limited high density development within the City. Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 include a sampling of the densities for multi-family and mixed-use projects with ten or more units which have been entitled since 2015. As shown, the average density for multi-family projects is over 160 units per acre and over 200 units per acre for mixed-use projects, and density bonuses are common. A more detailed density analysis by zone is also included in Appendix C: Sites Inventory.

Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021

Source: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Division, 2022

Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021

Source: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Division, 2022

Parking

The City has taken significant steps to reduce constraints to development related to parking requirements in recent years. As of 2021, in the majority of the City no parking is required for new residential development of any number of units. In addition, new residential projects with two or more dwelling units on a parcel have an off-street parking maximum if located within 0.25 miles of a

major transit stop, or along a transit corridor with service at 15-minute headways during peak periods. Developments on roadways narrower than 26 feet within the Hillside Overlay have minimal requirements due to the physical constraints of this area.

Table 4.4: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses

Source: BMC Section 23.322.030

In order to encourage the most efficient use of space and promote transit use, the City has implemented maximum parking requirements for projects located within one quarter mile of a major transit stop or along a transit corridor with 15-minute headways during peak periods may not develop off-street parking at a rate higher than 0.5 spaces per unit.

Demolition Controls

Chapter 23.326 of the Zoning Ordinance codifies the city's Demolition Ordinance, which regulates the demolition of dwelling units in Berkeley. Demolition of dwelling units is subject to the use permit process and is reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Single dwelling units may be demolished so long as they were not removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the

preceding five years and there was no illegal tenant eviction. To demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 with two or more dwelling units (i.e. subject to local rent control), one of the following findings is required:

• The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair.
• The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units.
• The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community.
• The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units.

Multi-unit buildings are also restricted where a building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five years or “there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.” Applicants for multi-unit buildings are also required to provide relocation benefits, including moving expenses and differential rent payments. In addition, displaced tenants are provided a right of first refusal to rent new units.

To mitigate the impact of the loss of housing caused by the demolition, the applicant is required to either provide permanent below market rent replacement units or pay an in-lieu fee. The City is reviewing the demolition ordinance to ensure compliance with State density bonus, SB 330, and other laws, and will amend the fee and replacement requirements accordingly. While the in lieu fee and unit requirements may add to the cost of development for projects which include demolition of existing units, they play an important role in preserving existing housing in the City, which tends to be more affordable than new.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Inclusionary housing was originally adopted as City policy as part of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in 1973. The inclusionary housing requirements (“Inclusionary Ordinance”) originally took effect in February 1987 and have been revised in response to market conditions and various court decisions since that time. The current Inclusionary Ordinance is codified in Chapter 23.328 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The City’s inclusionary requirements apply to rental and ownership projects that have a total of five or more units, though the requirements apply differently for each type. Applicants may choose to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing units on-site. The in-lieu fee amount for rental projects is set by Council resolution and in 2021 was $39,746 per unit if paid at issuance of certificate of occupancy or $36,746 if paid at building permit issuance (fees are also subject to an annual adjustment based on the California Construction Code Index). For rental projects, an affordable housing mitigation fee is applied; however, projects can incorporate affordable units as an alternative to paying the mitigation fee. Fees collected through the inclusionary program are deposited in the Housing Trust Fund to be

utilized for affordable housing development. New commercial developments are also required to pay an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, which is deposited into the Housing Trust Fund.

Although inclusionary requirements do increase the cost of market rate development, they are a key component in the City’s efforts to increase the affordable housing supply in Berkeley. As of December 2021, there are a total of 530 affordable units within market rate developments as a result of this program. Additionally, a total of 1,376 affordable units have been developed with the assistance of Housing Trust Fund monies. Further, the continued level of residential development activity in the City, as evidenced by the projects listed in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, indicates that the inclusionary program does not unduly constrain market rate development.

However, the City’s various affordable housing requirements are complex and codified in multiple sections of the Municipal Code and numerous resolutions implement fee amounts and other aspects of the programs. In addition, in 2018, the California legislature passed AB 1505, effectively overturning the Palmer decision (2009) and allows for cities to combine rental and ownership requirements under a single inclusionary housing ordinance.

In an effort to update and consolidate the requirements, as well as ensure that they align with State law and City priorities, the City is in the process of considering potential amendments. The City’s overarching goals for updating affordable housing requirements are:

1. Center racial and economic equity by reversing exclusionary zoning
2. Encourage a mix of units and fees
3. Continue Berkeley’s legacy of value capture
4. Continue progress on housing goals
5. Work within the City’s existing administrative capacity

Proposed amendments include: consolidating all affordable housing requirements into one Chapter, including inclusionary requirements for ownership, rental, live/work, and group living accommodations; establishing a per square foot in-lieu fee rather than the existing per unit basis and standardizing owner and rental fees; requirements to incentivize units for very low-income households; adding land dedication as a potential alternative to providing on-site units; providing an option to provide family-sized units; removing the exemption for most group living accommodations; reducing fees for small projects; and other administrative changes to facilitate program implementation. Residential units that are constructed to qualify for a density bonus under Government Code §65915 that otherwise meets the City’s proposed requirements for an “Affordable Unit” may also be counted towards the City’s inclusionary requirement. These amendments are anticipated to be completed in June 2023 (see Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements).

Landmarks Preservation Ordinance

The City first adopted a Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) in 1974. The LPO establishes the duties of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPO gives the LPC authority to make landmark, structure of merit, and historic district designations, subject to appeal to the City Council.

The LPC also reviews permit applications for alteration, construction, or demolition of landmarks, structures or merit, and structures in historic districts, also subject to Council appeal.

Proposals for designation can be initiated by petition application or motion of the LPC itself, or by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Civic Arts Commission. Petition applications must be accompanied by the signatures of at least 50 Berkeley residents. From the time a site is initiated, the LPC has 70 days to open the public hearing and 180 days to act after the public hearing is closed. BMC Section 3.24.110 contains the criteria for site designation, which is briefly summarized below.

Once a site is designated as a landmark or structure of merit, or as part of historic district, alterations to the exterior of the building are subject to design review by the LPC. The provisions of the designation, such as the character-defining features of the structure, are specified in the designation action by the LPC.

In cases where the site subject to initiation is also a site with a pending application for a development project, the landmark review may stay consideration of the development project review process. This could prevent the City from reviewing a project within an expedited timeframe. However, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental review for cultural resources occurs whether a site is locally designated or not. In order to mitigate the uncertainty and delay that may result from the initiation of a site for local designation, the Berkeley Planning Department uses the following procedures to identify potential historic resources early in the project review process:

• Requires applicants for development to provide a cultural resources analysis for proposals that include substantial changes to structures that are more than 40 years old, consistent with the standard practices of the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office.
• All applications to demolish a structure located in a non-residential district that is more than 40 years old are referred to the LPC for comment prior to consideration of the permit to demolish, in accordance with the Berkeley Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance.
• For sites subject to initiation, staff make every effort to facilitate the designation review process as efficiently as possible.
• Starting in 2007, the City staffed the LPC with a professional historic preservation planner. The planner provides the Commission with detailed recommendations on historic resource initiations and review of structural alteration permits.

For SB 330 preliminary applications, the City receives the project application and confirms the current local register status of the project site. If the proposal requires an LPC demolition referral per BMC 23.326.070, then the referral occurs and any local designation that may result cannot also result in conditions of approval that require preservation of the resource (notwithstanding the designation).

Density Bonus

State density bonus provisions have changed both frequently and significantly in recent years in order to further incentivize the use of this affordable housing tool. AB 1763 (2019) expanded the maximum density bonus and other provisions for projects with 100 percent affordable units, including:

• Up to 20 percent of the total units in an affordable project can be for moderate income households
• Density bonus of up to 80 percent required; however, no limitations on density are permitted for projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop
• Height increase of up to three additional stories or 35 feet

Additionally, AB 2345 (effective 2021) increased the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent for projects that are not composed exclusively of affordable units.

Berkeley’s density bonus provisions are contained in Chapter 23.330 of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance was last substantively revised in 2019 and consistently references State law for specifics related to density bonus, incentives and concessions, and processes and procedures. In this way, the ordinance has remained compliant with changes to State law without necessitating repeated amendments. As evidenced by Table 4.2: Density of Multi-Family Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021and Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021, density bonus is a commonly used tool in Berkeley residential development with over half of larger projects receiving a density bonus.

Developing at Assumed Densities

In summary, the City of Berkeley’s land use controls do not present a barrier to residential development. As mentioned previously, the Zoning Ordinance largely does not rely on unit-per-acre density standards and use permits are commonly granted to exceed development standard limits.

As illustrated by Table 4.3: Density of Mixed-Use Projects (10 or more Units) Entitled 2015-2021 and by the Likely and Pipeline sites listed in Appendix C, Tables C-3 and C-6, Berkeley’s development standards do not appear to constrain residential development. It is also important to note that the City has a 20 percent inclusionary requirement, and correspondingly, over 55 percent of applications under review and over 85 percent of anticipated pipeline (pre-application) projects currently utilize State Density Bonus and are afforded waivers and concessions to development standards.

While the City demonstrates a successful, and increasing, trend of residential projects constructed at or above maximum permitted development envelopes, Appendix C Sites Inventory conservatively assumes that opportunity sites will develop at the average baseline density (subtracting density

bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, and completed mixed-use and residential projects.

In order to demonstrate that the existing zoning standards do not constrain development at the assumed average baseline density for zones where lower and moderate income sites are represented, nine prototype projects are described below. The calculated densities for each of the nine prototype projects meet or exceed the assumed densities in the sites inventory. The calculated densities are derived from unit capacity assumptions based on minimum lot size (0.35 acres), average 900 gross square foot unit size, net lot coverage, and either number of stories or floor area ratio, whichever is more constraining. Averages are used where there is a range within the districts.

To further demonstrate that the City’s current land controls do not constraint development, the City retained Street Level Advisors to perform a static pro forma analysis of the current housing development environment¹ as part of the effort to update the affordable housing requirements (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements). The analysis included existing and proposed inclusionary fees, paired with existing development controls, to estimate the return on investment generated by prototypical rental and for-sale housing development in Berkeley. The February 2022 study found both base and density bonus projects to be feasible, particularly given no maximum density standard, no minimum parking requirement, the ability to pay partial in-lieu fees, and—for density bonus projects—waivers to the height standard. This allows developers to respond to rising construction costs with smaller units (higher density), no or minimal parking spaces, and additional heights on smaller lots.

The City is committed to ensuring a realistic development environment by conducting a follow-up development feasibility study by December 2025 (Program 3 -Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) and anticipates making several zoning amendments to facilitate additional residential development in Berkeley, even though the existing zoning standards can accommodate the City’s sixth cycle RHNA. Commonly requested waivers and/or concessions include height and setbacks. As a result, the City is in the process of creating multi-unit objective development standards,

which would include standards to increase development potential, including but not limited to, increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the calculation and configuration of open space, particularly along transit corridors and in the highest resource neighborhoods (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential and Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors).

The City is working with BART to comply with AB 2923 and has adopted new zoning standards for a mixed-use district to facilitate residential development at North Berkeley and Ashby BART. The new zoning will primarily permit housing and includes new standards for height, floor area ratio, and minimum density (Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning).

Development of objective standards for “missing middle” housing in the lower density residential zones is also in progress and anticipated to be completed by in 2023 (Program 29 -Middle Housing). As part of these amendments, the City is also considering allowing this type of development by-right.

4.1.3 PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

Local permit processing procedures have the potential to constrain development by lengthening the time it takes to gain project approval as well as impacting project approval certainty. Currently, the majority of new residential development in the City requires discretionary review through the use permit process. Multiple required use permits for a single project are processed concurrently. The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) was adopted in 1973. The NPO established the requirement for most new residential construction to obtain a use permit, as well as required the “non-detriment” finding for approval (see use permit discussion below). That said, the NPO has been superseded in part by subsequent adoption of the master plan and zoning updates mandated by the initiative, both of which can now be amended by ordinance.

Table 4.5 provides the processing times for the permit types required for various residential developments. All projects are reviewed for completeness at the staff level within 30 days of initial paid invoice, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Any subsequent resubmittals are also reviewed for completeness within 30 days. Processing times may vary based on the size and complexity of a project, the required CEQA pathway, the extent of required revisions and the applicant’s responsiveness, and the length of time for an applicant to resubmit.

Table 4.5: Typical Permit Processing Times

Source: City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Department, 2022

As shown in Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone and Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone, both single-family and multi-family developments generally require use permit approval in Berkeley. However, due to the greater level of complexity, multifamily projects usually require a lengthier processing time (9 to 24 months) when compared to a single-family residence (6 to 12 months).

Consistent with SB 330, eligible housing development projects that require discretionary review and comply with applicable general plan and zoning standards are subject only to the development standards and fees that are in effect when the SB 330 Preliminary Application is submitted. Housing development projects include the following uses: residential-only, mixed-use where at least two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing.

The City is in the process of creating objective development standards for multifamily developments (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential). These amendments are anticipated to be adopted in within the first three years of the 6th Housing Element cycle (2023-2025) and will streamline project review by providing clear, predictable expectations for buildable envelope and floor area. A by-right approval process is also being considered for smaller “middle housing” residential projects in single- and lower-density residential districts, which would further shorten permit processing times (Program 29 -Middle Housing).

Zoning Certificate

Zoning certificates confirm that a use or structure complies with the Zoning Ordinance objective standards, and establish a record of the initial establishment of a use or structure. Zoning certificates are reviewed and approved ministerially by staff, so the processing time for approval is minimal. The zoning certificate process is utilized for ADU applications, as well as community care facilities, emergency shelters, and live/work units under certain circumstances. For ADUs, a zoning certificate is approved as part of the building permit review workflow.

Use Permit / Administrative Use Permit

Use permits and administrative use permits (AUPs) are discretionary permits intended to ensure that proposed developments do not adversely impact neighboring properties or the general public. Administrative use permits are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Officer and do not require a public hearing. Use permits require a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Board.

The required findings for approval are the same for use permits and administrative use permits, which are that the proposed project or use:

1. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or visiting in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use; and

2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City.

Due to the public hearing requirement, the discretionary process creates the potential for projects to be scrutinized for their impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The process also increases the overall project review time, particularly if multiple public hearings are necessary. That said, since the passage of SB 330 (2019), the City has processed all eligible housing development projects (e.g. residential or mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square-footage residential; or transitional or supportive housing) under the five public hearing and meeting limits of Gov. Code §65905.5(a), regardless of whether an SB 330 pre-application has been filed for the eligible project.

Additionally, in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), all proposed applications are reviewed for compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards (Gov. Code §65589.5(j)). The City does not deny permits, nor reduce project density, based on subjective findings. The City may only deny the project or approve it with a reduced density if the decision is based on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:

1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.

To date, the City has not denied a project or reduced its density under HAA. In addition, the City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential) as well as amending permit processes (Program 34 -Permit Processing) which will reduce entitlement and permit processing timelines and increase certainty for applicants.

CEQA Determinations

For CEQA determinations, the City reviews all applications according to the procedures in the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.030.E, which is consistent with Public Resource Code sections 21080.1 and 21080.2. Once an application is deemed complete, staff recommends the appropriate level of environmental review within 30 days. For complete projects that are categorically exempt from CEQA, staff indicate the exemption recommendation in the 30-day completeness letter. For projects that are not categorically exempt from CEQA or if the impacts of the project are not known, or if any anticipated significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to “less-than significant,” an initial study will be prepared. The Zoning Officer (for AUPs) or the Zoning Adjustments Board (for UPs) make the final determination of whether a project has a significant effect on the environment. When a project is exempt from CEQA, the review authority makes the required findings for CEQA exemptions which results in the determination, and approves or disapproves the project at the same meeting, complying with the Permit Streamlining Act’s timeline in Gov. Code Section 65950(a)(5).

Information about the status of project applications, particularly once an application has been deemed complete, has often not been readily available to the public including the determination that a CEQA exemption is recommended to the decision-making body. Therefore, changes in the City’s

permit processing with regard to the availability of information about pending project applications have been added to Program 34 - Permit Processing.

In response to concerns that the permit process was a constraint, the Planning Department hired Zucker Systems in order to improve customer service to the Berkeley community. The final report was issued in May 2017. As described below, the City has taken many steps to improve the development review process with the specific intent to provide more direction and certainty to applicants.

To provide greater responsiveness to customers and applicants, the City implemented the following changes:

• Timely Communication. Return all phone calls and emails within 24/48 hours.
• Plan Check Backlog. Work to reduce plan check backlog, then set reliable baselines.
• Minor Plans Reviews. Assign to Permit Service Center (PSC) Plans Examiner to provide faster review for clients with simple projects.
• AUP Timelines. Using Accela permit software, reduce AUP process timelines and allows for ongoing monitoring and reporting of performance.
• Customer Handouts. Update all handouts to be more clear and germane, and make them easily available. Provide customers with clear and accessible resources to learn about specific building permit application requirements for themselves.
• Minimum Application Checklists. Provide customers with clear understanding of what applications must include, so they can submit without undue time spent or unnecessary visits to the PSC.

An applicant can request and pay for expedited processing of a Use Permit. By outsourcing some of the project review work, this allows staff resources to be re-allocated fairly among all projects, meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, and also provide an opportunity for faster review.

Design Review

Design review ensures that exterior changes to mixed-use and non-residential buildings largely comply with the City of Berkeley Design Guidelines, which are intentionally generalized, with projects not expected to respond to every guideline. Design reviews are limited in scope to issues of building and site design only (e.g. placement on lot and landscaping, not developable building envelope) and conducted concurrently with land use review processes.

Design review is required for:

• Projects in all non-residential zones;
• Mixed use and community and institutional projects in the R-3 district within the Southside Plan area; and
• Commercial, mixed-use, and community and institutional projects in the R-4, R-SMU, and R-S districts (BMC Section 23.406.070).

Redesign of the interface between a new building and the adjacent neighbors can mitigate land use conflicts inherent in the transition between medium-density residential neighborhoods and high-density mixed-use buildings. For this reason, design review is important in an urban city that encourages citizen participation, as well as excellence in building and site design.

Staff level review. For projects requiring a Zoning Certificate or an AUP, the Zoning Officer may add conditions of approval related to project design, and projects are reviewed for conformance with the conditions during issuance of the building permit. Staff level review must be completed within 60 days of the date the application is deemed complete (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)).

Design Review Committee. For projects requiring ZAB approval, design review is conducted by the Design Review Committee (DRC), which is an advisory subcommittee of the ZAB and not an approval body. In this case, a preliminary design review is held prior to the ZAB making a decision on the Use Permit and is typically completed within the time frame of Use Permit preparation and review processes. Design review must be completed within 60 days of submittal of complete final Design Review plans or within the time limit required by the Permit Streamlining Act, whichever is less (BMC Section 23.406.070(I)).

Under recent legislation, the City limits the total number of public hearings and meetings to five, which include DRC meetings, so the City has further streamlined the project review process and closely coordinates the various review bodies, making sure that there is one hearing reserved for possible appeal to the City Council. As mentioned in previous sections, the City is in the process of creating residential objective development standards (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential) as well as amending permit processes (Program 34 -Permit Processing).

State Streamlining

Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of Berkeley has made insufficient progress toward its very low and low income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings. Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days. Since 2018, four projects have been approved through SB 35 ministerial approval.

In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low-Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower income households on-site. As shown in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, AB 1397 streamlined review will be applied to 13 opportunity sites with an estimated capacity of 1,215 lower income units, primarily located along Berkeley’s commercial corridors adjacent in transit-rich locations.

4.1.4 PROVISION FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES

State Housing Element Law requires local jurisdictions to identify adequate available sites through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the population as well as housing types that serve special needs groups such as persons with disabilities, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness. The City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide variety of residential uses in its residential zones as well as its commercial zones. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 summarize the permit requirements for various residential uses in each zone. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a discretionary use permit for the majority of residential development in Berkeley. The use permit process is discussed in further detail in the Permit Processing section of this Chapter. The remainder of this section includes further discussion on various housing types, their permit requirements, and any other specific standards that apply to them.

Table 4.6: Permits Required, By Housing Type and Residential Zone

ZC=Zoning Certificate, AUP=Admin. Use Permit, UP=Use Permit, NP=Not Permitted Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022. Notes:

1. Provided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306.
2. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H).
3. ZC required for change of use; UP required for new construction.
4. ZC required for change of use from a legally established single family dwelling; maximum of 6 residents. All others prohibited.
5. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020.
6. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing.

Table 4.7: Permits Required, by Housing Type and Commercial/Manufacturing Zone

Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, 2022.

Notes:

1. Residential uses must be part of a mixed-use development within University Avenue Node Areas; outside of Node Areas exclusively residential projects are permitted with a use permit.
2. UP required within 150’ of M or MM district or a construction product manufacturing or primary product manufacturing use. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.8.
3. AUP required for 3-4 units; UP required for 5 or more units. See BMC Section 23.206.090.B.7. For mixed use projects see also Section 23.206.090.B.9.
4. Provided ADU/JADU complies with BMC Section 23.306.
5. Community Care Facilities include residential care facilities and supportive housing.
6. Change of use only. New construction of a community care facility is not permitted.
7. Permit required based on number of beds. See BMC Section 23.308.020.
8. ZC required for change of use (6 or fewer residents); AUP required for change of use (7 or more residents); UP required for new construction (any number of residents). See BMC Section 23.302.070.H.
9. AUP required when project has 9 or fewer live/work units and does not involved conversion of an existing dwelling unit. All other live/work projects require a use permit. See BMC Section 23.312.030.C.3.
10. Permit required dependent on floor area, number of units, and other factors. See BMC Section 23.312.030.D.
11. ZC required for projects under 5,000 square feet in gross floor area with only residential above ground floor, provided the project complies with applicable standards. Use permit required for all other mixed-use projects. See BMC Section 23.204.100.B.4.
12. Permit required dependent on project size and other factors. See BMC Section 23.204.140.B.2.

Single Family Housing

As defined by the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance, a single-family dwelling is a building designed for and occupied exclusively by one household. Detached single family housing is permitted with approval of a use permit in all residential zones and all commercial zones within the City.

Mobile homes or manufactured homes, as defined in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and consistent with State law, are considered dwelling units if they are mounted on a permanent foundation and connected to all utilities. Therefore, mobiles homes intended for single family occupancy are subject to the same permit requirements and development standards as conventional single-family housing.

Multi-Family Housing

Multi-family housing developments of three or more units are permitted with a use permit in Berkeley’s multi-family residential zones (R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU) and all commercial zones. In the MU-R zone, smaller multi-family projects of three to four units are permitted with an administrative use permit provided they are not within 150 feet of the M or MM zones or a manufacturing use. Multi-family projects with five or more units in the MU-R zone or those not meeting the distance requirements described require use permit approval. The Zoning Ordinance also allows duplexes with use permit approval in all zones where larger multi-family projects are permitted. Additionally, duplexes are permitted with a use permit in the R-1A zone.

The City is actively working on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow for by-right development of “missing middle” multi-unit residential projects in the lower density residential zones to encourage a mix of unit types and affordability in the lower density zones (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R). See Program 29 -Middle Housing.

Mixed-Use Development

The Zoning Ordinance defines mixed-use residential as “a development project with both residential and non-residential uses which are either 1) located together in a single building; or 2) in separate buildings on a single site of one or more contiguous properties.”

Mixed-use residential developments are permitted with a use permit in all zones that allow multi-family residential uses (R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU). A use permit is also required for mixed-use development within the majority of the City’s commercial zones. However, in the C-SA zone, mixed-use projects can be approved administratively with a zoning certificate if they have less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area and the residential component is located above the ground floor.

In the C-W zone, certain mixed-use projects can be approved administratively. Mixed-use projects less than 5,000 square feet in size are subject only to zoning certificate approval. Additionally, projects which are less than 20,000 square feet and where the retail space comprises 15-33 percent of the gross floor area can also be approved with a zoning certificate. Projects that are 5,000 to 9,000 square feet in size can be approved with an administrative use permit. All other mixed-use projects in the C-W zone are subject to use permit approval.

Accessory Dwelling Units

The State legislature has passed numerous bills in recent years with the goal of facilitating the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These bills, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13, limit how local jurisdictions can regulate ADUs and JADUs with provisions related to development standards, application and approval process, and fees.

The City’s provisions related to ADUs are located in Chapter 23.306 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance and were most recently updated in 2022. ADUs and JADUs which comply with the standards set forth in State law are permitted with zoning certificate approval on any lot with at least one existing or proposed dwelling unit. Chapter 23.306 states that the purpose is to implement California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and ensures that the City’s provisions are compliant with State law and will remain in compliance even if the Legislature makes changes to ADU regulations.

Group Living Accommodations

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance defines group living accommodations as “a building or portion of a building designed for or accommodating a residential use by persons not living together as a household. This use includes dormitories, convents and monasteries, and other types of organizational housing, and excludes hospitals, nursing homes and tourist hotels. Group living accommodations typically provide shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. Residential hotels and senior congregate housing are separately defined types of group living accommodations each with their own permit requirements.” Note that student housing that is not available for rent to non-students may be considered noninstitutional group quarters and is not counted towards meeting the City’s RHNA.

With the University of California located within the City, group living accommodations are an important housing type in Berkeley. Group living accommodations are permitted with a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones. Additionally, they are allowed with use permit approval in the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO)

Single room occupancy (SRO) units are small units intended for occupancy by a single individual and differ from studio apartments or efficiency units in that they may have shared kitchen or bathroom facilities. SRO units provide an affordable housing option for extremely low income or formerly homeless individuals because they are typically rented on a monthly basis and do not require a rental deposit.

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance permits SRO units within residential hotels. Residential hotels are defined by the Zoning Ordinance as “a type of group living accommodations which provides room for rent for residential purposes, including single residential occupancy (SRO) rooms.” Residential hotels are permitted with approval of a use permit in all of the City’s commercial zones.

Emergency Shelters

SB 2 (2007) requires local jurisdictions to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right if adequate capacity in existing shelters is not sufficient to serve the population in

need of emergency shelter. This determination is based on the number of individuals experiencing homelessness identified in the most recent point in time count.

In 2019, the State Legislature passed AB 139, which limits the development and performance standards that a local jurisdiction can impose on emergency shelters. Local provisions can only impose standards that apply to other commercial or residential uses in the same zone along with the following standards:

• Maximum number of beds
• Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff, provided that this standard does not require more parking for shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone
• Size and location of onsite client waiting and intake areas
• Proximity to other shelters, provided that shelters are not requires to be more than 300 feet apart
• Length of stay
• Lighting
• Provision of onsite management
• Securing during operating hours

Chapter 23.308 of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance contains the City’s regulations pertaining to emergency shelters. The City permits emergency shelters ministerially by-right with approval of a zoning certificate in several zones based on the number of beds provided in the facility, as shown in Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone. Shelters with 60 or fewer beds are permitted by right in the C-DMU zone. Within all other commercial zones, facilities with 25 or fewer beds are permitted by right. Additionally, shelters with 15 or fewer beds are permitted by right within the R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU zones. In addition to underutilized sites identified in the sites inventory, some of the existing older hotels/motels largely located along the University Avenue corridor and commercial surface parking that are not included in the City’s sites inventory, may be repurposed or redeveloped to emergency shelters.

The C-DMU zone spans over 168 acres on 265 parcels, including 35 sites identified for 5.2 acres in the sites inventory, and one existing hotel site (2045 University) located outside of the sites inventory. The C-DMU zone allows for 100 percent coverage, no lower story setbacks, and building heights of 50 to 180 feet depending on location. The C-DMU zone is located in the most transit accessible area of the City, and is within walking distance to ample services (e.g., the Dorothy Day House at 1931 Center, Berkeley Food and Housing Project at 2140 Dwight). These characteristics indicate the feasibility for either redevelopment or potential conversion of existing structures to shelter use in this zone.

Furthermore, the commercial zoning districts encompass approximately 1,900 parcels, including 96 sites identified for 33.4 acres in the sites inventory. The majority of the other commercial zones located close to services and major transit (C-C, C-U, C-W, C-T, C-AC) allow for 90 to 100 percent coverage for mixed-use residential uses, no minimum setbacks when adjacent to other commercial districts, and maximum heights of 36 to 90 feet depending on location. All of the commercial districts

are proximate to transportation and services, being located along major corridors that either currently contain and/or allow a wide range of service uses. For example, the C-AC zone is located along the South Shattuck corridor, which is served by AC Transit local, all-nighter and transbay lines, as well as the Ashby BART station. Further east, the C-T and C-C zones located along the Telegraph corridor are served by several AC Transit lines and are within walking distance to services such as Bay Area Community Services (2809 Telegraph), Suitcase Clinics (2407 Dana and 2236 Parker), Bonita House (1802 Fairview) and the Berkeley Drop-In Center (3234 Adeline). Within the western portion of the City, the C-W zone is located along the San Pablo transit corridor, as well as the North Berkeley BART station, and is located within walking distance of the Women’s Daytime Drop-in and North County Housing Resource Center (2218 Acton Street), as well as the West Campus Pool at 2100 Browning, which includes a City-operated drop-in shower program.

Based on the 2022 Point-in-Time Count, an estimated 1,057 homeless persons are located in Berkeley. At 200 square feet per bed, 1,057 beds could be accommodated in multiple facilities totaling approximately 211,400 square feet of floor area to accommodate the City’s estimated unsheltered need. The shelters can be accommodated in one or a combination of the following locations:

• In C-DMU, where building heights of 50 to 180 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate five stories totaling approximately one acre and containing up to 60 beds each.
• In transit-rich commercial zones, where building heights of 36 to 90 feet are permitted, multiple sites that accommodate three stories totaling approximately two acres and containing up to 25 beds each.

Outside of the sites inventory, the commercial zoning districts contain 22 surface parking parcels on five acres, as well as several hotels/motels located along the University Avenue corridor that can be converted to emergency shelters via adaptive reuse:

• C-W District hotels/motels: 920, 975 University
• C-U District hotels/motels: 1175 (split zoned with R-4), 1619, 1761, 1820, 2045 University.

Therefore, the City has complied with the requirements of SB 2 by providing opportunities for the by right development of emergency shelters in various zones throughout the City, particularly throughout higher density residential and commercial districts which are located close to services and major transit.

As demonstrated in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, the City has many underutilized commercially designated properties where emergency shelters are permitted by right. Furthermore, adaptive reuse of existing structures is another option for establishing shelter facilities without redevelopment of the properties. The City has sufficient properties in these zones to accommodate its unsheltered homeless.

Table 4.8: Emergency Shelter Permit Requirements by Zone

Source: Berkeley Municipal Code, Table 23.308-1

For larger emergency shelters approval of a use permit is required, as indicated in Table 4.8. In addition to the required findings for approval for all use permits, the Zoning Adjustments Board must also make the following required findings specifically for emergency shelters:

1. A larger shelter facility will help meet the City’s goals pertaining to emergency housing of the homeless;
2. The circumstances of the subject property make the larger facility appropriate; and,
3. Design features will minimize impacts on the surrounding area.

Separate from the permit approval process, shelter providers are required to conduct a community meeting for a proposed shelter after providing notification of the meeting to owners and occupants within a 100-foot radius of the proposed shelter location (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.9). However, the purpose of the community meeting is informational and does not impact the decision of the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board to approve or deny an application.

The development and performance standards for emergency shelters are contained in Section 23.308.030.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The City’s requirements include:

• A client intake area equal to one-quarter of the area provided for client beds. The area may be multi-use.
• Shower and restroom facilities.
• Lighting shall be provided in all exterior areas and must be directed in a manner that does not cast light onto neighboring properties.
• Provision of on-site management during all hours of operation and at least one hour before and after facility operation hours.
• Preparation and implementation of a Shelter Safety and Management Plan which addresses aspects of shelter operations, including staffing levels, security, procedures for client queuing and enforcement of rules, and others.

There are no parking requirements for emergency shelters and the provision of vehicle and/or bicycle parking is stated as optional (BMC Section 23.308.030.A.5.g). The City’s standards are in compliance with AB 139 and therefore, do not constrain the development of emergency shelters within the City.

With the most recent changes to State law regarding emergency shelters, the City will identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size. AB 2339 makes two changes to Housing Element law. AB 2339 provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential uses are permitted or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services. The law also seeks to ease constraints on the development of emergency shelters by requiring that any development standards applied to emergency shelters be "objective." This Housing Element includes an action to evaluate the City's compliance with AB 2339 and if modifications may be necessary (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing).

Low Barrier Navigation Centers

AB 101 (2019) defines “low barrier navigation centers” and requires local jurisdictions to permit them by right in zones that allow mixed-use development and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses, provided the facility meets certain standards. Per AB 101, a low barrier navigation center is “a Housing First, low-barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Housing First refers to an overall approach to serving individuals experiencing homelessness where a decent, safe place to live is provided before addressing any other barriers or factors that may have resulted in the person’s homelessness. Low barrier shelters may also provide additional flexibility, such as allowing partners to share living space or allowing pets.

In addition to requiring local jurisdictions to permit low barrier navigation centers by right in certain areas, AB 101 requires jurisdictions to act on applications for these facilities within a specified timeframe. The provisions of AB 101 are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed. Low barrier navigation centers are not addressed in the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Housing Programs chapter of this Housing Element includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit low barrier navigation centers as required by AB 101 (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing). In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Transitional and Supportive Housing

Pursuant to State law (SB 2 of 2007 and SB 745 of 2013), transitional and supportive housing are residential uses that shall only be subject to the same permitting requirements and development standards as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

The Zoning Ordinance defines transitional housing as follows:

From Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2: Any dwelling unit or a Group Living Accommodation configured as a rental housing development, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted units to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time.

The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify transitional housing as a use in the Allowed Uses table for the residential or commercial zones (BMC Tables 23.202.1 and 23.204-1). However, based

on the definition above, the Zoning Ordinance permits transitional housing in the same manner as the housing type in which it is located (i.e., single-family home, multi-family residence, or group living accommodation). Therefore, the City’s requirements pertaining to transitional housing are compliant with State law and do not constrain their development.

Supportive housing is included in the definition of community care facility, which is allowed in the residential and commercial zones. In all zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are permitted, applications for supportive housing facilities which involve the creation of a new facility or conversion of an existing dwelling unit(s) are permitted by-right with zoning certificate approval.

AB 2162 (2018) introduced new regulations to facilitate the development of supportive housing. For cities with a population of less than 200,000, supportive housing projects with 50 or fewer units must be permitted by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed-use residential development is permitted, provided the project meets other specified criteria. Additionally, local jurisdictions may not require parking for supportive housing projects located within one half mile of a public transit stop. Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing. In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Employee and Farm Employee Housing

The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) requires local jurisdictions to consider employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees as a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance allows unrelated individuals to live together as a household, but does not include any specific provisions related to employee housing; therefore, an implementation program proposes to make necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments to address employee housing (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing).

The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use. There is no agricultural land located in Berkeley and the 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimated just 132 workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries residing in the City. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 120 farms, employing 593 seasonal and permanent farmworkers in Alameda County. Among these farms, 35 farms employed 142 workers who worked fewer than 150 days a year. Only 11 farms employed migrant workers, with an estimated 34 migrant workers. Therefore, specific zoning regulations for farmworker housing are not necessary.

4.1.5 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Individuals with disabilities may have special housing needs related to restricted mobility, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to live independently. State law requires the Housing Element to analyze the City’s zoning regulations, permitting procedures, and building codes to identify any potential constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Definition of Family

Zoning Ordinance definitions of “family” or “household” may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities, specifically group homes or care facilities, when they limit the number of members of a family or household or require that family or household members be related. The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance definitions for “family” and “household” are provided below. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a separate definition for family, and instead references the definition for household.

The definition for household is not restrictive based on relation or number of household members and, while it states that household arrangements are “usually characterized” by shared living expenses and single leasing contracts, the City does not require a single lease or rental agreement nor does the City monitor and enforce shared living expenses. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance definitions do not limit communal, inter-generational, or other forms of caregiving household arrangements and do not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Family. See Household.

Household. One or more persons, whether or not related by blood, marriage or adoption, sharing a dwelling unit in a living arrangement usually characterized by sharing living expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, food costs and utilities, as well as maintaining a single lease or rental agreement for all members of the household and other similar characteristics indicative of a single household

However, the City will simplify the definition of “Household” to be characterized by one or more persons with common access and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas, while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation (see Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing).

Residential Care Facilities

The State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) requires that licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer individuals be treated as residential uses and permitted by right in all zones where residential use is permitted. Berkeley Zoning Ordinance Section 23.502.020 (Defined Terms) includes residential care facilities in the definition for community care facility. These definitions are compliant with state law and are provided below:

Residential Care Facility. See Community Care Facility.

Community Care Facility. A state-licensed facility for the non-medical care and supervision of children, adolescents, adults or elderly persons. This use includes community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 1500 et seq, residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.), facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped (California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq.), alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11834.02), supportive housing (California Government Code Section 65582), and other similar facilities. This use excludes medical care institutions, skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, foster homes, family day care homes, child care facilities, and transitional housing.

Section 23.202.040(A) includes the permit requirements for community care facilities, including residential care facilities, in the residential zones. Conversion of an existing dwelling into a community care facility is permitted through the zoning certificate process, regardless of the number of residents the facility serves. If a facility serves more than six people, the community care facility requires approval of a use permit, which is the same review procedure applied to other residential development.

There are no specific development standards that apply to community care facilities that do not also apply to other residential development in the same zone, except for parking. The parking requirement for community care facilities in the residential and manufacturing zones is one space per two non-resident employees. There are no parking requirements specific to community care facilities located in commercial zones.

Reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and making necessary amendments to comply with AB 2162 (GOV §65651) has been included in Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing. In the meantime, the city applies the law in a manner that supersedes local zoning.

Reasonable Accommodation

In some circumstances, development standards which may otherwise be acceptable may constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. For example, wheelchair access to a dwelling may not be able to be constructed without a ramp encroaching into the front yard setback. In such cases, state and federal law require local jurisdictions to provide relief from specific requirements or standards to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.

The City of Berkeley first added reasonable accommodation procedures to the Zoning Ordinance in 2001. Section 23.406.090 contains the application and review requirements for reasonable accommodations. Applications for reasonable accommodations are reviewed by the Zoning Officer is, unless the reasonable accommodation application is submitted concurrently with another permit application reviewed by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Under these circumstances, the reasonable accommodation is reviewed by the ZAB. There is no required fee to apply for a reasonable accommodation and independent accommodation requests are processed within 45 days of receiving the application.

The review authority considers the following factors in the approval findings:

1. Need for the requested modification.
2. Alternatives that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.
3. Physical attributes of and proposed changes to the property.
4. Whether the requested modification would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
5. Whether the requested modification would constitute a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning or subdivision regulations.
6. Whether the requested accommodation would result in a concentration of uses otherwise not allowed in a residential neighborhood to the substantial detriment of the residential character of that neighborhood.

7. Any other factor that may have a bearing on the request.

The City supports equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and promotes reasonable accommodations to property owners (see Program 17 -Accessible Housing). Since 2012, the City has received eight requests for reasonable accommodations and all have been approved.

Building Codes

The City of Berkeley is adopting—and enforcing—the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) including local amendments. The City actively enforces CBC provisions that regulate access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City has adopted no local amendments to the CBC which constrain development of housing for persons with disabilities.

4.1.6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES

Cities charge permits fees to recover the costs associated with reviewing and processing applications for development. Cities also charge impact fees, which are intended to mitigate the impact of a development on local facilities or infrastructure. Common examples of impact fees include school fees and utility connection fees.

Berkeley’s planning fee schedule was last updated in May 2022. State law requires that these fees are true cost recovery fees and may not exceed the cost to the City to review and process the permit. As part of fee schedule updates, the City reviews the staff time and other resources necessary to process permits to ensure that fees are set at an appropriate level in compliance with state requirements. Table 4.9 shows a comparison of planning fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond. As shown, all three cities are in a similar range for use permit fees. Berkeley’s fees for design review are generally lower than Fremont and Richmond.

Table 4.9: Comparison of Planning Fees for Berkeley, Fremont, and Richmond

| Initial Study/Negative Declaration | $5,520⁴ | $5,400 | 30% of consultant contract cost | | Environmental Impact Report | $9,200⁴ | $5,400 | 30% of consultant contract cost |

Sources: City of Berkeley, Land Use Planning Fees, Effective July 1, 2022; City of Fremont, Planning Division, 2022; City of Richmond, Planning Division Fee Schedule, Effective August 20, 2020.

Notes:

1. Base fee. Staff time in excess of 24 hours charged at rate of $230/hr.
2. A/C = Actual Cost
3. Excess staff time charged at $230/hr.
4. Or, at City’s discretion, cost of consultant contract plus $200/hr. for staff time for contract management
5. Base fee, excess staff time charged at $230/hr.
6. Where a cost range is given, the cost generally increases as project size/complexity increases based on defined thresholds.

Since some fees are based on project valuation (i.e. building permit fees) and some are charged on a per unit or per square foot basis, it is difficult to generalize the total fees which apply to residential projects. Therefore, Table 4.10 provides a comparison of the applicable fees for several recent developments. 2035 Blake was entitled prior to the current affordable housing fee and 1950 Addison provided four very low income units on site and paid a pro-rated in-lieu fee. 2628 Shattuck provided no on-site affordable units and paid the full inclusionary fee amount.

Table 4.10: Fee Comparison for Sample Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Development

Source: City of Berkeley, Building and Safety Division, 2022

Notes:

1. For SF: Zillow Spring 2021 median home price. For MF, based on following analysis: City of Berkeley, City Council Report (April 27, 2021 – Item 31), Attachment 1: Street Level Advisors, “Estimating the Need for Housing Subsidy for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations”.
2. Assume 350 sq. ft. per parking space.
3. State of California fees include: Title 24: Energy Fee; Title 24: Disabled Access Fee; SMIP Fee; and, Building Standards Fee.
4. Fees associated with environmental review were not included because infill housing is often exempt from CEQA.
5. The Affordable Child Care and Affordable Housing – Commercial fees apply to commercial development, including the commercial component of mixed-use developments. However, the threshold for these fees is net new commercial square footage of 7,500 sq. ft. or more. Neither mixed use project included in the Table meets this threshold; therefore, these fees did not apply.

Impact Fees

The City of Berkeley charges several impact fees to ensure that new residential development pays its fair share of funding for its impact to the City's services, facilities, and infrastructure. Residential development in Berkeley is subject to the following impact fees:

1. Public Art. Public art requirements apply to multifamily residential projects of five or more dwelling units. Projects must include on-site publicly accessible art valued at 1.75 percent of the construction cost. Alternatively, applicants can pay an in-lieu fee equal to 0.80 percent of the construction cost. Projects where at least 60 percent of units are affordable are exempt from public art requirements.
2. Street, Open Space and Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Fee. The SOSIP fee applies to the Downtown area only and is intended to ensure that new development contributes to the street and open space needs and demands of additional residents and businesses. The fee applies to all development greater than 1,000 square feet and is calculated at $2.23 per square foot of new residential use.
3. Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF). As previously discussed, projects can reduce or eliminate their AHMF obligation by providing up to 20 percent affordable units within the project.

In addition to the fees listed above, Berkeley has an Affordable Child Care fee and Affordable Housing Linkage fee which apply to commercial development. These fees also apply to the commercial portions for mixed-use projects.

As part of ongoing efforts to improve and consolidate the City's affordable housing requirements, amendments to impose on-site affordable housing requirements with an in-lieu fee alternative (rather than a mitigation fee) are proposed for both rental and ownership projects. Additionally, changing the fee from a per unit basis to a per square foot basis is proposed. See also HP-3 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. This proposal is supported by a 2019 fee comparison analysis conducted by Street Level Advisors, which compared fees amongst Berkeley and a number of other jurisdictions. The study also compared Berkeley's fees as they applied to various housing products (i.e., microunit projects versus large units). One notable finding was that projects consisting of higher density microunits were paying a significantly higher proportion of total construction costs in fees when compared to a lower density project with the same square footage. Changing the affordable housing in-lieu fee to a per square foot fee basis should help to address this issue. Initially, the fee is proposed to be set at $45 per gross residential square foot and would be adjusted annually based on change to an established index, such as the California Construction Cost Index. This change is currently under consideration by the City Council, to take effect in Spring 2023.

In addition to City fees, fees are charged by outside agencies that provide services within Berkeley, including school fees charged by the Berkeley Unified School District and sewer connection fees charged by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The City of Berkeley does not have control over the fees charged by outside agencies.

4.1.7 BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT

The City of Berkeley’s Building and Safety and Code Enforcement Divisions adopted the 2022 California Building Standards Code, together with local amendments, with an effective date of January 1, 2023. When development plans are submitted for plan check, they are reviewed by the

Building and Safety Division for compliance with the CBC. Inspections at various milestones throughout project construction ensure that the project is built according to the approved plans.

The City has adopted several local amendments to the CBC. Most notably, the City has incorporated additional restrictions for structures within the City's designated fire hazard zones, including limitations on roofing materials, requirements for spark arrestors on appliances using solid fuel, and undergrounding of utilities. While these requirements may add to the cost of construction of residential units, they are necessary to help mitigate the risk of damage by wildfire in these areas.

Building code enforcement is handled primarily on a complaint-basis by building inspectors; neighborhood complaints are handled by the City's Code Enforcement staff. In addition, housing inspectors respond to housing code complaints initiated by Berkeley tenants or by other City programs; however, if substandard conditions pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of the tenant, they are referred to the City's Building Official for immediate follow up. City policy is to resolve residential code violations without displacing residents whenever possible; however, when tenants must move, the Municipal Code requires the owner to provide relocation assistance.

In accordance with State law, the City also enforces statutory and code restrictions related to Fire Protection Plans and vegetation management.

4.1.8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TRANSPARENCY

The City of Berkeley strives to be transparent in its development review process by providing as much information as possible related to the City's regulations, processes, procedures, and fees on the City website. The Municipal Code (including Zoning Ordinance), application forms, fee schedules, and other information are all readily available for viewing on the website.

The City uses the Accela permitting system, which facilitates not only internal routing and plan check review, but also has an externally facing Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal where applicants can submit online and community members can search for project status and download project materials and correspondences. The City's Building Eye interactive mapping page links to Accela building and planning permit data to show the spatial location of recent projects.

Table 4.11: Development Information Provided on Berkeley's Website

4.1.9 ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS

Berkeley is a highly urbanized community where most on- and off-site improvements are already in place, such as sewer, water, and utility lines. Typical on- and off-site improvements which may be required for new development on infill sites include improvements to the adjacent traffic signals and sidewalks and sanitary sewer and storm water connections. In cases where water or wastewater infrastructure may need to be enlarged or repaired to accommodate new construction, developers are responsible for paying the direct costs of improvements. Although requirements for on- and off-site improvements do add to the overall cost of development, they are necessary to ensure provision of vital infrastructure services to residents. Based on the recent proposals submitted and entitled citywide for a range of housing types—see Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021)—the City’s site improvement requirements do not create an undue constraint on development.

4.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Non-governmental constraints include those caused by market conditions, environmental hazards and limitations, and infrastructure operated by outside agencies.

4.2.1 INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS

The availability of infrastructure and services to meet new demands created by new residential development is another potential constraint to housing development. Although Berkeley is highly urbanized with most of the necessary infrastructure in place, increases in demand along capacity and supply factors are monitored and analyzed to ensure adequate provision of services in the future.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides water and wastewater treatment for all properties located within Berkeley. The primary water source for the EBMUD water system is the Mokelumne River, and the Mokelumne Aqueduct conveys this water to local storage and treatment facilities in the EBMUD service area. EBMUD completed development of a revised Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 in April 2012¹, which is the District’s plan for providing water to its customers through 2040. According to the WSMP, EBMUD’s water supplies are estimated to be sufficient during the planning period (2010-2040) in normal and single dry years. The WSMP 2040 emphasizes maximum conservation and recycling, with a total of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of future supply to be provided from those two strategies. EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan

2020 (UWMP)¹ concludes that EBMUD has, and will have, adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected demand during normal years, and may require significant customer water use reductions and supplementing supplies—which are in the planning phases—during multi-year droughts. While the number of accounts within EBMUD’s service area has increased steadily since 1970, the average daily water demand remains relatively stable outside of drought periods, and dropped significantly due to rationing during drought periods.

In addition, EBMUD’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan² provides an analysis of water demand, including water supplies for fire suppression, and supplies over the next 30 years. While the analysis is for EBMUD’s entire service area and does not provide a breakdown for the City of Berkeley, it provides helpful information on the availability of water through the 2023-2031 planning period. According to the Plan, water demand for the service area was 181 MGD in 2020. The total projected demand for EBMUD’s service area is 190 MGD in 2030 and 194 MGD in 2035. In the Base Condition Scenario analyzed, EBMUD will have sufficient supply to meet demand over this time period.

For wastewater treatment, Berkeley is within EBMUD’s Special District No. 1 and is served by EBMUD’s largest wastewater treatment plant, located in Oakland. According to EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan³, wastewater treatment demand for Special District No. 1 is projected to be 56 MGD in 2030 and 58 MGD in 2035, well below the treatment plant’s capacity of 168 MGD. Development under the proposed Housing Element period is estimated to generate 765,688 gallons of wastewater per day. This will be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) and therefore the plant’s existing wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated residential development.

While adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity is available for the 2023-2031 planning cycle, SB 1087 (2006) further prioritizes the development of affordable housing by requiring service providers to grant priority to development that includes housing affordable to lower income households.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electrical and gas service for the City. New construction in Berkeley is required to be designed without natural gas infrastructure per the City’s Natural Gas Prohibition adopted in 2019. As of Jan 1, 2020, the State of California began requiring solar on newly constructed low-rise residential buildings (single family homes, duplexes, and townhouses of 3 stories or less, including ADUs) through the 2019 California Building Standards Energy Code (also known as the Energy Code or Title 24, Part 6).

In addition, Berkeley adopted local amendments (also known as “reach codes”) to the Energy Code which requires the installation of solar PV systems in the “solar ready zone” required by the Energy

Code. As a result, Berkeley also currently requires solar PV systems on newly constructed hotel/motels and high-rise multifamily buildings with 10 habitable stories or fewer, and nonresidential buildings with three habitable stories or fewer. These requirements also have exceptions as described in Title 24, Part 6, Section 110.10. Berkeley’s adoption of these solar PV system requirements is in the reach code, Berkeley Energy Code, BMC Chapter 19.36.

Building codes are updated every three years, with increasing energy efficiency requirements. The 2022 Energy Code will expand solar and introduce battery storage standards to new high-rise multifamily (apartments and condos).

4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Geologists warn repeatedly of the high risk of a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the northern section of the Hayward Fault that runs through the Berkeley Hills east of the University of California. The effects of a strong earthquake along any portion of the Hayward fault would severely affect the area. The Housing Element includes policies and programs to mitigate the risk of damage to existing units (see Seismic Preparedness Programs). The Berkeley Hillside area is the most vulnerable to seismic impacts and landslides. However, no multifamily development is currently permitted in this area and the amount of vacant land is limited; therefore, seismic hazards are not a significant constraint to development in the Hillside area. Portions of the ground along Berkeley’s western edge, including west of the railroad tracks, could liquefy in a major quake. Additionally, all new development, including single family and multifamily units, are subject to the stringent requirements of the CBC related to seismic safety.

Some areas of the City (near the waterfront and near Codornices Creek) are within the 100-year floodplain. Chapter 17.12 of the Berkeley Municipal Code contains the City’s Flood Zone Development Ordinance, which complies with FEMA flood plain management requirements. None of the areas within the 100-year floodplain are zoned for high density residential development; therefore, flooding is not a significant constraint to residential development in the City.

Fires are a significant threat in the wildland urban interface (WUI) in the hillside communities along the City’s eastern border. The City has implemented a comprehensive strategy¹ to mitigate Berkeley’s WUI fire hazard, which includes annual property inspections, more restrictive local building code amendments, vegetation management and defensible space, improvement of access and evacuation routes, and infrastructure improvements to support firefighting efforts.

Two areas of the City have particular environmental or physical constraints which make them unfeasible for new housing development. The waterfront area west of Interstate 80 has been designated for open space and low-density waterfront-oriented commercial development. Housing development is not environmentally feasible in this area due to a combination of environmental sensitivity and seismic/soil stability problems in an area composed mostly of landfill materials.

The Panoramic Hill area, designated as the Environmental Safety-Residential District (ES-R) on the Zoning Map, has significant constraints due to its proximity to the Hayward Fault and vegetated wildlands, limited vehicular access, inadequate water pressure, and steep slopes. After a two-year moratorium on construction, in 2010 the City passed an ordinance prohibiting any new residential units in this district until the City Council has adopted a specific plan in compliance with all applicable law that shows the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses in the ES-R zone and the location and extent of the public facilities and services required to serve the land uses described in the Panoramic Hill Specific Plan (the Plan). There is no specified timeline for development of the Plan. However, there are only 14 vacant lots affected by the building prohibition, a negligible percentage of housing production opportunities citywide.

The City of Berkeley is a highly urbanized community. The majority of sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory are infill sites. Existing uses on site are also consistent with the trend of redevelopment into residential and mixed-use projects. In selecting sites to be included in the inventory, locations with site design constraints such as irregular shapes or utility easements were eliminated, or only included if opportunities for lot consolidation exist to create a buildable site.

No major environmental conditions that would preclude redevelopment were identified. As mentioned earlier, all residential development and retrofits, including identified sites, within existing seismic zones would be required to meet the stringent seismic building codes. In addition, the City implements, and supports, a number of programs to address seismic preparedness (see Program 22 -Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs).

In addition, redevelopment of gas stations into other uses has proven to be a trend as fuel efficiency and prevalence of electric/hybrid vehicles has continued to impact the financial viability of older gas stations. One example is 2176 Kittridge Street, which received its entitlement in 2020 and is currently under construction to redevelop, in part, a one-story former gas station, carwash, and convenience store into a mixed-use building with 165 units. Another example is 3000 Shattuck, also an existing gas station and smog inspection site, where the City received an expanded permit application in 2022 to increase from the previous 2017 entitlement for 23 units to a mixed-use building with 156 new units utilizing a 50% State Density Bonus. The need for remediation does not usually constrain their redevelopment.

4.2.3 MARKET CONSTRAINTS

Cost and Availability of Land

The cost of land is a significant contributor to the overall cost of housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions and have generally been increasing since the Great Recession, and substantially increasing since 2012. The City of Berkeley has little vacant land, particularly land that is appropriate for higher density development. An informal survey of vacant land listed for sale on Zillow and Loopnet in January 2022 found three vacant lots for sale within hillside areas of east Berkeley at a price per square foot ranging between $30 to $40. Due to the physical constraints of this area, these lots would not be appropriate for multi-family development. Vacant lots within higher density areas of the City are very rare and are sometimes advertised with approved entitlements, adding to their

list price. The majority of sites in areas zoned for high density development are infill sites that may have existing structures, further adding to the cost of development. For example, one 0.24-acre lot with an existing triplex is entitled for 11 condominium units and listed for $190 per square foot (1915 Berryman St.). Another listing for a 0.3-acre vacant lot indicates that it is in the entitlement process for 66-units and has a list price of $420 per square foot (1201 San Pablo Ave.). As shown in Appendix C: Sites Inventory, lot consolidation and infill small lot development at high density is the primary strategy for housing development.

The cost per square foot of land varies greatly in the City and lots located in denser areas, with more development potential, can cost significantly more. However, the per-unit land cost is directly impacted by density. Higher density allows the cost of land to be spread across more units and ultimately reduces the per unit cost. While land costs are high, the densities permitted in the City’s high density residential and commercial districts allow a developer to distribute this cost amongst a greater number of units.

Construction Costs

The cost of construction, including labor and materials, has a significant impact on the overall cost of new housing units and can be a significant constraint to development. According to a report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation¹, construction costs for apartment buildings in the Bay Area are the highest in the State and have increased more dramatically than costs statewide. Construction costs in the Bay Area increased 119 percent between 2008 and 2018, compared to an increase of 25 percent statewide. According to the Report, construction costs for apartment buildings in the Bay Area averaged $380 per square foot in 2018, compared to about $225 per square foot statewide. Higher wages for construction related jobs in the Bay Area, along with a lack of construction workers that can afford to live in the region due to the high cost of living, may contribute to higher costs in the region.

The Terner Center Report also found that construction costs are an average of $48 per square foot higher for affordable housing projects, when compared to mixed affordability and market rate projects, likely due to prevailing wage, local hire, and other requirements.

Timing

Many factors outside of the local jurisdiction’s control can constrain the timing between project approval and when the developer requests building permits. Potential reasons for a delay between these milestones include inability to secure financing for construction or availability of design professionals to complete construction documents or make corrections. For projects with two or more units approved over the previous planning cycle, the average time between project entitlement and building permit issuance was 604 days. For larger projects, the average is about three years.

Based on this average time lapse, the City’s strategy for meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assumes only projects entitled since 2018 would proceed to issuing building permits (see Appendix C: Sites Inventory). Older entitlements are likely to require resubmittal sometime in the future with product types that would more appropriately reflect the current market conditions. Monitoring measures will be put into place to assess development progress throughout the 6th cycle - see Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring.

Density

In some regions, market factors such as the demand for a single-family product or larger high-end condominiums can lead to properties being developed below the maximum allowable density. However, due to high land and construction costs in Berkeley, paired with 20 percent inclusionary requirements, projects are typically developed at high densities, and density bonuses are common. As mentioned previously, over 55 percent of applications under review and 85 percent of anticipated pipeline (pre-application) projects currently utilize State Density Bonus. In addition, none of Berkeley’s higher density residential districts (R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU) have a maximum density standard. Only one commercial district has a maximum density standard: C-AC has maximum densities of 120 to 250 units per acre depending on affordability levels.

Developments are largely regulated by form, which ensures that density itself is not a constraint to development. Actual base densities (subtracting out density bonus units) from projects entitled in the current planning period (2015-2023) largely exceeded the density assumptions made in the 5th cycle RHNA by zoning district. For example, in the Downtown Plan Area (C-DMU zone), Southside Plan Area (C-T, R-SMU), and Commercial Corridors (C-SA, C-C, C-U, C-W), the average base densities of actual projects were all higher than assumed in the 5th cycle.

Where actual development trends demonstrated a lower density than previously assumed, primarily in neighborhood commercial districts (C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SO), the 6th cycle Housing Element reduces the assumed density to reflect a lower realistic yield. Sites in the neighborhood commercial districts are typically smaller and under separate ownership, and therefore more constrained. In addition, projects in neighborhood commercial districts are typically infill or smaller additions to existing structures, which would characteristically yield a lower density.

For projects located in high density residential and commercial zones entitled over the previous planning cycle, the average density was 183 units per acre. As mentioned in Section 4.1.2 Zoning Ordinance (Cumulative Impact), commonly requested waivers and/or concessions include height and setbacks. As a result, the City is in the process of creating multi-unit objective development standards and proposing minimum density standard to ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance (Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential). The City is also evaluating zoning and development standards to accommodate housing capacity and growth on transit and commercial corridors, particularly in the highest resource neighborhoods (Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors).

Availability of Financing

The City of Berkeley does not vary greatly from other communities with regard to the availability of home financing. The Great Recession and impacts to the housing and mortgage industry had the effect of limiting the availability for real estate loans and increasing the rate of foreclosure for some time.

At present, mortgages are generally available for qualified buyers. Table 4.12 provides information on home mortgage applications for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA. In 2020, 69 percent of purchase loan applications were approved and 10 percent were denied. The denial rate was highest for home improvement loans at 33 percent.

In a housing market such as Berkeley’s, the down payment requirement may be a greater obstacle to homeownership for many households. With condominium values over $900,000 in Berkeley, a household would need to save $90,000 to provide a 10 percent down payment.

Table 4.12: Home Mortgage Application Data for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD (2020)

Source: www.ffiec.gov, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore MSA/MD, 2020.

5 HOUSING RESOURCES

This chapter summarizes the sites inventory and strategies to meet the RHNA and the City's state policies, including housing programs and measurable actions for implementation.

5.1 SUMMARY OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING

5.1.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction for the eight-year period. Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Element of the General Plan.

Under state law, regional councils of governments are required to develop housing needs plans for use by local governments in their Housing Element updates. The regional housing needs analysis is derived from the statewide growth forecast, which is then allocated to regions, counties, and cities. The statewide determination is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance and the application of specific adjustments to determine the total amount of housing needs for the region. The adjustments are a result of recent legislation that sought to incorporate an estimate of existing housing need by requiring the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to apply factors related to a target vacancy rate, the rate of overcrowding, and the share of cost-burdened households. The new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHNA resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan, compared to previous RHNA cycles. The RHNA for Bay Area jurisdictions was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in December 2021.

The 6th cycle Housing Element for the ABAG region covers an eight-year planning period from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. However, the RHNA uses June 30, 2022 as the baseline for projection. Specifically, the RHNA projection covers from June 30, 2022 through December 15, 2030, an 8.5-year period. For the purpose of assessing adequate sites for RHNA, state law allows jurisdictions to credit units approved, entitled, permitted, and under construction, that are not expected to become available ("finaled") until after June 30, 2022. For the purpose of reporting accomplishments in the Housing Element APR, only permitted units are credited as RHNA accomplishments.

For the 2023-2031 Housing Element, ABAG assigned the City of Berkeley a RHNA of 8,934 units. This RHNA is divided into four income categories. The sections below assess the City's progress and strategies toward meeting its RHNA. Detailed information is provided in Appendix C to the Housing Element.

Table 5.1: City of Berkeley RHNA for 2023-2031

The RHNA does not include the extremely low category. It is estimated to be ½ of the very-low-income need, per Government Code §65583.a.1. The total very-low-income RHNA is 2,446; therefore, 1,223 units are designated as extremely-low-income and 1,223 units are designated as very-low-income. However, the sites inventory purposes, no separate accounting is required for the extremely low income category.

Source: ABAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, adopted December 2021. Note, ABAG's methodology for calculating the Regional Housing Need Determination (region-wide) included a population adjustment of -169,755 total persons to reflect the Department of Finance projections for persons in dormitories, group homes, institutes, military, etc. that do not require residential housing.

5.1.2 PROJECTED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS)

Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Between 2018 and 2021, the City issued 419 building permits ADUs with an average of 105 ADUs per year over this period. Specifically, ADU permit activities accelerated significantly within the last two years.

Figure 5.1 shows approved entitlements and building permits in the City from 2018 to 2021, including ADUs in high resource areas, of which 17 percent of ADU permits were in the Hillside Overlay zone. Of the 419 ADU permits, only one project within the Hillside Overlay (0.2 percent of all ADUs permitted) contained both an ADU and a JADU. In addition, there is no specific prohibition of ADUs in the ES-R district. In 2008, in consideration of urgent life safety issues, the City of Berkeley established that no new dwelling unit of any kind may be established in the ES-R until the City adopts a new specific plan for the area that addresses issues including emergency access, routes of egress, geologic risks, and other risk factors related to the natural environment and public infrastructure (BMC section 23.202.070).

In February 2022, the City revised its ADU ordinance to limit the number of units allowed per lot in the Hillside Overlay District to one ADU or JADU to balance the construction of accessory units with regulating based on the “adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts of traffic flow and public safety” (Gov. Code 65852.2). The City will be reassessing its vulnerabilities with a 2024 update to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and as part of a comprehensive Safety, Land Use, and Environmental Justice Element update in 2026 (see Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors).

Assuming this trend continues, with a 28.5 percent reduction to conservatively account for the City's revised 2022 ADU ordinance in the Hillside Overlay District, the City expects to produce around 75 ADUs per year or 600 ADUs over the eight-year planning period. Based on the ADU rent survey conducted by ABAG, the affordability distribution of ADUs in the region is: 30 percent very low income; 30 percent low income; 30 percent moderate income; and 10 percent above moderate income. Therefore, the 600 ADUs projected for January 2023 through January 2031 can be allocated toward the RHNA as follows: 180 very low income; 180 low income; 180 moderate income; and 60 above moderate income.

105

Figure 5.1: Residential Development – Entitlements and Buildings Permits (2018-2021)

⬚ figure

5.1.3 BART STATION SITES

The City of Berkeley is working collaboratively with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to convert surface parking lots at two of the City’s three BART stations (Ashby and North Berkeley) into transit-oriented development. The City and BART have signed an MOU on the potential development of these lots and the entities are actively working together to release RFQs for private developers for each station. The BART station RFQ for North Berkeley has been issued, and interviews of five developers are underway in October 2022. The Ashby station RFQ will be issued in 2023 when additional development parameters have been defined.

BART’s development of these parcels is permitted under AB 2923, which allows BART to enable TOD through land-use zoning on BART-owned property in collaboration with local jurisdictions. Each station can accommodate up to 1,200 units and the expectation is that 35 percent of these units will be affordable in the Very Low and Low income categories. The mechanism holding these units affordable is the City’s financing and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and BART approved in June 2022. The MOA includes specific requirements about affordability of the future housing units. See also Program 4 -Housing Trust Fund and Program 28 -BART Station Area Planning. This Housing Element takes a more conservative approach in its estimate for what is

106

expected to be constructed during the eight-year planning period and assumes 600 units at each station (Table 5.2: BART Station Sites).

Table 5.2: BART Station Sites

5.1.4 LIKELY SITES

While the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period covers from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, the RHNA projection period begins June 30, 2022. Housing units that have been entitled for construction but do not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until after June 30, 2022 can be credited towards the 6th cycle RHNA. In total, the City has approved 2,101 units (133 very low, 166 low, 9 moderate, and 1,793 above-moderate) since 2018 that are expected to be constructed during the 6th Cycle planning period.

The affordability of the units was determined based on the affordability specified on the project proposal as approved by the City. See Appendix C: Sites Inventory for a list of these projects. Of the 2,101 units in the 48 Likely Sites, 13 sites are reused from the 5th Cycle, accounting for a total of 866 anticipated units (79 very low, 33 low, 9 moderate, 745 above moderate).

The City conducted an analysis of 47 permitted projects between 2018 and 2021 and found the average time between entitlement and permit issuance to be approximately three years to accommodate the preparation of construction documents and time needed for securing financing for higher density residential and mixed-use projects.

5.1.5 REMAINING RHNA

Accounting for projected ADUs, units at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, and entitled projects, the City has a remaining RHNA of 5,033 units (1,923 very low income; 852 low income; 1,227 moderate income; and 1,031 above moderate income units). The City must identify adequate sites capacity for this remaining RHNA.

Table 5.3: Remaining RHNA

5.1.6 AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO ADDRESS REMAINING RHNA

Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis of land resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. The analysis of potential to accommodate new housing growth considered physical and regulatory constraints, including lot area and configuration, environmental factors (e.g., slope, sensitive habitat, flood risk), allowable density, existing density, building age, and improvement-to-land ratio among others. In addition, parcels owned by the University of California were not included, since college and university student housing may be considered noninstitutional group quarters and not a housing unit for purposes of meeting RHNA, particularly facilities that are not available for rent to non-students.

Prepared with the Infill-First strategy in mind, the housing sites inventory for the 2023-2031 planning period demonstrates that new housing growth in the City of Berkeley over this eight-year period will largely conform to these patterns. The 6th Cycle Sites Inventory is made up of two types of sites:

• Pipeline Sites. These pending projects include applications submitted for entitlement or building permit and are currently under review. Pipeline sites also include anticipated projects based on pre-application submittals ("pre-app") and expressed developer interest. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known; where affordability levels are unknown at this time, all units have been placed in the above moderate income category.
• Opportunity Sites. Include vacant or underutilized sites with near-term potential for residential or mixed-use development, including some sites used in the 5th cycle Housing Element but remain available for development.

Full lists of the sites are available in Appendix C, in Table C-6: Pipeline Sites-Applications Under Review or Anticipated and Table C-10: Opportunity Sites-No Rezone Required

The housing sites inventory includes both vacant and nonvacant (underutilized) land with the potential for additional housing during the 6th Housing Element cycle. The analysis of nonvacant properties included only those properties with realistic potential for additional development or “recycling,” in light of:

• Existing uses on the site
• Prevailing market conditions
• Recent development trends over the past decade
• Expressed interests in housing development from property owners or developers
• Regulatory and/or other incentives to encourage recycling or intensification of existing development

108

The sites inventory assumes that sites between 0.35 acres and 10 acres whose zoning allows 30 units per acre or more are feasible for lower income units. The City of Berkeley has smaller parcel sizes compared to other jurisdictions and affordable housing projects have been developed on sites smaller than 0.5 acre. Appendix C, Table C-8: Affordable Housing Projects on Sites Smaller than 0.5 acre lists some such projects. Specifically, these projects average a small lot size of only 0.25 acre. As a conservative assumption, only parcels or sites (groups of parcels with common ownership) that are larger than 0.35 acre are considered adequately sized for lower income housing.

Based on the 2002 General Plan, plans adopted since 2002, objective criteria, and local knowledge used to identify available sites with near-term development potential pursuant to State adequate sites standards, combined with units from pending projects, the City’s sites inventory offers capacity for approximately 11,100 units, excluding the two BART sites. This capacity can fully accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA of 5,033 units for the 6th cycle without rezoning. Importantly, this excess capacity means the City is also able to satisfy the needs of different income categories, as more fully discussed below.

The City estimated development potential for opportunity sites by calculating the average baseline density (without density bonus) achieved for recently approved, under construction, or completed mixed-use and residential projects by zoning district. A detailed sites inventory and explanation of the methodology and assumptions for estimating the development capacity is provided in Appendix C.

Table 5.4: Summary of 6th Cycle Opportunity Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA

5.1.7 SUMMARY OF RHNA STRATEGIES

Overall, the City is able to accommodate its RHNA, with a 26 percent buffer for the lower income RHNA and a 48 percent buffer for the moderate income RHNA, and a 68 percent buffer to accommodate the overall RHNA. Identifying a larger buffer in the City’s sites inventory ensures that the City is able to comply with SB 166 (No Net Loss Law) – see also Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring.

While the City is not required to rezone or up-zone to meet its RHNA, as a pro-housing community, the City is pursuing a rezoning project to increase its residential capacity. The rezoning programs are described in Section 5.4 Housing Programs within this chapter.

Table 5.5: Summary of RHNA Strategies

AB 725 requires that at least 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate and above moderate income RHNA be satisfied on sites that can accommodate at least four units. The City of Berkeley satisfies its RHNA for all income categories primarily through high density residential uses and therefore fully complies with AB 725.

5.1.8 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH)

A detailed analysis of the City’s fair housing issues and assessment of how the sites inventory meets the criteria for AFFH—including identification of goals and actions—is provided in Appendix E.

Key findings of the sites inventory AFFH analysis include:

• Income Level. Approximately 55 percent of all RHNA units are located in Low and Moderate Income (LMI) tracts where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. A larger proportion of above moderate units (57.8 percent) and moderate income units

(59.7 percent) are in LMI areas compared to lower income units (49.1 percent), indicating the City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in LMI areas.

• Race/Ethnicity. The City’s RHNA strategy reflects the overall composition of Berkeley, including zoning districts, and does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity. Most RHNA units are located in block groups where between 41 percent and 80 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group; approximately 47 percent of Berkeley residents are non-white (see Section 3.2.3 Racial and Ethnic Composition). There are no RHNA units in block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81 percent.
• Persons with Disabilities. The City’s RHNA strategy distributes units throughout Berkeley, but areas where higher density housing is feasible, especially West and South Berkeley, tend to have larger populations of persons with disabilities. Of the 33 tracts in the City, 13 (39.4 percent) have populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent. Topographically, South and West Berkeley is flatter compared to the Northeast and Eastern parts of the City, and also is in proximity to several major transit lines and street corridors, which supports accessibility for persons with disabilities.
• Familial Status. Approximately 48 percent of income units are in tracts where 60 to 80 percent of children live in married couple households, compared to only 31 percent of moderate income units and 43 percent of above moderate income units. Another 37 percent of lower income units, 48 percent of moderate income units, and 39 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts where only 40 to 60 percent of children live in married couple households, since tracts with lower populations of children tend to correlate with zoning districts where high density housing is more feasible. In Berkeley’s RHNA sites inventory, there are also more lower income units in tracts where more than 40 percent of children live in single-parent female-headed households. The addition of housing units in these tracts, specifically lower income units, will increase housing opportunity for current residents.

Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory

⬚ figure

Figure 5.2: Residential Sites Inventory is a map showing the parcels identified for Likely, Pipeline, and Opportunity Sites. The Likely Sites are shaded blue and represent projects that have been entitled since 2018. A table with a list of the Likely Sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C.3 Likely Sites - Entitled Projects since 2018.

The Pipeline Sites are shaded purple and represent development applications which are currently under review or anticipated based on pre-application submittals. A table with a list of the Pipeline Sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C-6 Pipeline Sites - Applications Under Review or Anticipated. For purposes of the sites inventory analysis, the two BART sites are considered “Pipeline Sites” because the City and BART have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement on the development of these lots and are actively working together to select potential developer teams for the two sites.

The Opportunity Sites are shaded red, with darker red for sites in categories High (greater than or equal to 0.5 acres), medium red for Medium (0.25 to 0.49 acres), and light red for Low (less than 0.35 acres). A table with the list of the opportunity sites is available in a table format in Appendix C, Table C-10: Opportunity Sites - No Rezone Required.

112

5.2 RESOURCES FOR HOUSING PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, AND PRODUCTION

5.2.1 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD

The Berkeley voters passed the Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance in 1980 (Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 13.76). In 1982, the voters passed a Charter Amendment establishing an elected Rent Stabilization Board (Berkeley Charter, Article XVII, section 121). From 1980 to 1998 rents in units built prior to 1980 were controlled permanently, so that the rent did not change when a tenant moved out and new tenants moved in. Since the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act went into full effect in California in 1999, landlords have been able to establish initial rents for new tenancies at whatever price the market will bear (Civil Code sections 1954.50 through 1954.535). Under the law, the initial rent for new tenancies is not controlled but subsequent rent increases are controlled. This system is usually called “vacancy decontrol” although it is really “vacancy decontrol, recontrol.” The law also removed single-unit properties first re-rented after 1996 from rent control, including single-family houses and most condominiums.

The Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance provides a stable housing environment for tenants while assuring that landlords are able to receive a fair return on their investment. It assures tenants in rent stabilized units that once they move in their rents will not drastically increase, a situation similar to that of homeowners who are protected from rapid cost increases by the state property tax limitation and fixed-rate mortgages. Annual rent increases (the Annual General Adjustment or AGA) are set at 65 percent of the increase in the Consumer Price Index and landlords can apply for individual rent adjustments if the increases they receive through tenant turnover and the AGA are not sufficient to provide them with the legally required rate of return. The ordinance also protects tenants from arbitrary evictions through a system of eviction controls and twelve defined just causes for eviction. Good cause for eviction requirements apply to virtually all rental units, including those built after 1980, condominiums and single-family houses.

The good cause for eviction provisions of the Ordinance govern nearly the entirety of the approximately 27,000 rental units in Berkeley, while the rent stabilization provisions apply to approximately 21,000 units in multi-family properties built before 1980. About 19,000 of these units are required to register at any given time and the other 2,000 units are temporarily exempt. The most common reason for temporary exemption is that the unit is rented to a tenant who participates in either the Section 8 Portable Voucher or Shelter Plus Care programs. Permanently exempt units include those built after 1980 and most single-family and condominium units.

Vacancy decontrol took effect during the “dot.com” boom in the mid-90s, which rapidly increased rents and home prices throughout the Bay Area and peaked in 2001. From 2001 to 2004 market rents in Berkeley declined somewhat and then began to rise again. By 2008 the market rents for registered units in Berkeley had increased beyond the 2001 peak levels. After the 2008 financial crisis, market rents decreased slightly and then remained stable through 2011. Beginning in 2012, rents in Berkeley began a steady increase, making new highs each year from 2012 to 2018. Overall, market rents for units subject to rent control increased by over 70% in units with between 0-3

bedrooms. Rents in Berkeley began to show signs of stabilizing in 2019, and then declined in 2020 by between 1.45 percent and 6 percent, due to the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic and associated shelter in place orders.

Approximately 90 percent of registered rental units have had a new tenancy since 1999 while 10 percent have long-term tenants. The approximately 1,800 tenant households that have remained in place since the beginning of vacancy decontrol are usually paying a rent that is significantly below current market rates.

The Rent Board engages in public education about the importance of the rent stabilization and good cause for eviction ordinance and works to educate both tenants and landlords about their respective rights and responsibilities under the law. Rent Board counselors typically provide information to landlords and tenants at 40 to 50 different events each year, but most recently outreach events have been reduced to online webinars due to Covid-19 safety concerns. Over the course of the year Rent Board counselors generally had more client contacts with property owners and property managers than with tenants.

The Rent Board monitors foreclosures to ensure tenants are notified that they do not have to move simply because a financial institution has taken over ownership of the property, and works with owners to help them stave off foreclosure by informing the lending institution that they will not be able to simply evict all the tenants and vacate the property, but rather will need to take on the responsibility of property management. In addition, SB 1079, signed into law in 2020 and funded through the state’s Foreclosure Intervention and Housing Preservation Program, provides loans to tenants, nonprofits and community land trusts to purchase foreclosed properties. The Rent Board monitors all filings by owners evicting tenants on the grounds that they are going out of the rental business to ensure that the owners make the required relocation payments and follow all the notice requirements of state and local laws.

The Berkeley City Council adopted the Ronald V. Dellums Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.106) in 2020. The Ordinance prohibits housing providers from advertising, directly or indirectly, that they will not consider applicants with criminal histories except as required by state or federal law. Rent Board staff implements the ordinance on behalf of the City by counseling landlords and tenants on the Ordinance, working with the City Attorney's Office to draft administrative regulations related to the implementation of the hearings process, including an administrative review process, and holding full evidentiary hearings.

In 2020, Berkeley voters passed Measure MM which required owners register rental units that are partially covered by the Rent Ordinance (not subject to rent control but covered by good cause for eviction protections and security deposit interest provisions). Registration allows the Rent Board staff the ability to provide more comprehensive housing services to both tenants and landlords. As of March 2022, approximately 4,750 rental units have registered due to Measure MM.

5.2.2 CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND

The City of Berkeley also has a number of funding sources available to implement its housing programs, including the preservation of housing units at risk of converting to market-rate housing.

The City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) was established in 1990. The purpose of the HTF is to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Berkeley. Federal funds such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) are combined in the HTF with local funds such as revenue from mitigation fees on commercial development (Resolution 66,617-N.S.), new market rate housing (BMC 22.20.065 Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and BMC 23C.12 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance), and condominium conversions (BMC 21.28). The City Council may approve additional sources of funding for the HTF at any time, such as the 2018 Measure O bond measure, or state and federal sources. The Council may allocate general funds such as those generated through Measure U1. The City’s Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) advises the City Council on HTF allocations.

A significant source of the HTF is the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. As of March 2022, the fee is set at $36,746 per unit if paid at building permit issuance, or $39,746 per unit if paid at Certificate of Occupancy. The City also allocates a portion of the HOME funds to the HTF it receives annually as an entitlement jurisdiction under HUD’s Community Planning and Development programs.

As of March 2022, the City has $108.8M reserved or in contract for affordable housing projects, representing over 700 units in 19 projects. The City is committed to continuing to support projects in predevelopment and future development opportunities as additional HTF revenue becomes available.

5.2.3 SB 2 PLANNING GRANT AND PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION

In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.

The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. Berkeley received $310,000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. This funding is primarily used to develop zoning standards for both Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations for transit-oriented development.

For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the SB 2 funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of subsequent years’ allocation will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate CDBG funds. SB2 PLHA funds can be used to:

• Increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60 percent of AMI
• Increase assistance to affordable owner occupied workforce housing
• Assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness
• Facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households

• Promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation

The City of Berkeley adopted a five-year PLHA allocation plan as required by HCD in July 2020. The City received a PLHA allocation of $1,293,584 in year-one (FY2021) and will receive an allocation of $2,010,631 in year-two (FY2022). The City’s PLHA allocation over the next five years is projected at $7,761,504. However, initial projections for the transaction fees were created by the State prior to COVID-19. The actual amounts in years three through five may be lower and therefore result in different, possibly lower, disbursements. In December 2021, the City amended its allocation plan to support a Project Home Key homeless housing acquisition project in Year 2. The plan for years three to five will support new affordable housing construction initiatives via two avenues: 1) operating subsidies for homeless households and 2) supplementing the Housing Trust Fund program.

5.2.4 PROJECT HOMEKEY

HCD offers grant funding for local entities to support a variety of housing types for persons experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. For FY 2021-2022, HCD set aside $1.4 billion in grant funding and is accepting applications on a rolling basis until funds are exhausted or May 2, 2022, whichever comes first. The various housing types it supports include multifamily and single-family housing, hostels, motels, hotels, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing. The funding can also support adaptive reuse of projects into permanent or interim housing for this population. The City is pursuing the acquisition of the Golden Bear Inn for Project HomeKey.

5.2.5 COVID-RELATED FUNDING

The City received additional funding from HUD to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the City received $2.5 million in CDBG-CV and $6.7 million in ESG-CV (Emergency Solutions Grant) in FY 2020. An additional $2.7 million in American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds was also made available to the City in FY 2021. The funds were used to respond to and address economic effects of COVID-19, including assistance to households and small businesses, as well as balance budget deficits.

5.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Public/private partnerships are arrangements between a public agency and a private-sector organization, and can be used to finance, build, and operate projects that serve a public good—such as the development and management of affordable housing. The City of Berkeley partners with several organizations to provide and administer a variety of housing programs, including rental vouchers, energy incentives, fair housing support, and legal services.

5.3.1 BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Established in 1966, BHA provides rental assistance to a total of 1,939 low-income households units through the Section 8 and Moderate Rehabilitation Program. BHA administers two basic types of

housing programs: tenant-based assistance (that is, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8)) and project-based assistance.

5.3.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BERKELEY

The BHA Board has established a non-profit entity - Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) – as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley. BHA’s former low income public housing properties were sold to a developer in 2014. The proceeds from the sale will be used by AHB Inc. to develop the new deed-restricted units. The BHA board also serves as the Board of AHB.

5.3.3 BAY AREA REGIONAL ENERGY NETWORK

The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) is a coalition of local governments in the Bay Area’s nine counties partnering to promote resource efficiency at the regional level, focusing on energy, water and greenhouse gas reduction. BayREN provides technical assistance, rebates, financing for energy efficiency and electrification projects. These BayREN resources are used for projects which are recommended by the City’s Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) assessments to support voluntary upgrades.

5.3.4 EDEN COUNCIL FOR HOPE AND OPPORTUNITY (ECHO)

ECHO was established by community volunteers dedicated to equal housing opportunities and the prevention and elimination of homelessness. Established as a fair housing agency, ECHO has expanded to a full-service housing counseling organization providing services to very low and moderate income clients. The City of Berkeley contracts with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing services in the community.

5.3.5 EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER (EBCLC)

EBCLC seeks to promote justice by providing:

• Legal services and policy advocacy that are responsive to the needs of low income communities; and
• Law training that prepares future attorneys to be skilled and principled advocates who are committed to addressing the causes and conditions of racial and economic injustice and poverty.

The City partners with EBCLC to provide no cost legal advocacy help to low income tenants.

5.4 HOUSING PROGRAMS

The City of Berkeley is committed to implementing the goals and policies in Chapter 2, addressing the housing needs identified in Chapter 3, and responding to the constraints in Chapter 4 through the housing programs listed in this section to facilitate the development of housing to meet RHNA.

The following programs have been developed through an extensive public engagement process and in concert with staff from departments and divisions throughout the city in order to identify specific programs that would realistically facilitate implementation of the City’s goals and achieve the stated policies. Many of the housing programs reflect City Council referrals that are funded and/or staffed and are already included in the future workplans for departments.

While the City is not required to rezone or up-zone to meet its RHNA (described in Section 5.1 Summary of Land Available for Housing and Appendix C Sites Inventory), as a pro-housing community, the City is pursuing several rezoning programs to increase its residential capacity.

Program 1 - Affordable Housing Berkeley

The Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) was recently selected by HUD to be a Move to Work Agency (MTW) that allows for programmatic flexibility. The cohort for which BHA was selected is “Landlord Incentives,” allowing BHA to attract additional landlords to participate with BHA to house voucher holders in Berkeley. Some of the flexibilities include: A Payment Standard above 110 percent; one-month contract rent signing bonus for brand new landlords; and funds for accessibility unit modifications. Additional programmatic flexibilities will focus on expansion of the Project-based Section 8 program. BHA is currently working on the process, including future public hearings, to be able to fully implement these flexibilities, and it is expected that will happen by mid-2023.

Furthermore, the BHA Board has established a non-profit entity - Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc. (AHB) - as the development arm of BHA to produce affordable housing units in Berkeley. BHA’s former low income public housing properties were sold to a developer in 2014, and those units were converted to Project-based Section 8. The proceeds from the sale will be used by AHB Inc. to develop the new units. The BHA board also serves as the Board of AHB and has just hired Mosaic Urban Development to assist with its Strategic Planning Process.

Program 2 - Housing Choice Vouchers

BHA provides a range of rental housing assistance to very low income, and low income households through a number of programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers, and Moderate Rehabilitation (SROs).

BHA also operates several Special Purpose Voucher programs including:

• Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV): 51 EHVs awarded by HUD to house homeless households.
• Mainstream Voucher Program: 91 vouchers to house non-elderly and disabled homeless or at-risk households.
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH): 40 VASH vouchers for homeless veterans.

BHA provides all disabled households the opportunity to apply for Reasonable Accommodations so that they can fully participate in its programs. Some examples of Reasonable Accommodations include an extra bedroom for a 24-hour Live in Aide, or an extra room to store bulky medical equipment.

Program 3 - Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements

The City is revising its Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements to enhance the effectiveness of the program in delivering affordable housing, especially for extremely low-income households. Proposed changes include:

• Rate of Rent Increases. Cap the annual rate of rent increases for the Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) using both Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Area Median Income (AMI). Currently rent increases are based on AMI alone. Recent trends have resulted in sharper increases in AMI due to a greater share of higher-income earners moving to the county rather than from increases in wages, resulting in the existing approach having unintended adverse impacts to tenants. While changes in CPI-U have traditionally been more stable than changes to AMI, this may change in the current, more inflationary cycle. The overall goal of this proposed program is to ensure that rent increases do not result in high housing cost burden or displacement of existing tenants.
• Extremely Low Income Units. Incentivize the provision of extremely low income (ELI, 30 percent of AMI) units by offering low income units to voucher holders prior to other income eligible households.
• In-Lieu Fee Based on Unit Size. Establish a per-square-foot in-lieu fee, instead of the existing per-unit basis for fees.
• Alternative Housing Types. Alternative affordable housing types, including live/work units, would qualify for meeting the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
• In-Lieu Options for Compliance. Add land dedication as a potential alternative to providing on-site units.

In addition, City staff will be initiating a new residential financial feasibility study starting 2023, in accordance with the recommendations of both the Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions. This new study will analyze the feasibility of smaller building development types (e.g., middle housing), monitor the effects of the newly adopted fees and inclusionary requirements, and establish whether adjustments should be made to the development controls, including fee level or cost structure. Adjustments may be made to raise or lower the per square foot fee, to adjust the sliding scale for smaller projects, to better align the developer cost of the inclusionary versus fee options, or to make other changes to reflect market conditions as the city emerges from the pandemic and faces inflationary, recessionary, and other market influences.

Program 4 - Housing Trust Fund

Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) pools funds for affordable housing construction from a variety of sources with different requirements, and makes them available to developers through a single application process. Affordable housing developers and land trusts can find funding opportunities on this page as they become available. The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee/Inclusionary fee is the primary driver of the HTF program. The HTF is also regularly supported by fees collected from condo conversions and new commercial development, as well as federal HOME funds.

The City has significantly expanded its capacity since the adoption of the Measure O bond for affordable housing in 2018. The City's funding commitments typically leverage federal tax credits and State funds to complete 100 percent affordable projects. During the upcoming cycle, the City will complete over 500 units across seven projects currently in the pipeline – as well as future opportunities.

The City will also commit $53 million in HTF - $40 million of Measure O and $13 million in local funds – to fund a minimum of 35% affordable units at North Berkeley and Ashby BART. The program targets funding a minimum of 500 units of nonprofit affordable housing and a minimum of 35 percent affordable housing at Ashby and North Berkeley BART sites.

Funding recipients will follow the standard Loan Terms, requiring 55-year development loans, unless variations are granted by the City Manager or City Council.

• December 2023. Funding awards for pipeline projects.
• December 2024. Project completion for funded affordable projects: Maudelle Miller Shirek Community (2001 Ashby) and Blake Apartments (2527 San Pablo)
• December 2025. Issue Housing Trust Fund RFP

Small Sites Program

• December 2023. North Berkeley project completion to preserve and renovate 13 units (1685 Solano Ave)

BART - See also Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning.

• February 2023. Predevelopment funding award.
• December 2025. Initial development funding award.

Program 5 - Preservation of At-Risk Housing

The City will monitor and assist in preserving deed-restricted housing. There are over 2,300 deed restricted affordable rental units within the City of Berkeley. Three projects (92 units) are at risk for potential conversion to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033. These are Bonita House (two affordable units), Lawrence Moore Manor (46 affordable units), and Stuart Pratt Manor (44 affordable units). These projects are subject to annual renewal of its project-based Section 8 certificates with HUD.

Ensure tenants are properly noticed by the property owners should a Notice of Intent to opt out of low income use is filed. Notices must be filed three years, one year, and six months in advance of conversion.

Pursue acquisition of the affordable units through Affordable Housing Berkeley should conversion to market rate housing

Program 6 - Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement

The City contracts with ECHO Housing for Fair Housing services and ensure the public has access to information through the City’s website, and other modes of communication, including newsletters and through local Community-Based Organization (CBO) partners. The City also partners with East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) to provide no cost legal advocacy help to low income tenants.

The City’s approach is to be collaborative with landlords through the Berkeley Property Owners Association (BPOA) to provide trainings to rental property owners.

Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement: ECHO is tasked with reaching specific target demographics including people with disabilities, female heads of households, homeless households, and chronically homeless households. Echo records income and demographic data for each client served to ensure the City is consistent with AFFH goals. ECHO’s counselor will respond to all inquiries and complaints from City of Berkeley regarding illegal housing discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, familial status, physical and mental disability, religion, source of income, and all other arbitrary forms (immigration status, LEP, personal characteristics) of discrimination as defined in state and federal fair housing law. ECHO will deliver services to any Berkeley renter who feels they have experienced illegal housing discrimination or any housing provider requiring education or training with regard to federal, state, and local fair housing laws and ordinances.

AFFH | As a Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (QFHO), ECHO continues to coordinate and collaborate with cooperating attorneys, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on cases we have investigated and referred for litigation. | Education/Training – tenant-focused CBOs and Property Owner Associations: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus where LMI households and cost burdened renters are concentrated Education/Training – rental property owners: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley and areas surrounding UC Berkeley campus. Outreach Events – Berkeley residents: Targeting citywide with emphasis in Central and Southern Berkeley where protected groups and sensitive communities at risk of displacement are concentrated.

Policies Implemented | H-5 Rent Stabilization H-29 Fair Housing

Program 7 - Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection

The Rent Stabilization Board (RSB) works closely with other City departments to ensure that tenants are protected from retaliation when they complain about code violations and to assist landlords in following the requirements of the law when they need to temporarily relocate tenants in order to make repairs. The Board also assists with the enforcement of the Fair Housing Ordinance (BMC Section 13.30.050) by providing funding for the East Bay Community Law Center and the Eviction Defense Center, which provide legal services to the low-income community.

Rent stabilization provisions apply to approximately 21,000 units in multi-family properties built before 1980. About 19,000 of these units are required to register at any given time and the other 2,000 units are temporarily exempt. The City currently has over 3,500 long-term tenants who have continuously resided in their rent controlled units since 1980 when the Rent Board and Rent Stabilization Ordinance was created.

The most common reason for temporary exemption is that the unit is rented to a tenant who participates in either the Section 8 Portable Voucher or Shelter Plus Care programs.

Program 8 - Rental Housing Safety

The City of Berkeley performs inspections of rental units to ensure they meet safety requirements defined by the California Building Standards Code. Both tenants and property owners can request inspections by the City. The program focuses on tenant-occupied housing and is both complaint-driven and proactive. Code enforcement inspections respond to requests for service from tenants, and also conduct proactive inspections on a regular cycle. Units where tenants have submitted a complaint to Housing Code Enforcement will be prioritized.

If the inspector finds any code violations, the City will provide a written report of the issue and set a timeline for correction. The property owner is responsible for correcting the violation before the City returns for a re-inspection. If the re-inspection finds that the property owner resolved the violation, the City will not charge a fee. If the re-inspection finds that the violation remains, the City will charge an inspection service fee, with costs increasing with each additional re-inspection.

Program 9 - Tenant Survey

The City has issued an RFP to conduct a Tenant Survey to gather a representative sample of tenants’ experiences in Berkeley today. The data collected will be used to ensure the City’s elected Rent Stabilization Board adopts legislation that promotes policies and services stated in the Berkeley Rent Ordinance. Based on data from Tenant Survey, the Board will make changes to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Program 10 - Housing Preference Policies

Currently, the BHA Housing Choice Voucher waitlist provides preference points for households or families that—at the time of selection from the waiting list—reside in the City of Berkeley, or formerly resided in Berkeley, or include a member who works or has been hired to work in the jurisdiction. Use of this preference will not have the purpose or effect of delaying or otherwise denying admission to the program based on the race, color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability, or age of any member of an applicant family.

The City is developing a housing preference policy to assist residents at-risk of displacement and those who have already been displaced to receive priority for new, local affordable housing units.

The City intends for this policy to apply to units created via its HTF and BMR programs to the extent permissible by Fair Housing law.

Program 11 - Rental Assistance

The City utilizes CDBG and local Measure P funding to contract with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to provide supportive services. These services help stabilize households in rental assistance programs and to move unhoused community members into permanent supportive housing.

Program 12 - Workforce Housing

The City of Berkeley is dedicated to supporting local efforts to expand the construction of workforce housing that is affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI). The availability of affordable housing to moderate income residents is important to attract

and retain workers, reduce commute time and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for workers to live in the communities they serve. Workforce housing targets middle-income households who work within the City of Berkeley, such as teachers, health care workers, retail clerks, artists and young professionals.

In 2018, Berkeley voters passed Measure O, a $135 million bond to develop affordable housing, that includes a priority for education workers. In December 2021, the City Council approved $24.5 million for a Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) sponsored low-income and workforce housing project.

Program 13 -Homeless Services

The City of Berkeley is committed to addressing homelessness and is working on a large variety of new and potential homeless programs, including:

• Acquisition of the Golden Bear Inn for Project HomeKey
• Leasing with the Rodeway Inn to provide sheltering for people currently living at People’s Park
• A drop-in center for the unhoused in People’s Park and Telegraph Ave district jointly funded by UC Berkeley

Preliminary discussions are underway to assist Berkeley Food and Housing Project in acquiring Russell Street Residence.

The City is also working to implement a new rental assistance program (“Shallow Subsidies”) for people who are unhoused but do not need supportive services, and the City is administering a County contract to place unhoused people in motels to provide respite from the streets.

Finally, the City is also assisting Larkin Street to purchase the property at 3404 King Street, currently owned by Fred Finch and operated as transitional housing for homeless youth, for the same purpose.

• Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at Golden Bear Inn
• Increase capacity for housing the homeless by 43 beds/persons at the Rodeway
• Serve an average of 15-25 unhoused persons the drop-in center daily
• Maintain transitional housing for 12 transition aged youth at 3404 King Street
• Maintain capacity for housing persons experiencing homelessness by 27 beds/households at the Berkeley Inn

Program 14 - Housing for Homeless Persons with Disabilities

The City plans to provide local subsidy to Resources for Community Development (RCD) for a 119-unit very low income development for households earning between 10 and 50 percent AMI (Supportive Housing in People’s Park) with at least 50 percent of the units dedicated to previously unhoused residents with mental health conditions. This project has been allocated 27 project-based vouchers by BHA.

129

H-27 Persons with Disabilities H-28 Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing

Program 15 -Shelter Plus Care

Shelter Plus Care is a housing subsidy program for individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled in Berkeley. Participants pay approximately 30% of their income towards rent, and receive ongoing supportive services. Shelter Plus Care participants must have a disability due to mental illness, drug or alcohol dependence, physical disability, or chronic medical condition, and meet the following criteria for homelessness:

• Continuously homeless on the streets or in shelters for last 12 consecutive months
• Currently on the streets or in a shelter for less than 12 months, with at least four separate occasions of being homeless and on the streets/in shelters during the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months; OR
• Staying in an institutional care facility for fewer than 90 days and prior to that met the above criteria for being chronically homeless (Institutional care facilities include jails, substance abuse or mental health treatment facilities, hospitals or other similar facilities)
• Residing in transitional housing and prior to that met the above criteria for being chronically homeless (Persons in transitional housing do not meet HUD criteria, but may qualify for City of Berkeley program on a limited basis).

The City continues to administer 300 Shelter Plus Care vouchers for the homeless, along with supportive services.

Program 16 -Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety

The City partners with nonprofit providers to fund home modifications for lower income households. Both organizations bring volunteers and communities together to provide free repair services for low-income homeowners.

Program 17 -Accessible Housing

The City promotes housing accessibility for persons with disabilities. The City also promotes its reasonable accommodation to property owners. The City also requires community-based organizations to conduct outreach throughout the community targeting the low and moderate income households, including seniors and people with disabilities, served by these programs.

As part of Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential, the City will also modify standards for ground floor uses to incorporate first floor residential that facilitate accessible housing. The intent is to increase the number of accessible dwelling units in the local housing supply, particularly in transit and service-rich neighborhoods.

BHA has a robust Reasonable Accommodation program for all of its program participants who are disabled – each time they conduct a new voucher holder intake, and in annual recertification packets, clients receive the Notice of Right to Request a Reasonable Accommodation, and a Form to Request a Reasonable Accommodation. All disabled households have the right to request a Reasonable Accommodation at any time, and BHA staff are trained to respond properly, adhering to Fair Housing Law. All Project-based Voucher long term contracts have a requirement to adhere to current Section 504/ADA designs in the number of units.

131

and live/work uses that encourages accessible design in higher density districts (e.g. R-3, R-4, and commercial districts).

By December 2026, promote residential units to be developed with universal design and visitability principles in future PBV Master Contracts or exemptions for requiring a modified unit to be returned to its original state upon vacating the unit.

As part of BHA's MTW application addressed in Affordable Housing Berkeley, the fiscal flexibilities include the ability to spend up to $500 per unit to help landlords pay for unit modifications. This benefit cannot be combined with the CIL program addressed in Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety.

Program 18 - Senior / Disabled Home Improvement Loan

The purpose of the Senior and Disabled Home Rehabilitation Loan Program is to assist low and moderate income senior and disabled homeowners in repairing/modifying their homes, to eliminate conditions that pose a threat to their health and safety and to help preserve the City's housing inventory. Qualified borrowers can receive interest-free loans of up to $100,000.

The building to be rehabilitated has to be located within the City of Berkeley boundaries. The property will contain no more than two units. Only the unit occupied by the senior or disabled homeowner is eligible to receive assistance.

H-30 Accessible Housing H-31 Affordable Accessible Housing

Program 19 - Housing Condition Standards

The City will develop an Amnesty Program for Unpermitted Dwelling Units (UDUs). The amnesty program will promote legalization of unpermitted or undocumented dwelling units—including Accessory Dwelling Units—while ensuring safe, healthy and habitable living conditions, resulting in an increased number of legal dwelling units within the Berkeley community. The program would provide tenants a means of getting potentially substandard or unsafe conditions abated in their homes, while providing property owners a pathway to legalization without fear of punitive action. The program would pertain solely to existing unpermitted dwelling units, and not to newly constructed dwelling units.

For Housing Choice Voucher holders, BHA implements HUD’s housing inspection protocol, called Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to ensure safe and decent living conditions.. Each assisted unit is inspected before a contract is approved, and at least once every 12 months thereafter. The inspection is performed to determine compliance with HUD’s HQS. The program withholds rental subsidies to landlords if the property fails inspection twice, as an incentive for landlords to make repairs.

133

H-11 Code Requirements H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance

Program 20 -Livable Neighborhoods

As established in the City of Berkeley’s 2018 Strategic Plan¹, the City is committed to equitable and affirmative opportunity in all its work, including housing, services, and capital projects. To prioritize strategies in historically underserved neighborhoods in South and West Berkeley, and the Southside, the City pledges to:

• Expand rental housing safety programs, particularly in central and southern Berkeley neighborhoods where there are higher proportions of renters and aging housing units. (see Program 8 -Rental Housing Safety and Program 21 -Lead-Poisoning Prevention).
• Encourage climate equity by promoting sustainable home retrofitting, including in rental properties, and especially in South and West Berkeley (see Program 23 -Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund and Program 24 -Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy).
• Initiate the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Specific Plan with the express intent of providing community amenities as part of the land use planning and housing intensification efforts (see Program 27 -Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors) and continue to implement measures in the recently adopted Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, which specifically includes community amenities, services, and facilities.
• Continue neighborhood code enforcement with a focus in the Southside neighborhood where there are higher proportions of student group living accommodations and relatively lower incomes, and high ethnic and racial diversity.
• Prioritize infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation in historically underserved neighborhoods in South and West Berkeley, including target pedestrian safety and bikeway projects in Equity Priority Areas in South and West Berkeley and the Southside.
• Improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in access to programming and employment for the City's parks, recreation, and capital initiatives through increased outreach, and focus park and planting improvements in South and West Berkeley.

Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Livable Neighborhoods - The City Manager's Office (CMO) provides guidance and resources to make neighborhoods safer and more livable for residents through its Livable Neighborhoods program. The Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement (NSCE) unit responds to requests for traffic calming, street lighting, and mediates complaints of noise and wood smoke disturbances, sewage releases, rodent and pests, and abandoned vehicles. The NSCE leads on complex code enforcement cases that require multi-departmental response. The program is

also updating the protocols by which such cases are referred and handled, which will lead to more efficient response times.

Currently there are three NSCE officer staff, who work closely with one zoning code enforcement officer in Planning. The City is in the process of updating its implementation of the Group Living Accommodations (GLAs) ordinance and has created an online registry system for GLAs or mini-dorms, as well as short-term rentals. Eligible GLAs may apply to receive a functionally equivalent exemption from certain requirements of the GLA ordinance. Mini-dorms are buildings in residential districts that are occupied by six or more adults. Sororities, Fraternities, and Student Co-ops are not considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager. GLAs are buildings or units that are occupied by individuals, and are characterized by separate sleeping rooms without individual kitchen facilities, and containing congregate bath and/or dining facilities or rooms.

Equity Priority Area Improvements – It is a policy of the City of Berkeley to maintain its infrastructure in safe, good condition that protects the environment and invests in its existing assets. The City commits to place-based actions beyond housing improvements, such as infrastructure, streetscapes, active transportation, and other community enhancements. The following documents and policies provide guidance in prioritizing the City’s capital improvements in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing:

• Berkeley Bicycle Plan (Update adoption anticipated December 2023). The vision of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan is to make Berkeley a model city for bicycling for people of all ages and abilities. The Plan is currently being updated to reflect the Vision Zero focus on eliminating all severe injury and fatality traffic crashes involving people riding bicycles, with traffic safety improvements prioritized in the Equity Priority Area identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan.

• Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy (Adopted January 25, 2022). Prioritize paving projects in the Equity Zone, where residents experience more pressing need and would receive benefits sooner. The Equity Zone aligns with underserved neighborhoods (West of San Pablo and South of University between Spaulding and San Pablo) and have historically experienced decades of underinvestment.

• Pedestrian Plan (Adopted January 26, 2021). The City’s vision is to be a model walkable city where traveling on foot or with an assistive device is safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, ages and abilities. The Pedestrian Plan documented that black pedestrians are twice as likely to experience traffic violence compared to white pedestrians and uses redlining maps to prioritize safety improvements in historically underserved neighborhoods. Priority projects segments include South Berkeley (Adeline from Ashby to southern city limits, Ashby from San Pablo to Shattuck, Alcatraz from Sacrament to Adeline) and West Berkeley (San Pablo from University to Dwight, Cedar from Sixth to Stannage). Priority projects were identified using the Equity Priority Area identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan.

• Vision Zero Action Plan (Adopted March 10, 2020). The City’s Vision Zero policy document aims to eliminate fatal and severe traffic crashes by 2028 and a guiding principle is to remedy the racial and economic inequities associated with traffic enforcement by prioritizing infrastructure improvements in Equity Priority Areas. Equity Priority Areas are areas primarily West of San

Pablo Avenue, or South of University between San Pablo and Martin Luther King Junior Way. The Equity Priority Areas takes into account historic federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “redlining” practices, racial/ethnic composition, property value, and cultural centers. The Vision Zero Action Plan identifies two ways to implement projects: Quick Build Projects and Capital Intensive Projects. The Equity Priority Area is used to prioritize funding and construction of traffic safety projects identified in the Pedestrian Plan, BeST Plan, and other City Council adopted Plans.

• Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan (Adopted June 1, 2016, Updated January 2021). The BeST Plan is about preparing for and prioritizing the physical enhancement of Berkeley’s transportation network to improve access and mobility for all communities and users. A key goal is to increase transportation choices for disadvantaged communities and the Plan prioritizes projects in West Berkeley and the Southside.
• Adeline Corridor Specific Plan (Adopted December 8, 2020). The Specific Plan articulates a community vision and planning framework for approximately 1.3 miles of Adeline Street in the southern portion of the City and identifies right-of-way design objectives and requirements to improve intersection safety and access, particularly for those with disabilities.
• Reduce Barriers to Access City Recreation Programs and Employment Opportunities. By simplifying application processes for scholarships and employment opportunities, and conducting targeted outreach with BUSD, the City intends to diversity participation, particularly to lower income households and to students identified by the state as in need of Supplementary Educational Services (SES).
• Increase investment in the City’s community gardens and tree canopies, and maintenance of existing parks and open space facilities with a focus in South-West and North-West Berkeley.

By June 2025: Fund and complete the design phase of a permanent pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvement strategy on Adeline from Ashby to Southern City Limits. (Pedestrian Plan and Vision Zero, Capital Intensive Project, Adeline Corridor Specific Plan)

By December 2027: Fund and complete a permanent pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvement strategy on San Pablo from University to Dwight. (Pedestrian Plan and Vision Zero, Capital Intensive Project)

Annually: Report to City Council on the progress of the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan

Every two years: Bring updated BeST Plan to City Council for approval.

Every three years: Bring updated Vision Zero Action Plan to City Council for approval.

Every five years: Bring updated Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans to City Council for approval

Program 21 -Lead-Poisoning Prevention

The City of Berkeley’s Environmental Health Division will incorporate “Proactive Lead-Based Paint Inspections” as part of the Childhood Lead Prevention Program (CLPP), and will continue documenting these types of inspectional activities throughout the 2023-2031 period. CLPP contains three levels: Tier I: Response to elevated blood-lead levels in children; Tier II: Proactive inspections; and Tier III: Contractor enforcement.

Conducting proactive lead-based paint inspections satisfies State requirements as part of the CLPP program. These inspections (in coordination with Housing Code Enforcement staff) also provide a community service by responding to tenant concerns, particularly those with toddlers and young children. The City will inspect the presence of lead in the residential environment, especially where peeling lead paint has been identified. These inspections also provide documentation on lead levels in soil before and after any remediation.

Annually: Continue to assist approximately 12 households (or more, as needed) during the 2023-2031 period by:

Conduct an Environmental Investigation (EI) for presence of lead when peeling lead paint has been identified or if/when a child has elevated blood lead levels. Proactive inspections will be conducted in high-risk areas citywide, which include a visual assessment and notifications to homeowners and landlords. The average inspection process from start to finish should take approximately 30 days to complete.

Lead Department(s)/Agency | HHCS – Environmental Health

Funding Source(s) | California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) Childhood Lead Poisoning and Prevention Program (CLPP) Annual Grant

AFFH | Place-Based Strategy for Neighborhood Improvements Environmental Investigations will target neighborhoods which have been identified as having one or more cases of toddlers or young children with elevated blood lead levels, presumably linked to environmental sources.

Policies Implemented | H-9 Housing Preservation H-11 Code Requirements H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance

Program 22 -Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs

The City implements and supports a number of programs to address seismic preparedness:

• Soft Story Program. Continue program management for buildings newly added to the soft story inventory, as well as code enforcement for non-compliant soft story buildings subject to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.39. [Soft Story Ordinance (Ord. No. 7,318-N.S.) adopted December 3, 2013.]
• Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Ordinance. Continue code enforcement for non-compliant URM buildings subject to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.38 (Ord. 6604-NS § 2, 2000) as of November 15, 1991.
• Retrofit Grants Program. In early 2017, the City launched its first Retrofit Grants Program to incentivize individual property owners to retrofit their seismically vulnerable buildings. This ground-breaking program leveraged both federal and state hazard mitigation grant funding from FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to reimburse property owners for a portion of their design and construction costs. In May 2020, the City

received approval for additional hazard mitigation grant funding, enabling the City to launch a second round of the Retrofit Grants Program. The City will continue to seek additional hazard mitigation grant funding throughout 2023-2031, in an effort to provide further financial assistance to building owners, and encourage retrofit of additional Berkeley buildings.

• Seismic Retrofit Transfer Tax Rebate Program. This program provides refunds of Berkeley transfer taxes for seismic upgrades to residential properties that are completed within one year of property transfer. Up to 1/3 of the base 1.5% transfer tax rate may be refunded on a dollar-for-dollar basis, for all expenses incurred on or after October 17, 1989, for seismic upgrades to residential property. This program applies to structures that are used exclusively for residential purposes, or any mixed-use structure that contains two or more dwelling units. Between 2013 and 2019, 702 rebates have been distributed, amounting to over $4M.
• Earthquake Brace and Bolt. Earthquake Brace and Bolt, a program of the California Residential Mitigation Program, provides rebates of up to $3,000 for homes that make qualifying seismic safety upgrades. For the first time, in 2022, this program also provided grants for up to 100% of the costs for low-income homeowners. Berkeley is proactively making residents aware of the Brace and Bolt program through news releases, distribution of flyers in the Permit Service Center, and workshops during annual registration to answer questions and encourage participation. The City actively promotes and tracks participation in the Earthquake Brace and Bolt rebate program.

Program 23 - Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund

The Resilient Home Retrofit portion of the Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund Program seeks to support building decarbonization that enhances resilience, supports occupants and reduces GHG emissions.

Many lower and moderate income (LMI) units would benefit from health, safety, efficiency, and electrification upgrades. While there are some resources to support these repairs for income qualified households, it is difficult for low income residents to access multiple programs that have different application processes and eligibility requirements. The Resilient Home Retrofit aspect of the new Berkeley Pilot Climate Equity Fund Program seeks to demonstrate how retrofit funding available to income-qualified households can be combined with other programs to leverage greater benefits, and achieve meaningful home improvements for LMI residents.

This initial funding ($250,000) for this program will be used to retrofit approximately 12 LMI units (multi-family and single-family), and the hope is to get additional funding after this initial pilot funding is exhausted. The City selected contractors in 2022 to establish and implement this program.

H-12 Prevent Deferred Maintenance H-14 Resource Efficiency and Climate Resilience

Program 24 - Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification (BEBE) Strategy

The BEBE Strategy identified home repair and maintenance needs that accompany building electrification as a major challenge to decarbonizing existing residential buildings in Berkeley. The strategy seeks to transition existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives in a way that benefits all residents, especially members of historically marginalized communities. The strategy focuses on how to equitably electrify all of Berkeley’s low-rise residential buildings.

Program 25 - Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO)

Berkeley’s Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) requires building owners and homeowners, at the time of listing a property for sale, to complete and publicly report comprehensive energy

assessments with tailored recommendations on how to save energy, eliminate fossil fuels and link building owners to incentive programs for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades.

Program 26 - BayREN Single-Family Homes and Multi-Family Homes Programs

The City of Berkeley actively promotes participation in this technical assistance, rebate, and financing program for renovation projects improving health, comfort, utility costs, and resilience. Higher energy burdens have real implications on the health and wellbeing, and housing stability for families and individuals. These programs include energy efficiency measures that reduce energy burden on low and moderate income residents. BayREN provides technical assistance, rebates, financing for energy efficiency and electrification projects that are recommended by BESO assessments and currently promoted by Berkeley for voluntary upgrades. Berkeley tracks BayREN rebate receivers as a performance metric. The City has program influence and has been successful in recruiting participants for the program, particularly through BESO.

142

Program 27 - Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Commercial and Transit Corridors

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

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

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

143

effort. See also Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential, in which the City commits to applying minimum densities to all residential and mixed-use developments with five or more units by June 2024.

Program 28 - BART Station Area Planning

The City and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) are collaborating to advance equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART station areas. The development of the Ashby and the North Berkeley BART station sites is a multi-year, multi-phase process, including ongoing community engagement. The preliminary planning stage has focused on milestones outlined in the March 2020 MOU to prepare to issue Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) for potential developer teams for the two sites. These milestones include: a provisional reservation by the City Council to reserve $53 million of City affordable housing funding for the two sites (completed April 2021), adoption of zoning consistent with AB 2923 (completed June 2022) and a City-BART Joint Vision and Priorities document based on City and BART adopted policies and plans and a community process that included a Council-appointed Community Advisory Group.

List of City Actions:

The City of Berkeley’s roles, responsibilities and actions throughout the development process for the Ashby and North Berkeley BART station areas include:

• Review project applications and process entitlements
• Commit funding from the City’s bond measure revenues and Affordable Housing Trust Fund toward affordable housing pre-development and development costs
• Assist the selected developer teams to secure additional funding for affordable housing
• Work with BART to secure grants to advance Adeline Street roadway redesign
• Conduct and/or support robust community engagement during the development process
• Support the Berkeley Flea Market through the planning and construction process at Ashby BART station

The City is relying on private and non-profit developers and BART to ensure that the project proceeds within the expected schedule. If for any reason the development of either site is halted during the 6th cycle period, or insufficient progress is made by January 2026, the City will identify alternative opportunity sites by January 2027 to ensure the City complies with SB 166 (No Net Loss) – see Program 36 -Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring.

Program 29 -Middle Housing

The City is currently in the process of amending the Zoning Code and applicable objective development standards to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, particularly infill and converted existing housing in high resource neighborhoods, as described in Section E3 and E4 of Appendix E Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. The zoning updates would allow for by-right multi-unit development on single lots to encourage housing for middle- and moderate-income households, and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or experiencing high housing cost burden.

While not included in the City’s sites inventory (because the placement of future Middle Housing is unknown), modeling conducted by the Terner Center¹ indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 new market-feasible units through SB 9. Using HCD’s 70th percentile methodology, the Housing Element assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the lower density residential districts for the 2023-2031 period. Additionally, based on current development trends and anticipated zoning changes, 975 additional units are projected throughout the R-1A, R-2, R-2A and MU-R districts for a total of 1,745 middle housing units in the 2023-2031 period.

To facilitate middle housing and encourage more affordable units, the City will also introduce a reduced inclusionary housing fee for middle housing projects with less than 12,000 residential square feet (SF), with a sliding scale increase for projects with floor areas between 0 and 12,000 SF.

To facilitate the by-right development of middle housing, the City will consider eliminating the requirement of a use permit to demolish single-family homes for applications that 1) add net density and 2) have not been occupied by tenants within the past five years and in which Ellis Act eviction did not occur within the preceding five years. This policy will be referred for consideration to the 4x4

146

Committee of the City Council and Rent Board. Further, explore the effect on local and state laws relating to the demolition of historic resources.

Program 30 -Accessory Dwelling Units

The City will continue to implement Chapter 23.306 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to allow accessory dwelling units by right Citywide. The City will monitor the latest hazard and risk science and assessments for natural and manmade hazards in Berkeley. The City will amend the local ADU ordinance based on revised statutory requirements, such as AB 2221 and SB 897, and may modify ADU development standards based on changing understanding of conditions of risks and hazards. The City will facilitate ADU production by:

• Prioritizing accessory dwelling unit permit applications
• Promote ADU standards by including information on the City’s website and making fact sheets available at the City’s permit counter
• Providing one dedicated ADU planner to respond to questions and offering office hours and other educational programs for those interested in creating ADUs

• Monitoring ADU permit progress annually to ensure that anticipated RHNA progress is being met (average 75 ADUs or JADUs per year, or 600 units over eight years)

Program 31 -Zoning Code Amendment: Special Needs Housing

The City will update the Zoning Code to align with required State laws for special needs housing:

• Lanterman Act. Remove minimum parking requirement for non-resident employees to ensure that development standards do not constrain the development of residential care facilities.
• AB 101. Low Barrier Navigation Center must be permitted by-right where multi-family residential land use is permitted.
• AB 2162. Supportive housing must be permitted by-right where multi-family and mixed-use residential development is permitted, if:
  • At least 25% of the units in a development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population; or

148

• If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population.
• Health and Safety Code Section 17021. Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees is deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing cannot be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling.
• AB 2339. Identify commercial zones where emergency shelters are permitted by right depending on size, subject to the following regulations:
  • Sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential use is permitted or otherwise suitable, and connected to services
  • Emergency shelters meeting objective standards shall be approved
• Household (Family) Definition. Revise the definition to simplify that households are characterized by one or more persons with common access and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within a dwelling unit, while maintaining distinction from other residential arrangements such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation.

Program 32 - By-Right Approval on Reused Sites for Affordable Housing

Pursuant to AB 1397 passed in 2017, the City will amend the Zoning Code to provide by-right approval of housing development in which the project includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower income households, on sites being used to meet the Sixth Cycle Housing Element RHNA that represent "reused opportunity sites" from previous Housing Element cycles. The "reused"

149

sites are specifically identified in the inventory and will be identified and monitored in a publicly accessible map.

Program 33 -Zoning Code Amendment: Residential

The City will study and establish residential objective standards to provide clarity and predictability and reduce reliance on the use permit process and non-detriment findings by replacing them with new objective standards.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would create or modify objective standards to increase residential development potential, including increasing building height, coverage, floor area ratio, and reducing setbacks and building separation, and allowing for more flexibility in the calculation and configuration of open space. In addition, the Berkeley zoning code currently does not contain a minimum or maximum density standard expressed in “units per acre” for the majority of its residential and mixed-use zoning districts. While the zones have no density caps, a minimum density threshold can ensure adequate baseline capacity to meet RHNA targets and achieve Housing Element compliance.

The City will also evaluate and modify the standards for ground floor uses to address commercial living situations, such as live/work artist space, in order to add vibrancy along commercial corridors and incentivize vacant space conversion for residential use.

150