09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report

DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
FROM: Charles S. Bryant, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Study Session on Proposed Regulations, Incentives, and Guidelines
for Multi-Unit Residential Development and Affordable Housing
Impact Fee
1. SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the proposed regulations,
incentives, and guidelines for multi-unit residential development as discussed in this
report and presented by staff at the study session. Staff also seeks the Council’s
direction on whether to increase the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and the percentage
of units to be provided in lieu of paying the fee.
Specifically, staff is proposing the following for Multi-Unit Residential projects with 10 or
more units:
Requirements:
 At least 50% of units must be 2+ bedrooms, including at least 10% of units
with 3+ bedrooms.
 Required 2+ bedroom units must comply with Family Friendly Design
Guidelines.
 Exceptions would be considered on a case-by-case basis with a finding that
there is a demonstrated need for housing that deviates from these
requirements, and the importance of meeting this need outweighs the
importance of compliance with these requirements.
 GreenTRIP Certification from TransForm, or other equivalent certification.
Development Bonuses:
 The General Plan sets base and bonus levels for Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
Height, and Residential Density. Currently, the base levels range from about
60% to 85% of the bonus levels, and average about 71%. The proposal is to

City Council Study Session
Multi-Unit Residential Development
September 1, 2015
Page 2 of 16
lower the base levels to 50% of the bonus levels. The bonus levels would
remain unchanged.
 Projects seeking development bonuses would be required to earn at least
50% of their bonus points by providing for affordable housing, and no more
than 50% of bonus points by providing other community benefits.
 For rental projects seeking development bonuses, very low, low, and
moderate income units would be required, proportional to Emeryville’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. For ownership
projects, moderate income units would be required. For nonresidential
projects, an increased Affordable Housing Impact Fee would be required
proportional to the number of bonus points needed.
 Community benefits categories would be reduced from 19 to seven
categories, including Public Open Space, Alternative Energy (Zero Net
Energy only), Public Improvements, Utility Undergrounding, Small Businesses
(Contribution to City Fund to Support Small Local-Serving Businesses),
Additional Family Friendly Units, and Flexible Community Benefit.
 A condominium map would be required for all residential projects seeking
density bonuses. The project could be operated either as a rental or
ownership project, with the corresponding affordability requirements. For
ownership projects, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would stipulate
that at least 50% of units must be owner-occupied, and no more than 10%
may be owned by a single owner. Condominium conversion requirements
(tenant protections, etc.) would apply when rental units in a previously
mapped condominium project are sold.
Staff has analyzed these proposals against the State Density Bonus system and has
determined that, in most cases, the City’s development bonus system would
probably be more attractive to a developer. However, if the bonus sought were 35%
or less, the State Density Bonus system would probably be more attractive, since it
would require 11% of units to be provided at very low income (equivalent to an
Affordable Housing Impact Fee of about $23,375 per unit) with no other community
benefits required.
Staff has also analyzed the effect of these proposals on the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) and has determined that they will not affect the City’s
ability to meet its RHNA obligations.
Projects Not Seeking Development Bonuses:
 Staff seeks Council direction whether to raise the current Affordable Housing
Impact Fee of $20,000 per unit (which was adjusted to $20,491 per unit for
fiscal year 2015-16) and the in-lieu standard of 6.9% low income units.

September 1, 2015
Page 3 of 16
2. BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-009 and Resolution No.
14-103 establishing an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $20,000 per unit for rental
residential projects, with an in-lieu option of 6.9% low income units. This was in
conjunction with the adoption of a new Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee and
an updated Transportation Facilities Impact Fee. At the time, the Council was provided
with information on how Emeryville’s existing and proposed development fees
compared with those of other cities, as depicted on the chart on the following page.
On January 20, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the proposed Sherwin
Williams Mixed Use Project. As a result of that study session, the Council concluded
that the current development bonus point system needed to be overhauled.
On May 2, 2015, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session
to discuss proposed regulations, incentives, and guidelines for Multi-Unit Residential
development. Included were regulations and guidelines for unit mix and family-friendly
design, and incentives for affordable housing and ownership housing with modifications
to the bonus point system. Staff posed a number of discussion questions, and received
feedback and direction from the Council and Commission. Some questions were not
fully addressed, including the overhaul of the bonus point system, and were referred to
the Planning Commission for further discussion and direction.
On May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted amendments to the Emeryville Design
Guidelines regarding Family Friendly Residential buildings and Residential buildings in
general, addressing site and building design as well as individual unit design.
On May 28, 2015, the Planning Commission held a study session on the proposed
regulations, incentives, and guidelines for Multi-Unit Residential development and
provided additional direction and refinement of the comments made at the May 2 joint
meeting, including further comments on the bonus point system.
On July 21, 2015, the City Council considered a proposed Development Agreement for
the Marketplace Project that, among other things, would have called for affordable units
in the project in lieu of payment of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The Council
decided not to adopt the Development Agreement at that time. During the deliberations
on the item, it became clear that several Councilmembers were not satisfied with the
current Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $20,000 per unit (increased to $20,491 in
fiscal year 2015-16), or an in-lieu provision of 6.9% low income units.
The staff reports from the May 2, 2015 joint meeting and the May 28, 2015 Planning
Commission study session are attached for reference. (See Attachments M and N.)

September 1, 2015
Page 4 of 16

September 1, 2015
Page 5 of 16
3. DISCUSSION
I. Proposals
Based on the direction from the Council and Commission at the two study sessions,
staff has developed the proposals that follow.
Staff requests that the City Council review these proposals and provide final comments
and direction to staff for incorporation into final draft proposals to be submitted to the
City Council for approval at a future City Council meeting. All of the proposals below will
require amendments to the Planning Regulations except for the adjustments to the base
floor area ratio (FAR), height, and residential density levels, which will require a General
Plan Amendment (and are incorporated by reference into the Planning Regulations).
a. Requirements
Unit Mix: In all Multi-Unit Residential projects with 10 or more units at least 50% of all
units would be required to be two or more bedrooms, and at least 10% of all units must
be three or more bedrooms. Note that the 50% includes the 10%; they are not additive.
In other words, the requirement could be met with 40% two-bedroom units and 10%
three-bedroom units, or with 35% two-bedroom units and 15% three-bedroom units, etc.
For projects seeking development bonuses, additional two- and three-bedroom family
friendly units would be one of the community benefits that would be eligible to earn
bonus points.
Design Guidelines: All Multi-Unit Residential projects would be required to comply with
the Emeryville Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings. All Multi-Unit Residential
projects of 10 or more units must comply with Emeryville Design Guidelines for Family-
Friendly Residential Site and Building Design, and all required 2+ bedroom units
(including 3+ bedroom units) must comply with Emeryville Design Guidelines for Family-
Friendly Residential Unit Design.
Exceptions: Exceptions to the unit mix and design requirements would be granted with
a conditional use permit, including a finding that there is a demonstrated need for a
housing type or types that deviate from the unit mix and/or design requirements, and
that the importance of meeting this need outweighs the importance of compliance with
these requirements.
GreenTRIP Certification: In response to a suggestion from Councilmember Martinez,
staff proposes to require GreenTRIP Certification from TransForm, or other equivalent
certification, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all Multi-Unit Residential
developments of 10 units or more. This would not be worth bonus points; it would be a
basic requirement.
b. Development Bonuses
Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Height, and Residential Density: Base levels would be
lowered and bonus levels would remain the same. Generally, base levels would be

September 1, 2015
Page 6 of 16
adjusted to be 50% of bonus levels, rounded up to next higher round number. The
100’/100’+ height district would become 75’/100’+. A bonus FAR of 1.0 would be added
to the FAR district that is currently 0.5/No Bonus in the eastern residential
neighborhoods. These adjustments will require a General Plan Amendment and will be
reflected in the Planning Regulations. See Attachment A for bar charts illustrating the
proposed reductions in base levels.
Affordable Housing: Projects seeking development bonuses would be required to earn
at least 50% of their bonus points by providing for affordable housing. Residential
projects with 10 or more units would be required to provide in-project affordable units,
rather than paying the Affordable Housing Impact Fee, with the percent of affordable
units increasing as the number of bonus points increases. For rental projects, very low,
low, and moderate income units would be required, proportional to Emeryville’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. For ownership projects,
moderate income units would be required. For nonresidential projects, an increased
Affordable Housing Impact Fee would be required proportional to the number of bonus
points needed.
The proposal for affordable units in rental and ownership housing developments is
indicated in Table 1 (see Attachment B).
For rental projects, the proportion of very low, low, and moderate income units is the
same as the City’s RHNA allocation for these categories, of which 23% are very low
income units, 35% are low income units, and 42% are moderate income units. The “fee
equivalent” in Table 1 represents the Affordable Housing Impact Fee estimated to be
equivalent to these in-project affordable units based on the “affordability gaps” at each
income level as identified in the Residential Nexus Study prepared by Keyser Marston
to support Resolution No. 14-103. It should be noted that the maximum supportable
impact fee identified by the Residential Nexus Study was $35,600 per unit, well above
the highest fee equivalent in Table 1. Also, using the same methodology, the City’s
previous inclusionary requirement for rental projects of 9% moderate income and 6%
very low income units would be equivalent to an impact fee of about $23,100 per unit,
about the same as the fee equivalent for 15 bonus points in Table 1. Of course, these
fee equivalents will not appear in the table ultimately incorporated into the Planning
Regulations. They are included in Table 1 only for analysis and discussion purposes.
The intent is to illustrate that the percent of affordable units proposed for the various
numbers of bonus points is reasonable and well within the parameters of the Residential
Nexus Study.
For ownership projects, which are still subject to the City’s inclusionary requirement of
20% moderate income units (equivalent to a fee of about $23,000 per unit), the proposal
is to require an additional 0.5% moderate income units for each 5 bonus points. Again,
the maximum fee equivalent of $28,750 for 50 bonus points, requiring 25% moderate
income units, is well below the maximum supportable impact fee of $35,600 per unit
identified by the Residential Nexus Study.

September 1, 2015
Page 7 of 16
If the Council decides to increase the Affordable Housing Impact Fee (see discussion
below), the percent of in-project affordable units for rental and ownership projects in
Table 1 could be increased accordingly.
For nonresidential projects, bonus points for affordable housing would be earned by
paying an increased Affordable Housing Impact Fee, as indicated in Table 2 (see
Attachment B).
The increase would be based on the applicable fee in effect when the fee is due. For
use types that are normally exempt from the Affordable Housing Impact Fee, the
increased fee would be based on the fee for nonexempt uses. For example, if the
current fee for nonexempt uses were $4.21 per square foot, to earn 20 points, an
additional fee of $1.68 per square foot would be required (40% of $4.21) for a total of
$5.89 per square foot. A use type that is normally exempt from the Affordable Housing
Impact Fee would not pay the base fee of $4.21 per square foot, but would pay the fee
increase of $1.68 per square foot.
Community Benefits: Projects seeking development bonuses would be able to earn up
to 50% of their bonus points by providing community benefits. This would be based on a
list of community benefits that would be greatly reduced from the current list of 19
categories, and would include only the following seven categories:
 Public Open Space
 Alternative Energy – Zero Net Energy only
 Public Improvements
 Utility Undergrounding
 Small Businesses – Contribution to City Fund to Support Small Local-Serving
Businesses
 Additional Family Friendly Units
 Flexible Public Benefit
Each category would be worth a maximum of 50 points. The method of calculating
points and the requirements in each category would be the same as in the existing
development bonus system, except for “Additional Family Friendly Units”. In this
category, 5 points would be awarded for each additional 5% of total units that have two
or more bedrooms, of which at least 1% of total units would be required to have three or
more bedrooms. These would be in addition to the 2+ bedroom and 3+ bedroom units
required in all residential projects, as described above, and all such additional 2+
bedroom and 3+ bedroom units would be required to comply with the applicable
provisions of the Emeryville Design Guidelines for Family-Friendly Residential Unit
Design. Table 3 illustrates how this would affect the overall unit mix in a project (see
Attachment C).
For example, to earn 25 bonus points in this category of community benefits, a project
would need to provide an additional 25% of units with two or more bedrooms, in addition
to the 50% required, for a total of 75%, of which at least an additional 5% of units would

September 1, 2015
Page 8 of 16
need to have three or more bedrooms, in addition to the 10% required, for a total of at
least 15%.
Two versions of the table of proposed community benefits are attached for reference.
Attachment D is a “red-line” version, showing changes from the existing table of public
benefits in the Planning Regulations, and Attachment E is a “clean” version showing
how the new table of community benefits would look in its final form.
It should be noted that, as in the current regulations, bonus points would only be earned
for community benefits that are significant and clearly beyond what would otherwise be
required for the project under applicable code provisions, conditions of approval, and/or
environmental review mitigation measures. Also, staff proposes to add a finding that
“the proposed community benefits for the project are acceptable and appropriate in this
case, and will provide tangible benefits to the community”, to make it clear that it is the
Planning Commission or City Council that will ultimately decide what are acceptable
community benefits for each project.
It should also be noted that other fees and community benefits not related to
development bonuses would still be applicable, and would not be affected by the
proposed regulations. These include the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee,
Transportation Impact Fee, School Fees, Public Art Program, Sewer Connection Fees,
General Plan Maintenance Fee, and Technology Fee. These would still be assessed on
each project as applicable.
Ownership Housing: To obtain bonus points, all residential projects would be required
to record a condominium map. The developer could opt to retain ownership of all units
and operate the project as a rental project, in which case the rental affordability
requirements would apply. When units were sold, the condominium affordability
requirements would apply and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) would
be required to stipulate that at least 50% of units must be owner-occupied at any given
time, and that no more than 10% may be owned by a single owner. (This condition
could be put on all condominium applications, whether or not a development bonus is
requested.) Condominium conversion requirements (tenant protections, etc.) would
apply when rental units in a previously mapped condominium project are sold. (This is
not currently the case.)
c. State Density Bonus System
As required by State law, Emeryville has adopted the State Density Bonus system as an
option for developers (Article 5 of Chapter 5 of the Planning Regulations). It will be
stipulated that a developer has a choice between the State Density Bonus system or
Emeryville’s bonus system, but may not use both. In some cases, it may be more
advantageous to a developer to use the State Density Bonus system, but in most cases
the Emeryville bonus system is expected to be more attractive.
The State Density Bonus system offers density bonuses of up to 35% for providing in-
project affordable units at the very low, low, or moderate income levels. (The latter is
only available for “common interest” or condominium projects.) Under the proposed

September 1, 2015
Page 9 of 16
modifications to the Emeryville bonus system described above, the maximum density
bonus generally would be 100%, since the base level would generally be half of the
bonus level. Thus, any project seeking a density bonus greater than 35% would not be
able to use the State Density Bonus system, or would have to be reduced in size. This
is illustrated in the bar chart in Attachment F.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 (see Attachment G) illustrate the density bonuses offered by the
State Density Bonus system for various percentages of very low, low, and moderate
income units, and the Affordable Housing Impact Fee equivalent calculated using the
method described above.
As these tables illustrate, there is great disparity in impact fee equivalents at the various
income levels. According to these figures, a developer would be much better off
providing very low income units, which, for the equivalent density bonus, cost less than
half as much as low income or moderate income units. (The impact fee equivalent for
very low income units is artificially low because of tax credits that are available at this
level.)
The State Density Bonus system does not explicitly provide for floor area ratio (FAR) or
height bonuses, as the Emeryville bonus system does. However, it does require the City
to provide undefined “incentives or concessions” to the developer. Presumably, these
concessions could include FAR and height bonuses. Under the State Density Bonus
system, no further community benefits, beyond in-project affordable units, would need
to be provided to earn a density bonus.
d. Effects of Proposed Regulations on Hypothetical Projects
To analyze the effects of the proposed regulations, two hypothetical projects have been
developed. For each project, various attributes are examined under the current
regulations, proposed regulations as described above, and the State Density Bonus
system for comparison. The two hypothetical projects are: “Project A”: a 200-unit
residential project on a two acre site; and “Project B”: a 500-unit residential project on a
five acre site. Both are rental projects. Characteristics of Project A, and the effects of
the proposed regulations on it, are discussed in Attachment H. Characteristics of Project
B, and the effects of the proposed regulations on it, are discussed in Attachment I.
II. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
It is important to note that the proposed revisions to the bonus system must not affect
the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Like all cities in
the Bay Area, Emeryville has been assigned a RHNA, which is a target for housing
development at various affordability levels over the next eight years (2014-2022).
Emeryville’s RHNA is 1,498 units. State law requires that, in order to have a certified
Housing Element, and thereby be eligible for certain State housing funds, the zoning of
the City must be adequate to accommodate the RHNA units.
The recently adopted and certified Housing Element contains an analysis showing that
there is potential in Emeryville to develop far more than the RHNA number of units. This

September 1, 2015
Page 10 of 16
development potential consists of planned and approved projects (projects in the
“pipeline”), and the development capacity of identified vacant and underutilized sites that
are zoned for residential use. The number of units in planned and approved projects is
taken from the plans submitted. The number of units on vacant and underutilized sites is
calculated by using 75% of the base density permitted on each site, assuming no
development bonuses. This results in a surplus of 3,807 units over the RHNA, as indicated
in the “As Described in Housing Element” column in Table 9 (see Attachment J).
Staff has revised these numbers in two ways. First, the number of units in planned and
approved projects was updated, some of which have changed slightly since the Housing
Element was prepared. Second, the number of units assumed on vacant and
underutilized sites was revised to reflect the proposed decrease in base density levels,
still assuming that the sites would develop at 75% of their base density with no bonuses.
These revisions result in a surplus of 2,661 units, less than projected in the Housing
Element, but still providing for a development potential that is more than 275% of the
City’s RHNA. These revised figures are indicated in the “As Revised” column in Table 9.
Thus, the proposed revisions to the development bonus system would not affect the
City’s ability to meet its RHNA obligations. It should be noted that one of the main
reasons for the amendments is to promote more affordable housing, a major goal of the
Housing Element and the RHNA.
California Government Code Section 65863(b) requires certain findings to be made
when reducing the density on any site that has been relied upon in the Housing Element
to meet the City’s RHNA obligation. These findings are:
(1) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the
housing element.
(2) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to
accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need
pursuant to Section 65584.
As discussed above, the proposed reduction in base density would not result in
inadequate sites to accommodate Emeryville’s RHNA. These required findings will be
included in the resolution amending the General Plan to reduce the base densities.
III. Projects Not Seeking Development Bonuses
Projects that fall below the base levels for FAR, height, and density, even with the
proposed reductions described above, would still be subject to the proposed
requirements for unit mix, family-friendly design, and GreenTRIP certification, but would
not be subject to the requirements for in-project affordable units, community benefits, or
condominium maps. These projects would pay the Affordable Housing Impact Fee, with
the option of providing in-lieu affordable units in the project.
The Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $20,000 per unit for rental residential projects,
with an in-lieu option of 6.9% low income units, was adopted by the City Council on July

September 1, 2015
Page 11 of 16
15, 2014. This was in conjunction with the adoption of a new Parks and Recreation
Facilities Impact Fee and an updated Transportation Facilities Impact Fee. The housing
fee was based on a Residential Nexus Study prepared by Keyser Marston that
determined that the maximum supportable fee was $35,600 per unit. The 6.9% low
income in-lieu option was based on an analysis from Keyser Marston dated March 6,
2014 (see Attachment K). The low income level was selected for the in-lieu option
because this is the affordability category in which the city is most deficient. Moderate
income units are required in ownership projects, and very low income units have tax
credits and other subsidies available and are typically provided in 100% affordable
projects developed by nonprofit housing developers. (See attached Summary of
Affordable and Market Rate Housing in Emeryville, Attachment L.)
Development Fees Compared to Other Cities. As noted above, a study was prepared
by Willdan in March 2014 to illustrate how development fees in Emeryville compare to
those in other cities, with and without the impact fees. This study included Berkeley,
Oakland, El Cerrito, Albany, Alameda, Walnut Creek, and Richmond. Of these cities,
Berkeley, Alameda, and Walnut Creek have housing impact fees; Albany, Walnut
Creek, and Richmond have park impact fees; and Walnut Creek and Richmond have
traffic impact fees. Staff has contacted these cities to update the figures; the updated
chart is shown on the following page.
Berkeley’s affordable housing impact fee of $28,000 per unit was approved on October
16, 2012. On February 19, 2013, the City Council adopted an $8,000 per unit discount
(i.e. reducing the fee to $20,000 per unit) for projects that were already in the
development process. The discount was extended on October 7, 2014 and again on
April 7, 2015. The October 7, 2014 extension stated that, to be eligible for the discount,
a project needed to be submitted and deemed complete by April 16, 2105, and
approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board (which approves major development
projects in Berkeley) by April 16, 2017. The April 7, 2015 resolution merely stated that
“the discount for the Affordable Housing Impact Fee shall be $8,000 until July 1, 2015”,
without reference to application filing or approval dates, so it is a little unclear what this
means. (The Mayor had proposed extending the discount indefinitely, which was
modified.) At any rate, an application filed after July 1, 2015 would be subject to the
original $28,000 fee. Developers may opt to provide 10% very low income units in their
projects in lieu of paying the fee (either $20,000 or $28,000).
Oakland does not currently have an affordable housing impact fee, but has been
considering preparing a residential nexus study as the basis for adopting one. The
nexus study is scheduled to be completed by December 2015, with the goal of having
the new fee in place by early 2016. However, then-Mayor-elect Libby Schaaf was
quoted in December 2014 as saying “I don't want anyone to have the expectation that
the council is going to adopt a fee and implement it immediately ... we have to give
business owners a number of years to work it into their calculations.”

September 1, 2015
Page 12 of 16

September 1, 2015
Page 13 of 16
The Council may wish to adjust Emeryville’s Affordable Housing Fee of $20,000 per unit
and the in-lieu option of 6.9% low income units. Concerning the fee, staff has identified
several alternatives for the Council to consider:
1. Leave the fee at $20,000 per unit.
2. Increase the fee to $23,000 per unit. This would be roughly equivalent to the
City’s former rental inclusionary requirement of 9% moderate income units and
6% very low income units.
3. Increase the fee to $28,000 per unit, which would be equivalent to Berkeley’s fee
for projects not subject to the $8,000 discount.
4. Increase the fee to $30,000 per unit, which would represent a 50% increase.
All of these would be below the maximum fee of $35,600 per unit supported by the
Keyser Marston Residential Nexus Study. The chart on the previous page illustrates
how these adjusted fees would affect Emeryville’s overall fees in comparison to other
cities.
Concerning in-lieu units, these do not necessarily need to be low income. In Berkeley,
the in-lieu units (10%) are very low income. The following chart shows the rough
equivalent of in-lieu units at various affordability levels for the various impact fees
discussed above:
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
$20,000 8.3% 6.9% 15.3%
$23,000 9.5% 7.9% 17.6%
$28,000 11.6% 9.7% 21.4%
$30,000 12.4% 10.4% 23.0%
Alternatively, the in-lieu option could be set at a combination of income levels, such as
9% moderate income and 6% very low income (equivalent to an Affordable Housing Fee
of about $23,000), reflective of the City’s previous inclusionary requirement for rental
housing. It would then be up to individual developers to determine whether to provide
these units or pay the fee.
Staff seeks the Council’s direction whether to adjust the affordable housing impact fee
and the corresponding in-lieu percentage and income level.
4. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Based on the above discussion, staff seeks the Council’s direction on the following
questions:
1. Does the Council agree with the proposed regulations for unit mix, design
guidelines, exceptions, and GreenTRIP certification?

September 1, 2015
Page 14 of 16
2. Does the Council agree with the proposed reductions in base levels of Floor Area
Ratio (FAR), height, and residential density to approximately fifty percent of
bonus levels?
3. Does the Council agree with the proposed “two-tiered” system for bonus points
whereby at least half of bonus points must be earned through affordable housing
(in-project affordable units for residential projects and increased housing impact
fees for nonresidential projects) and no more than half of bonus points may be
earned by providing community benefits?
4. Does the Council agree with the proposed affordable housing provisions for
projects seeking bonus points, including the percentages and income mix of
affordable units for residential projects and the fee increases for nonresidential
projects?
5. Does the Council agree with the proposed modifications to the list of community
benefits eligible for bonus points?
6. Does the Council agree with the proposal to require a condominium map for
residential projects seeking development bonuses?
7. Does the Council wish to increase the affordable housing impact fee, and
accordingly modify the percent and/or income level of units to be provided in-lieu
of paying the affordable housing impact fee?
5. NEXT STEPS
Following this study session, proposed amendments to the Planning Regulations and
General Plan will be prepared for Planning Commission consideration on September
24, 2015. The Commission’s recommendations will be brought to the City Council on
October 20, 2015 for consideration of passage of a resolution to amend the General
Plan, and first reading of an ordinance to amend the Planning Regulations. The
ordinance will then be brought back to the Council for final passage on November 3,
2015 and would take effect 30 days later, on December 3, 2015.

September 1, 2015
Page 15 of 16
SUBMITTED BY: Charles S. Bryant, Community Development Director
APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO THE
EMERYVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Carolyn Lehr
City Manager

September 1, 2015
Page 16 of 16
Attachments: A. Bar Charts Illustrating Proposed Decrease in Base Levels for Floor
Area Ratio (FAR), Height, and Residential Density
B. Table 1. Affordable Units for Bonus Points and Fee Equivalent, and
Table 2: Affordable Housing Impact Fee Increase for Bonus Points
for Nonresidential Projects
C. Table 3: Bonus Points for Additional Family Friendly Units
D. Proposed Community Benefits table (red-line version of current
regulations)
E. Proposed Community Benefits table (clean version)
F. Bar Chart Illustrating Density Bonuses under Proposed Emeryville
Bonus System and State Density Bonus System
G. State Density Bonus System Tables (Tables 4, 5, and 6)
H. Effects of Proposed Regulations on Hypothetical Project A (including
Table 7)
I. Effects of Proposed Regulations on Hypothetical Project B (including
Table 8)
J. Table 9: Capacity to Accommodate the 2014–2022 RHNA
K. On-Site Percentage Estimated to Have Equivalent Cost to Payment
of a $20,000 Impact Fee
L. Summary of Affordable and Market Rate Housing in Emeryville
M. Staff report from May 2, 2015 joint City Council/Planning Commission
study session
N. Staff report from May 28, 2015 Planning Commission study session

FOR F
CHARTS ILLUS
FLOOR AREA R
STRATING PRO
RATIO (FAR), H
OPOSED REDUC
HEIGHT LIMITS
CTIONS IN BAS
S, AND RESIDEN
SE LEVELS
NTIAL DENSITYY
Attachment A

Attachment B
TABLE 1: AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR BONUS POINTS AND FEE EQUIVALENT
Bonus
Points
Rental Ownership
TOTAL
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Fee
Equivalent1

Moderate
Fee
Equivalent1

5 11.5% 2.6% 4.0% 4.9% $21,357 20.5% $23,575
10 12.0% 2.7% 4.2% 5.1% $22,286 21.0% $24,150
15 12.5% 2.8% 4.3% 5.3% $23,214 21.5% $24,725
20 13.0% 2.9% 4.5% 5.5% $24,143 22.0% $25,300
25 13.5% 3.1% 4.7% 5.8% $25,071 22.5% $25,875
30 14.0% 3.2% 4.9% 6.0% $26,000 23.0% $26,450
35 14.5% 3.3% 5.0% 6.2% $26,929 23.5% $27,025
40 15.0% 3.4% 5.2% 6.4% $27,857 24.0% $27,600
45 15.5% 3.5% 5.4% 6.6% $28,786 24.5% $28,175
50 16.0% 3.6% 5.6% 6.8% $29,714 25.0% $28,750
TABLE 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE INCREASE
FOR BONUS POINTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
Bonus
Points
Additional
Fee
5 10%
10 20%
15 30%
20 40%
25 50%
30 60%
35 70%
40 80%
45 90%
50 100%
1
The “fee equivalent” represents the Affordable Housing Impact Fee estimated to be equivalent to these
in-project affordable units. This was calculated using the same methodology as was used in the
Residential Nexus Study prepared by Keyser Marston, on which the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee
is based. In this study, “affordability gaps” of $212,500, $255,000, and $115,000 were identified for very
low, low, and moderate income units, respectively. (The gap for very low income units is less because tax
credits and other subsidies are available for units at this income level.) These affordability gaps were then
multiplied by the percentage of units at each income level and added together to get the “total nexus
costs” or impact fee equivalent. For example, in the 5 bonus point row above, the fee equivalent is
obtained from the following equation: ($212,500 x 2.6% very low income units) + ($255,000 x 4.0% low
income units) + ($115,000 x 4.9% moderate income units) = $21,357 per unit.

Attachment C
TABLE 3: BONUS POINTS FOR ADDITIONAL FAMILY FRIENDLY UNITS
Bonus
Points
Additional Units Total Units
2+
Bedroom
3+
Bedroom
2+
Bedroom
3+
Bedroom
5 5% 1% 55% 11%
10 10% 2% 60% 12%
15 15% 3% 65% 13%
20 20% 4% 70% 14%
25 25% 5% 75% 15%
30 30% 6% 80% 16%
35 35% 7% 85% 17%
40 40% 8% 90% 18%
45 45% 9% 95% 19%
50 50% 10% 100% 20%

Public Community Benefits and Bonus Points
Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
Point Calculation Requirements
(1)Public Open
Space
50 15% of site area or 2,000
square feet, whichever is
greater: 50 points
Must be in addition to what is required
by Article 3 of this Chapter. Design
must comply with applicable
provisions of the Emeryville Design
Guidelines and be approved as part of
Design Review for the project. Open
space must be accessible to the
general public at all times. Provision
must be made for ongoing operation
and maintenance in perpetuity.
10% of site area or 1,500
greater: 35 points
5% of site area or 1,000 square
feet, whichever is greater: 20
points.
Contribution to Citywide Parks
Fund: 10 points for every 1% of
project construction valuation
up to 50 points.
Contribution must be made prior to
issuance of building permit.
(2)Sustainable
Design
1
35 LEED
TM
Platinum or equivalent:
35 points
Compliance of schematic design to be
confirmed by Chief Building Official.
LEED
TM
or equivalent third-party
certification required prior to issuance
of certificate of occupancy.
LEED
TM
Gold or equivalent:
25 points
LEED
TM
Silver or equivalent:
10 points
(32) Alternative
Zero Net
Energy
1
50 100% of energy load (zero net
energy): 50 points
Percent of total building energy load
measured as kilowatt per square foot
provided by solar panels, wind
turbines, or other renewable sources.
No less than 50% of the bonusable
energy must be produced on-site, and
no more than 50% may be in the form
of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
in compliance with California state
laws and procedures. Any such RECs
must be available for the life of the
project as evidenced by a long-term
contract.
50% of energy load:
35 points
30% of energy load:
20 points
15% of energy load:
10 points
(4)Water
Efficiency
1
35 Graywater reuse system:
20 points
Reuse of domestic waste water from
plumbing fixtures such as showers,
dishwashers, and clothes washers, but
not including toilets and garbage
disposals, to be used for toilet flushing
and irrigation. System must comply
with the requirements of the
Emeryville Plumbing Code in Chapter
3 of Title 8.
Attachment D

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
Rainwater capture system:
15 points
System that captures and stores water
from at least 75% of the project roof
area for landscape irrigation and/or
indoor water use. The storage system
must be sized to hold all the water
from a 1-inch rainfall event (equivalent
to 0.62 gallons per square foot of roof
area used for capture). System must
comply with all applicable codes and
regulations.
(5)Energy
Efficiency
1
35 20%: 35 points Percent by which energy efficiency
exceeds requirements of California
Energy Code.10%: 15 points
(63) Public
Improvements
50 10 points for every 1% of
up to 50 points
Does not include improvements along
project frontage that are normally
required. Examples include curb,
gutter, and sidewalk; pedestrian and
bicycle paths; sanitary and storm
sewers; and street trees, beyond what
would normally be required.
(74) Utility
Undergrounding
50 Contribution to Citywide
Underground Utility Fund: 10
points for every 1% of project
construction valuation up to 50
points
Does not include utility
undergrounding that is normally
required.
(8)Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
35 General Requirement: All TDM measures except transit passes must be
clearly indicated on project plans, must be installed prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy, and must remain in place for the life of the
project. Provision must be made for ongoing operation and
maintenance in perpetuity.
Bicycle sharing program:
15 points
Participation in an existing bicycle
sharing program or provision of
bicycles on-site made available for
free to project occupants. Bicycle
“docks” must be shown on plans and
bicycles must be provided prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Bicycle Lockers: 10 points Required long-term bicycle parking
provided in secure lockers.
Showers and clothes lockers:
10 points
Showers and clothes lockers provided
on-site for nonresidential projects and
available free of charge to project
occupants.
Electronic Transit Information
Signs: 10 points
A sign or signs indicating real-time
arrival estimates for the closest public
transit lines.

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
Automated Teller Machine
(ATM): 5 points
On-site ATM must be available to
project occupants and must accept
deposits.
Day Care Facilities: 20 points
or
Contribution to Emeryville Child
Development Center: 10 points
for every 1% of project
points.
Child care facilities provided on-site,
with or without charge, for use of
project occupants, or a cash
contribution to the Emeryville Child
Development Center.
Free Transit Passes:
35 points
Free AC Transit and/or BART passes,
such as pre-paid Clipper cards or
BART tickets, available to all project
occupants for a minimum of 10 years.
A legally binding agreement must be
filed with the Director in a form
approved by the Director and the City
Attorney prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
(95) Additional
Family Friendly
HousingUnits
50 2 points for each percentage of
units that qualify as “family
friendly”.
5 points for each additional 5
percent of total units that have
two or more bedrooms, of
which at least 1 percent of total
units must have three or more
bedrooms.
“Family friendly” units must be a
minimum of three bedrooms and must
be provided with in-unit laundry hook-
ups. 15 square feet of common open
space for each unit must be provided,
with amenities for children, teens, or
seniors, in addition to the common
open space required by Article 3 of
this Chapter. Design must comply with
Guidelines applicable to family friendly
housing and be approved as part of
Design Review for the project.
Two- and three-bedroom units are in
addition to those required by Section
9-5.2003, and must comply with the
applicable provisions of the Emeryville
Design Guidelines pertaining to
Family-Friendly Residential Unit
Design.

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
(10) Neighborhood
Centers
35 35 points if project is located in
the NR Neighborhood Retail
Overlay Zone and meets
requirements.
Along Transit Streets and Connector
Streets, as indicated in the General
Plan, at least 75% of the ground floor
frontage must be devoted to space
appropriate for, and actively marketed
to, uses meeting the criteria of Section
9-3.404(a)(1). Such space must have
a depth of at least 30 feet and a ceiling
height of at least 12 feet. At least one
space must be provided with a vent
shaft adequate for a kitchen flue and
space for an appropriately-sized
grease interceptor, as determined by
the Chief Building Official, to allow for
a possible Restaurant use.
(116) Small
Businesses
3550 Contribution to Citywide Fund
to Support Small Local-Serving
Businesses: 10 points for every
1% of project construction
valuation up to 35 50 points.
(12) Public Art 20 Minimum of 10 points and
maximum of 20 points, based
on 10 points for every 1% of
(e.g. 10 points for 1.0% of
valuation up to 20 points for
2.0% of valuation).
by Contribution for Art in Public Places
Program at Article 4 of Chapter 2 of
Title 3. (e.g. if this Program requires a
contribution of 1.0% of valuation, 10
points would be earned for a
contribution of 2.0% and 20 points
would be earned for a contribution of
3.0%). Contribution may be in the form
of acquisition and installation of
publicly accessible art on the
development site or an in-lieu
contribution to the Emeryville Public
Art Fund for acquisition and placement
of public art throughout the City, or a
combination of on-site art and an in-
lieu payment. Compliance shall be
pursuant to Section 3-2.406.

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
(13) Public
Parking
35 Public parking in or within 500
feet of the NR Neighborhood
Retail Overlay Zone:
1 point per parking space
Must be in addition to parking required
by Article 4 of this Chapter. Spaces
must be permanently reserved for
public use and need not be located on
the project site, but must be located on
a single site. Parking must be covered
or within a structure, not in an open
surface parking lot. An agreement
providing for the public use of the
parking in perpetuity, executed by the
parties involved, must be filed with the
Director in a form approved by the
Director and the City Attorney. The
agreement shall be notarized and
recorded in the office of the County
Recorder. Parking spaces must be
available for public use immediately
upon issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the project.
(14) Bike Station 35 Public bicycle parking facility in
or within 500 feet of the NR
Neighborhood Retail Overlay
Zone, the RR Regional Retail
Overlay Zone, or the TH Transit
Hub Overlay Zone: 1 point for
every 3 bicycle parking spaces.
Must be in addition to bicycle parking
required by Article 4 of this Chapter.
Spaces must be permanently reserved
for public use and need not be located
on the project site, but must be located
on a single site. Bike parking must be
inside, secure, and available 24-hours.
An agreement providing for the public
use of the bike station in perpetuity
executed by the parties involved, must
be filed with the Director in a form
approved by the Director and the City
Attorney. The agreement shall be
notarized and recorded in the office of
the County Recorder. The bike station
must be available for public use
immediately upon issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the project.
Provision must be made for ongoing
operation and maintenance in
perpetuity.
(15) Significant
Structures
35 Project of high design quality
that incorporates at least two
facades of a Significant
Structure: 15 points
Article 12 of Chapter 5 addresses
preservation and demolition of
Significant Structures. Projects
involving demolition of a Significant
Structure (even if incorporating two or
more facades of the Significant
Building) require City Council
approval, while projects not involving
such demolition require Planning
Commission approval.
Adaptive reuse of an entire
Significant Structure:
35 points

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
(16) Electric
Vehicle (EV)
Charging
Stations
35 10 points for each 1% of
parking spaces that are EV
charging stations.
Must comply with the requirements for
EV Charging Stations at Section
9-4.406(l). Provision must be made for
ongoing operation and maintenance in
perpetuity.
(17) Mechanical
Equipment
Concealed in
Penthouse
2
or Inside
Building
20 Mechanical equipment
concealed in penthouse level
on top of building or within
building: 20 points
Penthouse level must be integrated
into the overall architectural design of
the building and must completely
conceal and baffle noise from all
mechanical equipment. Penthouse
must be completely roofed except for
cooling towers and any other
equipment that cannot properly
function if roofed, must be set back
from roof edges, may cover no more
than 50% of roof area, and may not
exceed 25 feet in height. Mechanical
equipment within building must be
completely concealed from public view
and noise must be baffled.
(18) Universal
Design
50 2 points for each percentage of
residential units that
incorporate Universal Design
features.
To qualify, residential units must have
all of the following features, in addition
to any accessibility features required
by the building code.
Kitchen:
 Clear floor space: 60” circle.
 Space for a side-by-side
refrigerator/freezer or
refrigerator/freezer with frozen
food storage in the bottom.
 Appliances and cooktop must
have front- or side- mounted
controls and be approachable
by people using wheelchairs
or scooters.
 Repositionable countertops to
28” height.
Bathroom:
 Clear floor space: 60” circle.
 Reinforcement provided for
grab bars beside toilets.
 Toilet centered in a minimum
36-inch wide space, 18 inches
from the sidewall
Miscellaneous:
 A minimum of one accessible

Public Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
parking space.
 Space for laundry equipment
with accessible front loading
and front mounted controls
located on an accessible
route.
 All closet rods adjustable to 48
inches above the floor.
(197) Flexible
Public
Community
Benefit
N/A50 The Planning Commission or
City Council, as the case may
be, shall determine the number
of points to grant for the
proposed public community
benefit.
Currently undefined public community
benefit proposed by the applicant that
is significant and substantially beyond
normal requirements.
Notes: 1. Public benefits (2), (3), (4), and (5) are overlapping. Points may not be awarded more than
once for what is essentially the same public benefit in more than one category, and a total of
no more than 35 points may be awarded in these four categories combined.
2. Penthouse is not included in building height.

Community Benefits and Bonus Points
Community
Benefit
Maximum
Points
(1)Public Open
Space
50 15% of site area or 2,000
greater: 50 points
by Article 3 of this Chapter. Design
must comply with applicable
Guidelines and be approved as part of
Design Review for the project. Open
space must be accessible to the
general public at all times. Provision
must be made for ongoing operation
and maintenance in perpetuity.
10% of site area or 1,500
greater: 35 points
5% of site area or 1,000 square
feet, whichever is greater: 20
points.
Contribution to Citywide Parks
Fund: 10 points for every 1% of
up to 50 points.
(2)Zero Net
Energy
50 100% of energy load (zero net
energy): 50 points
Percent of total building energy load
measured as kilowatt per square foot
provided by solar panels, wind
turbines, or other renewable sources.
(3)Public
Improvements
50 10 points for every 1% of
up to 50 points
Does not include improvements along
project frontage that are normally
required. Examples include curb,
gutter, and sidewalk; pedestrian and
bicycle paths; sanitary and storm
sewers; and street trees, beyond what
would normally be required.
(4)Utility
Undergrounding
50 Contribution to Citywide
Underground Utility Fund: 10
points for every 1% of project
points
Does not include utility
undergrounding that is normally
required.
(5)Additional
Family Friendly
Units
50 5 points for each additional 5
percent of total units that have
two or more bedrooms, of
which at least 1 percent of total
units must have three or more
bedrooms.
Two- and three-bedroom units are in
addition to those required by Section
9-5.2003, and must comply with the
applicable provisions of the Emeryville
Design Guidelines pertaining to
Family-Friendly Residential Unit
Design.
(6) Small
Businesses
50 Contribution to Citywide Fund
to Support Small Local-Serving
Businesses: 10 points for every
1% of project construction
valuation up to 50 points.
(7) Flexible
Community
Benefit
50 The Planning Commission or
City Council, as the case may
be, shall determine the number
of points to grant for the
proposed community benefit.
Currently undefined community benefit
proposed by the applicant that is
significant and substantially beyond
normal requirements.
Attachment E

PROPO
CHART
OSED EMERYV
T ILLUSTRATIN
ILLE BONUS SY
NG DENSITY BO
YSTEM AND ST
ONUSES UNDE
TATE DENSITY
ER
BONUS SYSTEEM
Attachment F

Attachment G
TABLE 4: STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR VERY LOW INCOME UNITS
Percent of Units Density Bonus
Impact Fee
Equivalent
5% 20% $10,625
6% 22.5% $12,750
7% 25% $14,875
8% 27.5% $17,000
9% 30% $19,125
10% 32.5% $21,250
11% 35% $23,375
TABLE 5: STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR LOW INCOME UNITS
Impact Fee
Equivalent
10% 20% $25,500
11% 21.5% $28,050
12% 23% $30,600
13% 24.5% $33,150
14% 26% $35,700
15% 27.5% $38,250
16% 29% $40,800
17% 30.5% $43,350
18% 32% $45,900
19% 33.5% $48,450
20% 35% $51,000
TABLE 6: STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR MODERATE INCOME
COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT
Impact Fee
Equivalent
10 5 $11,500
15 10 $17,250
20 15 $23,000
25 20 $28,750
30 25 $34,500
35 30 $40,250
40 35 $46,000

Attachment H
Effects of Proposed Regulations on Hypothetical Project A
Project A is currently at or below the base level for FAR, height, and density, and no
development bonuses are required. The project includes 50% 2+ bedroom units, and
10% 3+ bedroom units. However, they were not designed in accordance with the Family
Friendly Design Guidelines, and since no development bonuses are required, the units
are currently not required to comply with these guidelines. No in-project affordable units
would be required, and the project would pay an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of
$4,000,000 (original FY14-15 nexus fee of $20,000/unit times 200 units2
). No
condominium map would be required. Characteristics of Project A, and the effects of the
proposed regulations on it, are summarized in Table 7.
Unit Mix and Design. Under the proposed regulations, the project’s unit mix would be
acceptable, but the 2+ bedroom units would now be subject to the Family Friendly
Design Guidelines.
Bonus Points Required. With the proposed reduction in base levels, the project would
now fall above the base level for both height and density, requiring 40 bonus points for
height and 46 bonus points for density, or 46 points overall (the higher of the two). To
earn these bonus points, at least 23 bonus points would be required for in-project
affordable units and no more than 23 points could be earned from other community
benefits. Rounding for simplicity, the project could earn 25 points for affordable units
and 21 points for other community benefits.
Affordable Units. A condominium map would be required, although the developer
could opt to retain ownership of all units and operate it as a rental project. In this case,
referring to Table 1, to earn 25 bonus points the project would need to provide 13.5%
affordable units, consisting of 3.1% very low income units (6 units), 4.7% low income
units (9 units), and 5.8% moderate income units (12 units), for a total of 27 affordable
units. No Affordable Housing Impact Fee would be required, and these in-project units
would be equivalent to a fee of about $5,014,200 (fee equivalent of $25,071/unit times
200 units). Again referring to Table 1, if the developer opted to sell the units as
condominiums, for 25 bonus points the project would be required to provide 22.5%
moderate income units (45 units), which would be equivalent to an Affordable Housing
Impact Fee of about $5,175,000 (fee equivalent of $25,875 times 200 units). Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) would be required to stipulate that at least 50% of
units must be owner-occupied at any given time, and that no more than 10% may be
owned by a single owner.
Community Benefits. As noted above, the developer would have several categories
from which to choose for earning the 21 bonus points for other community benefits. In
many of these categories, a contribution of 1% of construction valuation earns 10 bonus
points. Using these categories, 2.1% of construction valuation would earn the required
2
The Residential Nexus Study was adopted in Fiscal Year 2014-15, and the “affordability gaps” in that
study are used for analysis purposes in this report. For comparability, the $20,000 per unit Affordable
Housing Impact Fee that was also adopted in Fiscal Year 2014-15 is used, rather than the current fee of
$20,491 per unit. (As required by the adopting resolution, the fee was increased by the Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco on July 1, 2015.)

21 points. Assuming a construction valuation of $50 million ($250,000 per unit, based
on recent projects), this would equal a contribution of $1,050,000 for open space,
specific public improvements, utility undergrounding, and/or small businesses. If the
developer chose to provide on-site public open space, 20 bonus points could be earned
by providing publicly-accessible open space equal to 5% of the site area, or 4,356
square feet (0.1 acres). (The remaining one point could be earned from a contribution of
0.1% of construction valuation, or $50,000, to the Citywide Parks Fund.) If the developer
chose to earn the bonus points by providing additional family friendly units, 20 points
could be earned by providing an additional 20% 2+ bedroom units, including an
additional 4% 3+ bedrooms units, all designed in conformance with the Family Friendly
Design Guidelines (see Table 3). This would equal a total of 70% 2+ bedroom units,
including a total of 14% 3+ bedroom units. The Planning Commission or City Council,
during the approval process, would need to approve the proposed community benefits,
with the finding that they are “acceptable and appropriate”, and will “provide tangible
benefits to the community”, as discussed above.
State Density Bonus System. If the developer chose to use the State Density Bonus
system instead of the City’s development bonus system, the most cost-effective way to
do this would be to provide very low income units, as discussed above (see Table 4).
The maximum density bonus available would be 35% for providing 11% very low
income units. The new base density would be 70 units per acre, or 140 units on this
two-acre site. A 35% density bonus above the base of 140 units would equal a
maximum total of 189 units. Thus, the proposed 200-unit project would need to be
reduced by 11 units. The 49 “bonus” units are not included in the calculation of
affordable units; thus the 11% very low income units are based on the 140 base units,
equaling 15 very low income units. This would be equivalent to an Affordable Housing
Impact Fee of about $4,417,875 ($23,375 per unit times 189 units). No additional
community benefits would be required. The necessary increase in building height could
be requested by the developer as a concession from the City. The project would still be
required to have at least 50% 2+ bedroom units, of which at least 10% must be 3+
bedroom, and all 2+ bedroom units must conform to the Family Friendly Design
Guidelines. No condominium map would be required. Thus, using the State Density
Bonus system would be less expensive than using the City’s development bonus
system, but would result in a somewhat smaller project.
Total Value of Affordable Housing and Community Benefits. Under the existing
regulations, an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $4,000,000 would be required, but no
development bonuses would be necessary. Under the proposed regulations, affordable
units equivalent to an impact fee of about $5,014,200 would be required (assuming a
rental project). In addition, community benefits valued at about $1,050,000 would be
required to earn the necessary development bonus (assuming the developer opts to pay
2.1% of construction valuation to earn the necessary 21 bonus points). Thus, the total
value of affordable units and community benefits would be about $6,064,200. Under the
State Density Bonus system, affordable units equivalent to an impact fee of about
$4,417,875 would be required, but no other community benefits would be necessary.
However, as noted above, the project would be 11 units smaller. As also noted above,
other existing fees and community benefits not related to development bonuses would
not be affected by the proposed regulations and would still be applicable, including the

Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, School Fees, Public Art
Program, Sewer Connection Fees, General Plan Maintenance Fee, and Technology
Fee. For Project A, these would total about $2.5 million under both the existing and
proposed regulations. Under the State Density Bonus system, they would be reduced to
about $2.4 million because of the reduction in project size. These figures do not include
the value of public improvements and other community benefits that would be required
as conditions of approval or environmental review mitigation measures.

Project A Current Regulations Proposed Regulations State Density Bonus System*
Site Size 2 acres 2 acres 2 acres
Construction Valuation $50 million $50 million $47 million
Total Units 200 200 189
Unit Mix
Studio 30 (15%)
1‐Bedroom 70 (35%)
2‐Bedroom 80 (40%) 80 (40%) 76 (40%)
3‐Bedroom 20 (10%) 20 (10%) 19 (10%)
Floor Area 245,000 s.f. 245,000 s.f. 232,000 s.f.
Family Friendly Design Required? No Yes Yes
Condominium Map Required? No Yes No
FAR
Base/Bonus 4.0/6.0 3.0/6.0 3.0/6.0
Project 2.81 2.81 2.66
Points Needed 0 0 N/A
Height
Base/Bonus 100'/100'+ 75'/100'+ 75'/100'+
Project 85' 85' 85'
Points Needed 0 40 Requested concession
Residential Density (units/acre)
Base/Bonus 100/135 70/135 70/135
Project 100 100 (43% bonus) 94.5 (35% max bonus)
Total Points Needed 0 46 N/A
for Affordable Units N/A 25 N/A
for Other Community Benefits 0 21 N/A
Affordable Units
Rental 0 27 (13.5%) 15 (11% of base)
Very low income 0 6 (3.1%) 15 (11% of base)
Low income 0 9 (4.7%) 0
Moderate income 0 12 (5.8%) 0
Impact fee (or equivalent) $4,000,000 ($5,014,200) ($4,417,875)
Ownership 40 (20%) 45 (22.5%) 0
Moderate income 40 (20%) 45 (22.5%) 0
Impact fee (or equivalent) ($4,600,000) ($5,175,000) N/A
Community Benefits Options N/A N/A
Public Open Space 4,356 s.f. (0.1 acre) +
$50,000 to Parks Fund
Additional Family Friendly Units Total 140 (70%)
2‐Bedroom Total 112 (56%)
+$50,000 to Parks Fund
Payment (1% of valuation per 10 points) N/A $1,050,000 N/A
TOTAL VALUE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
+ COMMUNITY BENEFITS
100 (50%) 94 (50%)
$4,000,000 $6,064,200 $4,417,875
TABLE 7: EFFECT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT A
*Assumes proposed regulations for unit mix and design are in place.

Attachment I
Effects of Proposed Regulations on Hypothetical Project B
Project B is currently above the base level for FAR, and is at the top of the bonus range
for height and density, thereby requiring 100 bonus points. The project includes 40% 2+
bedroom units, and 5% 3+ bedroom units, which were not designed in accordance with
the Family Friendly Design Guidelines. No in-project affordable units would be required,
and the project would pay an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $10,000,000 (original
FY14-15 nexus fee of $20,000/unit times 500 units). No condominium map would be
required.
To earn the 100 bonus points required under the current regulations, the developer is
proposing to reuse an existing significant structure (35 points); provide various
transportation demand management measures including bicycle sharing (15 points),
bike lockers (10 points), and electronic transit information signs (10 points); provide 5%
of the units (25 units) as family friendly three-bedroom units (10 points); and provide
additional electric vehicle charging stations above the base requirements (20 points).
Characteristics of Project B, and the effects of the proposed regulations on it, are
summarized in Table 8.
Unit Mix and Design. Under the proposed regulations, the project would be required to
have at least 25 more two-bedroom units, for a total of 200 two-bedroom units, or 40%,
and at least 25 more three-bedroom units, for a total of 50 three-bedroom units, or 10%.
All of these 2+ bedroom units would now be subject to the Family Friendly Design
Guidelines.
Bonus Points Required. With the reduced base levels, the project would still be at the
top of the bonus range for height and density, and would still require 100 bonus points.
To earn these bonus points, 50 bonus points would be required for in-project affordable
units and 50 points would be earned from other community benefits.
Affordable Units. A condominium map would be required, although the developer
could opt to retain ownership of all units and operate it as a rental project. In this case,
referring to Table 1, for 50 bonus points the project would need to provide 16.0%
affordable units, consisting of 3.6% very low income units (18 units), 5.6% low income
units (28 units), and 6.8% moderate income units (34 units), for a total of 80 affordable
units. No Affordable Housing Impact Fee would be required, and these in-project units
would be equivalent to a fee of about $14,857,000 (fee equivalent of $29,714/unit times
500 units). Again referring to Table 1, if the developer opted to sell the units as
condominiums, for 50 bonus points the project would be required to provide 25.0%
moderate income units (125 units), which would be equivalent to an Affordable Housing
Impact Fee of about $14,375,000 (fee equivalent of $28,750 times 500 units).
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) would be required to stipulate that at
least 50% of units must be owner-occupied at any given time, and that no more than
10% may be owned by a single owner.
Community Benefits. Reuse of significant structures, transportation demand
management programs, and electric vehicle charging stations would no longer be

eligible for bonus points. Family friendly units would still qualify, but they would have to
be additional units beyond the base requirement, as summarized in Table 3. As with
Project A, each contribution of 1% of construction valuation would earn 10 bonus points
for open space, specific public improvements, utility undergrounding, and/or small
businesses. The estimated construction valuation of Project B is $125 million ($250,000
per units times 500 units), and a 5% contribution would be needed to earn 50 bonus
points, which would equal $6,250,000. If the developer chose to provide on-site public
open space, 50 bonus points could be earned by providing publicly-accessible open
space equal to 15% of the site area, or 32,670 square feet (0.75 acres). For this project,
the “all or nothing” 50-point category of Zero Net Energy might be considered. If the
developer chose to earn the bonus points by providing additional family friendly units,
50 points could be earned by providing an additional 50% 2+ bedroom units, including
an additional 10% 3+ bedrooms units, all designed in conformance with the Family
Friendly Design Guidelines (see Table 3). Thus, all of the units in the project would be
family friendly 2+ bedroom units. Alternatively, the developer could choose to provide a
combination of additional 2+ bedroom family friendly units and other community
benefits. The Planning Commission or City Council, during the approval process, would
need to approve the proposed community benefits, with the finding that they are
“acceptable and appropriate”, and will “provide tangible benefits to the community”, as
discussed above.
State Density Bonus System. If the developer chose to use the State Density Bonus
system instead of the City’s development bonus system, again the most cost-effective
way to do this would be to provide very low income units, as discussed above (see
Table 4). The maximum density bonus available would be 35% for providing 11% very
low income units. The new base density would be 50 units per acre, or 250 units on this
five-acre site. A 35% density bonus above the base of 250 units would equal a
maximum total of 338 units. Thus, the proposed 500-unit project would need to be
reduced by 162 units. The 88 “bonus” units are not included in the calculation of
affordable units; thus the 11% very low income units are based on the 250 base units,
equaling 28 very low income units. This would be equivalent to an Affordable Housing
Impact Fee of about $5,843,750 ($23,375 per unit times 250 units). No additional
community benefits would be required. Any necessary increase in FAR and/or building
height could be requested by the developer as a concession from the City. The project
would still be required to have at least 50% 2+ bedroom units, of which at least 10%
must be 3+ bedroom, and all 2+ bedroom units must conform to the Family Friendly
Design Guidelines. No condominium map would be required. Thus, using the State
Density Bonus system would be less expensive than using the City’s development
bonus system, but would result in a significantly smaller project.
Total Value of Affordable Housing and Community Benefits. Under the existing
regulations, an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of $10,000,000 would be required. In
addition, community benefits valued at about $12,500,000 would be required to earn the
necessary development bonus (assuming the developer opts to pay 10% of
construction valuation to earn the necessary 100 bonus points). Thus, the total value of
affordable units and community benefits under the existing regulations would be about
$22,500,000. Under the proposed regulations, affordable units equivalent to an impact
fee of about $14,857,000 would be required (assuming a rental project). In addition,

community benefits valued at about $6,250,000 would be required to earn the
necessary development bonus (assuming the developer opts to pay 5% of construction
valuation to earn the necessary 50 bonus points). Thus, the total value of affordable
units and community benefits under the proposed regulations would be about
$21,107,000. Under the State Density Bonus system, affordable units equivalent to an
impact fee of about $5,843,750 would be required, but no other community benefits
would be necessary. However, as noted above, the project would be 162 units smaller.
As also noted above, other existing fees and community benefits not related to
development bonuses would not be affected by the proposed regulations and would still
be applicable, including the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, Transportation Impact
Fee, School Fees, Public Art Program, Sewer Connection Fees, General Plan
Maintenance Fee, and Technology Fee. For Project B, these would total about $6.4
million under both the existing and proposed regulations. Under the State Density
Bonus system, they would be reduced to about $4.3 million because of the reduction in
project size. Again, these figures do not include the value of public improvements and
other community benefits that would be required as conditions of approval or
environmental review mitigation measures.

TABLE 8: EFFECT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT B
*Assumes proposed regulations for unit mix and design are in place.
Project B Current Regulations Proposed Regulations State Density Bonus System*
Site Size 5 acres 5 acres 5 acres
Construction Valuation $125 million $125 million $97 million
Total Units 500 500 388
Unit Mix
Studio 50 (10%)
1‐Bedroom 250 (50%)
2‐Bedroom 175 (35%) 200 (40%) 155 (40%)
3‐Bedroom 25 (5%) 50 (10%) 39 (10%)
Floor Area 605,000 s.f. 613,000 s.f. 475,000 s.f.
Family Friendly Design Required? No Yes Yes
Condominium Map Required? No Yes No
FAR
Base/Bonus 2.0/3.0 1.5/3.0 1.5/3.0
Project 2.78 2.81 2.18
Height
Base/Bonus 75'/100' 50'/100' 50'/100'
Project 100' 100' 100'
Residential Density (units/acre)
Base/Bonus 85/100 50/100 50/100
Project 100 100 (100% bonus) 67.5 (35% max bonus)
Total Points Needed 100 100 N/A
for Affordable Units N/A 50 N/A
for Other Community Benefits 100 50 N/A
Affordable Units
Rental 0 80 (16.0%) 28 (11% of base)
Very low income 0 18 (3.6%) 28 (11% of base)
Low income 0 28 (5.6%) 0
Moderate income 0 34 (6.8%) 0
Impact fee (or equivalent) $10,000,000 ($14,857,000) ($5,843,750 )
Ownership 100 (20%) 125 (25.0%) 0
Moderate income 100 (20%) 125 (25.0%) 0
Impact fee (or equivalent) ($11,500,000) ($14,375,000) N/A
Community Benefits Options N/A
Reuse of Significant Structure 35 points proposed N/A
Transportation Demand Mgmt 35 points proposed N/A
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 20 points proposed N/A
Public Open Space 32,670 s.f. (0.75 acre)
Zero Net Energy 50 points
Additional Family Friendly Units Total 500 (100%)
3‐Bedroom 25 units (5%) (10 points) Total 100 (20%)
Payment (1% of valuation per 10 points) $12,500,000 $6,250,000 N/A
TOTAL VALUE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
+ COMMUNITY BENEFITS
250 (50%) 194 (50%)
$22,500,000 $21,107,000 $5,843,750

Attachment J
TABLE 9: CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE 2014–2022 RHNA
As Described in
Housing Element
As Revised
A ‐ 2014 – 2022 RHNA 1,498 1,498
B ‐ Planned/Approved Projects 1,837 1,906
C ‐ Vacant/Underutilized Sites 3,468 2,253
D ‐ Total Development Potential (B + C) 5,305 4,159
Surplus Development Potential (D – A) 3,807 2,661

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
SF-FS2SFEmployeeddoezemaMy DocumentsProjectsEmeryville NexusResidential Nexus ModelOnsite compliance 3-6-2014; 3/6/2014
Table 1
On-Site Percentage Estimated to Have Equivalent Cost to Payment of a $20,000 Impact Fee
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Analysis
City of Emeryville, CA
Prototypical
Rental Project of
100 Units
Per Unit
A. Illustrative Housing Impact Fee $20,000 X 100 Units = $2,000,000
$290,000
6.9 units
6.9%
B. Estimated Cost To Project to Provide One Affordable
Unit On-Site at Low-Income
[Rents based on 60% AMI]
C. Number of Affordable Units Provided On-Site at Low-
Income that would Represent an Equal Cost to a 100-Unit
Project as Payment of a $20,000 Impact Fee
D. Percent of Affordable Units Provided On-Site at Low-
Income that would Represent an Equivalent Cost to
Payment of a $20,000 Impact Fee
see Table 2
A. / B. =
C. / 100 Units =
Attachment K

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
SF-FS2SFEmployeeddoezemaMy DocumentsProjectsEmeryville NexusResidential Nexus ModelOnsite compliance 3-6-2014; 3/6/2014
Table 2
Net Cost to a Market Rate Rental Project for Each Low-Income Unit Provided On-Site
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Analysis
City of Emeryville, CA
Prototypical Rental
Unit
1 Average Unit Size 850 sq ft
2 Average Number of Bedrooms 1.25
3 Average Household Size 2.25 persons
A. Market Rate Rental Unit Value
4 Rent per month ($2.90psf) $2,465
5 Annual Rent $29,580
6 Household Income $99,000
7 Affordability Level (% AMI) 128%
8 Annual Operating Expenses 3 $8,900
9 Annual Net Operating Income (NOI) $20,680
10 Unit Value @ 6.0% Cap $345,000
B. Affordable Unit Value Restricted to Low-Income Household at 60% of AMI
11 HH Income 1 $46,300
12 Gross Rent per month 1 $1,158
13 (Less Utility Allowance)2 ($72)
14 Net Rent $1,086
15 Annual Rent $13,026
16 Annual Operating Expenses 3 ($8,900)
17 Annual Net Operating Income (NOI) $4,126
18 Unit value @ 7.5% Cap $55,000
$290,000 = Line 10 - Line 18
1. City of Emeryville, Housing Affordability Table, updated 5/21/13. Assumes 30% of income spent on housing. 2013 official State Income Limits,
California Housing & Community Development. Based on 2.25 Person Household at 60% AMI.
2. Utility allowance assumes tenant pays for gas heat, cooking and hot water, water, and other electric. Utility allowance per the Housing Authority of
the County of Alameda.
3. Estimated based on operating expense comps for other similar apartment projects in the market and includes property taxes.
Higher cap rate on affordable unit
since potential for rent growth is
limited.
C. Affordability Gap or Estimated Net Cost to a Market Rate
Rental Project for Each Low-Income Unit Provided On-Site

Very Low Low Moderate Total BMR
Ownership Projects 3,592 34 61 141 236 3,356
Percent 0.95% 1.70% 3.93% 6.57% 93.43%
Renter Projects 2,779 506 83 103 606 2,174
Percent 18.21% 2.99% 3.71% 21.81% 78.23%
Total Development Projects 6,371 540 144 244 842 5,531
Percent 8.48% 2.26% 3.83% 13.22% 86.81%
Older Housing Stock 1,166 0 0 0 0 1,166
Percent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
TOTAL 7,537 540 144 244 842 6,697
Percent 7.16% 1.91% 3.24% 11.17% 88.85%
Total
Units
Below Market Rate (income level)
Market
Rate
Summary of Affordable and Market Rate Housing Unit in Emeryville
Existing and Approved as of August 2015
Attachment L


DATE: May 2, 2015
TO: City Council and
Planning Commission
FROM: Sabrina Landreth, City Manager
Charles S. Bryant, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Special Joint Study Session on Proposed Regulations, Incentives,
and Guidelines for Multi-Unit Residential Development
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission provide feedback
and direction on the proposed regulations, incentives, and guidelines for multi-unit
residential development as discussed in this report and presented by staff at the joint
study session.
BACKGROUND
For a number of years, concern about family-friendly housing (including unit mix and
design), affordable housing, and ownership housing have been issues in Emeryville.
With the improving economy and the impending development of several thousand new
units in the next few years, the City Council has expressed a desire to review the City’s
development regulations in order to ensure that future development is in line with the
community’s desire for more family-friendly, affordable, and ownership housing. The
purpose of this study session is to explore these issues and provide staff with direction
for the development of new regulations, incentives, and guidelines for multi-unit
residential development, to be considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council for adoption.
Development Patterns
Emeryville has two lower-density, smaller scale residential neighborhoods on the east
side of the city, the Triangle and Doyle Street neighborhoods, which were developed in
the early twentieth century and resemble the adjacent neighborhoods of North Oakland
and Berkeley. However, most of the city’s housing stock is larger in scale and was
developed over the last several decades. Staff has analyzed the residential
development that has occurred in Emeryville in the last twenty years, as summarized in
Table 1.
Attachment M

Special Joint Study Session
Emeryville City Council and Planning Commission
May 2, 2015
Page 2 of 37
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EMERYVILLE 1994-2015
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom
Live/
Work TOTAL
TOTAL
Number 307 1,360 1,217 151 12 137 3,184
Percent 9.6% 42.7% 38.2% 4.7% 0.4% 4.3% 100%
Average Size 426 818 1,186 1,231 1,570 1,038 953
Ownership
Number 23 449 482 10 0 54 1,018
Percent 2.3% 44.1% 47.3% 1.0% 0.0% 5.3% 100%
Average Size 533 983 1,359 1,733 0 1,283 1,174
Rental
Number 284 911 735 141 12 83 2,166
Percent 13.1% 42.1% 33.9% 6.5% 0.6% 3.8% 100%
Average Size 417 737 1,073 1,195 1,570 879 849
Almost 3,200 units were developed during this period, of which about one-third were
ownership and two-thirds were rental. As the figures above indicate, about 52% of these
units were studios and one-bedroom, about 38% were two-bedroom, about 5% were
three-bedroom or larger, and about 4% were live/work units. The overall average unit
size was about 950 square feet, and the average unit had 1.39 bedrooms (not indicated
in Table 1). Note that this data does not include earlier development such as the 1,249-
unit Watergate condominiums and the 583-unit Pacific Park Plaza condominiums, which
were built in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively. However, it does include projects
currently under construction (Emme, Parc on Powell, and 3900 Adeline) or approved
(3706 San Pablo).
Issues
The City Council has identified several issues to be addressed. These include the need
for more large dwelling units in multi-unit residential development (specifically, more
units with three or more bedrooms), the need for more family-friendly design of both
dwelling units and residential buildings, the need for more affordable rents and sales
prices of residential units, the need for more home ownership opportunities, and the
need to overhaul the bonus point system that is part of the Planning Regulations.
Available Tools
There are several tools available to address these issues. These tools are summarized
in Table 2 and discussed further below. Those that are checked and highlighted are the
focus of this report and study session.

May 2, 2015
Page 3 of 37
TABLE 2: TOOLS TO ADDRESS MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ISSUES
Tools
Attributes
Design
Guidelines
Incentives
(Bonus
System)
Develop-
ment
Impact
Fees
City
Subsidies
Inclusion-
ary Zoning
without
Incentives/
Concessions
State
Density
Bonus
Law
Regulations/
Requirements
Unit Mix /✓ ✓
Family-
Friendly
Units
 /✓ ✓
General
Residential
Amenities
 ✓
Affordable
Units
(rental)
✓  /✓ X 
Affordable
Units
(condo)
✓ /✓  
Ownership
Units ✓ X
= already in place or in process ✓ = possibility to study
/✓= in place but could be enhanced X= prohibited
Unit Mix and Family-Friendly Units: Emeryville’s development bonus system provides
points for family-friendly housing in residential projects, and specifies that such units
must be three-bedroom or larger and must comply with the City’s design guidelines for
family-friendly units. To date, no projects have taken advantage of this provision,
although several developers have expressed interest in it. The City Attorney advises
that requiring a certain unit mix (e.g. that a minimum percentage of units must be three-
bedroom or larger), and that units be designed to be family-friendly, is a legitimate
exercise of the City’s police power. This would require passage of an ordinance to
amend the Planning Regulations, which are part of the Emeryville Municipal code.
(Revisions to the City’s Family Friendly Design Guidelines are currently under
consideration by the Planning Commission, and are expected to be presented to the
City Council for approval in May or June.)
General Residential Amenities: Certain amenities, such as a community multipurpose
room and various design features like placing mailboxes on the path to units from the
main pedestrian entrance, are desirable in all residential projects, not just family-friendly

May 2, 2015
Page 4 of 37
ones. These are included in the General Residential section of the Emeryville Design
Guidelines. The Planning Regulations could be amended to make it explicit that such
guidelines apply to all residential projects.
Affordable Rental Housing: Due to recent court decisions, “inclusionary zoning”
(requiring a certain affordability level in housing projects) has been significantly curtailed
for rental housing, as it has been deemed a form of rent control, which is prohibited in
California for new development. Nevertheless, the City can require affordable rental
units if agreed to by a developer in a written agreement in exchange for the City
granting regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially
sufficient, and actual cost reductions. However, in response to the changed legal
landscape and not wanting to solely depend on the willingness of the development
community to provide affordable rental units in exchange for incentives or concessions,
the City has enacted an affordable housing fee, whereby developers pay a certain
amount towards the City’s affordable housing fund (currently $20,000 per unit), or may
provide on-site affordable units in lieu of paying the fee (6.9% of units at low income
levels, or equivalent). The State Density Bonus Law, which has been incorporated into
Emeryville’s Planning Regulations, provides a density bonus in exchange for affordable
units. While this program has promise for increasing the affordable housing stock, it is
quite complicated and is rarely used. There is also a concept known as “voluntary
inclusionary zoning”, in which development over the base density is only allowed if the
project includes affordable units. This approach has real potential to increase
Emeryville’s affordable housing stock and is discussed later in this report. The City as
Housing Successor to the former Redevelopment Agency can also use its limited
affordable housing funds to subsidize deeper levels of affordability in private projects,
and to fund its own affordable housing projects. This is available to both rental and
ownership projects.
Affordable Ownership Housing: Inclusionary zoning is still permitted for ownership
housing, and Emeryville’s Planning Regulations require that 20% of ownership units be
affordable to moderate income households, or equivalent. The State Density Bonus law
also applies to ownership housing. In addition, the City may wish to consider including
ownership housing in any “voluntary inclusionary zoning” program as a means of
providing more affordable units in ownership housing.
Ownership Units: The City Attorney has advised that the City may not legally require
that projects be ownership versus rental. However, similar to the “voluntary inclusionary
zoning” concept for affordable units, the City may enact incentives for ownership
housing by providing that a certain percentage of units must be owner-occupied in order
to qualify for a density bonus.

May 2, 2015
Page 5 of 37
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Family-friendly housing, affordable housing, and ownership housing are closely
interrelated, but, to better understand each issue, and because different tools are
needed to address each one, they are discussed separately below.
Family Friendly Housing
Two main reasons are commonly cited for wanting to attract more families with children
to Emeryville. One is to promote a more “interesting” demographic mix by countering
the trend towards smaller childless households, and the other is to support the Emery
Unified School District and the heavy investment that the City and School District have
made in the Emeryville Center of Community Life. Stories abound of young couples who
are forced to move out of Emeryville when they have children because they cannot find
housing suitable for their growing families or those who do so voluntarily over concerns
about the quality of education their child will receive.
To explore these issues, staff has compiled demographic data from the U.S. Census
and enrollment data from the Emery Unified School District, which is discussed below.
Demographic Mix
The demographics of Emeryville are quite different from most other cities. The
households are smaller, there are more people living alone, and there are fewer families
with children than in virtually any other city in the Bay Area, or even the state or nation.
Table 3 compares key household characteristics in Emeryville to other local cities,
Alameda County, the Bay Area, California, and the nation. Emeryville’s average
household size is less than 2.0, more than half of households are single people living
alone, and only one-eighth of households are families with children, compared with
about 30% in the Bay Area, state, and nation. Barely six percent of Emeryville’s
residents are school children, compared with 16% in the Bay Area, and about 18% in
California and nationally.

May 2, 2015
Page 6 of 37
TABLE 3: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Average
household
size
Percent single
person
households
Families with
children as
percent of all
households
Residents
enrolled in
grades K-12
Emeryville 1.73 53.5% 12.5% 6.1%
Alameda 2.48 31.0% 28.2% 14.7%
Albany 2.59 22.4% 43.7% 18.3%
Berkeley 2.27 36.8% 16.8% 9.4%
Oakland 2.52 35.8% 25.2% 15.5%
Piedmont 3.00 11.0% 44.6% 24.3%
Alameda County 2.76 26.9% 31.3% 16.4%
San Francisco 2.31 38.7% 16.7% 9.1%
Bay Area 2.72 26.6% 30.4% 16.3%
California 2.94 24.2% 32.7% 18.6%
United States 2.63 27.5% 29.6% 17.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Average
Emeryville’s housing stock is likewise different from other cities. There are far more
units in multi-unit structures, more studio and 1-bedroom units, and fewer 2-bedroom, 3-
bedroom, and larger units, as illustrated below in Table 4.
This is mainly due to Emeryville’s history as a former industrial city with large parcels
that were previously occupied by massive factories, warehouses, and other industrial
uses. As they redeveloped, these parcels lent themselves to large commercial uses
such as Pixar, Novartis, and the EmeryStation complex, or large residential
developments. While subdivisions with new single family homes suitable for families
with children are common in the suburbs, virtually no new single family homes have
been built in Emeryville since the early twentieth century. Indeed, this is the case in
virtually all inner urban core areas, not just Emeryville. Combined with the close
proximity of Emeryville to employment centers in San Francisco, Oakland, and
Berkeley, this has led to a population that is predominantly childless.

May 2, 2015
Page 7 of 37
TABLE 4: DWELLING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
Average
Bedrooms
Per Unit
Studio and 1-
bedroom
units as
percent of all
units
2+ bedroom
units as
percent of all
units
3+ bedroom
units as
percent of all
units
Units in 10+
unit buildings
as percent of
all units
Emeryville 1.34 61.6% 38.4% 7.0% 71.0%
Alameda 2.34 23.3% 76.7% 42.2% 21.9%
Albany 2.28 17.2% 82.8% 33.0% 27.8%
Berkeley 2.11 35.0% 65.0% 34.5% 24.6%
Oakland 2.10 31.8% 68.2% 35.1% 25.9%
Piedmont 3.44 4.3% 95.7% 82.8% 0.9%
Alameda County 2.48 21.5% 78.5% 49.6% 21.2%
San Francisco 1.86 40.5% 59.5% 28.1% 35.8%
Bay Area 2.55 19.9% 80.1% 52.9% 19.4%
California 2.58 17.7% 82.3% 54.3% 16.8%
United States 2.69 13.3% 86.7% 60.0% 13.0%
Starting with the 1,249 unit Watergate complex on the peninsula in the early 1970s,
residential development in Emeryville over the last several decades has been almost
exclusively comprised of large buildings with 10 or more units. To better understand the
implications of this development pattern for Emeryville’s demographic mix, staff has
conducted a regression analysis1
of a number of different variables, using all Census
Tracts in the Bay Area (of which there are approximately 1,580) with data from 2009-
2013, the most recent U.S. Census American Community Survey five-year averages.
1
Regression analysis is a statistical method for comparing two variables to determine whether they
appear to be related. A series of data points are plotted on an x-y graph, where one variable is
represented by x and the other is represented by y. This is sometimes called a “scatter chart” because
the dots appear scattered on the page. A “trend line” through these dots indicates the “closest fit” of the
points to a linear equation. The degree to which the variables appear to be related (that is, the degree to
which they fit the trend line) is expressed by a “correlation coefficient”, often represented as R2
. If there is
no correlation, and the dots appear totally random, R2
equals 0. If there is perfect correlation, and the dots
appear to all lie on the trend line, R
2
equals 1. If the correlation is negative, that is, one variable increases
as the other decreases, R2
is expressed as a negative number between 0 and 1. Usually R2
is taken to
three or four decimal places to differentiate between various degrees of correlation. For example, an R2
value of 0.3594 would represent a moderate degree of positive correlation, while an R2
value of -0.8372
would represent a strong negative correlation. There is no hard and fast rule about how large an R2
value
needs to be before a relationship is established; it depends on the type of data being analyzed. But
certainly larger R2
values indicate a higher degree of correlation than lower values. And the more data
points in the universe of data being analyzed, the more reliable the results. This is why all Census Tracts
in the Bay Area (1,580) were used for this analysis.

May 2, 2015
Page 8 of 37
An example of such a regression analysis is shown in Figure 1. This illustrates the
percent of units with three or more bedrooms versus percent of all units in buildings with
10 or more units. As this diagram illustrates, the more units that are in bigger apartment
and condominium buildings, the fewer units tend to have three or more bedrooms. The
correlation is moderately strong, -0.5344, meaning that size of building is a fairly reliable
indicator of dwelling unit size. Note that Emeryville falls right on the “trend line”,
meaning that the percent of 3+ bedroom units in Emeryville, about 7%, is what would be
expected for a city with about 70% of its units in 10+ unit buildings.
Staff has performed similar analyses on all of the characteristics listed above in Tables
3 and 4 to determine the extent to which they are predicted as a result of the high
percentage of units in large apartment and condominium buildings. The results are
summarized below in Table 5.
FIGURE 1

May 2, 2015
Page 9 of 37
TABLE 5: VARIABLES CORRELATED WITH 10+ UNIT BUILDINGS
Variable
Correlation
coefficient
Predicted
value
Actual
value
Average Household Size -0.2387 2.02 1.73
Percent single person households +0.4288 47.5% 53.5%
Families with children as percent of all households -0.1844 17.9% 12.5%
Residents enrolled in grades K-12 -0.2484 8.5% 6.1%
Average bedrooms per unit -0.5918 1.30 1.34
Studio and 1-bedroom units as percent of all units +0.7303 58.0% 61.6%
2+ bedroom units as percent of all units -0.7303 42.0% 38.4%
3+ bedroom units as percent of all units -0.5311 6.5% 7.0%
As this table illustrates, most of the household and dwelling unit characteristics in
Tables 3 and 4 are close to what the regression analysis would predict, although some
are closer than others. Of particular note are the numbers for families with children. The
data would suggest that Emeryville should have about 17.9% families with children, but
in fact there are only 12.5%. However, the correlation for this variable is somewhat
weak (-0.1844) meaning that the high percentage of large apartment and condominium
buildings in Emeryville should not be a deterrent to attracting more families with
children. In fact, the data shows that there are some Census Tracts in the Bay Area that
have even more units in large buildings than Emeryville, while having over 35% families
with children, almost triple Emeryville’s rate. So there is definitely room for more families
with children, even with Emeryville’s larger residential buildings. Similarly, the data
predicts that about 8.5% of Emeryville residents should be school children, while the
actual number is only 6.1%. But again, the correlation is fairly weak (-0.2484), implying
that there is room for more school age children. Again, the data shows that there are
Census tracts in the Bay Area that have even more units in large buildings than
Emeryville, and with 10% to 15% school children. So it is certainly possible to have
more school children, despite the preponderance of large residential buildings.
Later in this report, the correlation between families with children and dwelling unit size
will be explored, in order to determine an appropriate unit mix to strive for in future
development projects. First, however the issue of the school district will be discussed.
Emery Unified School District Enrollment Levels
Phase I of the Emeryville Center of Community Life Project (ECCL), currently under
construction and due to open in early 2016, is designed for a maximum of 900 K-12
students, and it would be desirable if a high percentage of those were Emeryville
residents. This implies that the number of school children living in Emeryville will need
to increase. This section explores that issue.

09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report

09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to 09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report

Similar to 09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report (20)

More from E'ville Eye

More from E'ville Eye (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

09 01-15 city council study session on residential development rules - staff report