1. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / EXPLORING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INTHE CITY OF BERKELEY
THE PROBLEM
Housing
Trust
Fund
$$
$
Development
fees
Other
sources
County
State
Federal
Affordable housing in Berkeley is produced in two
ways:
by private developers mixed into
market-rate projects, and
through government-funded
nonprofit development projects.
Funding for the latter comes from fees on private
development leveraged with county, state, and
federal sources. All of these funding sources have
declined in recent years.
Berkeley is considering a local policy change that
would grant a “density bonus” to developers in
exchange for paying fees that would be used to
fund affordable projects.
The Bay Area’s population is exploding.With an expected population
growth of 24% by 2040, and pursuant to California Senate Bill 375,
Berkeley has adopted a high-density, transit-oriented growth-management
strategy around identified Priority Development Areas (see map above).
With most of its land already developed, Berkeley is now facing the
complicated task of accomodating “its share” of regional population growth
while expanding availability of affordable housing.
How should Berkeley expand the supply of affordable housing using the density bonus plan?
Downtown Berkeley/ Downtown Area Plan
San Pablo Avenue/ West Berkeley Project
South Shattuck/ South Shattuck Strategic
Telegraph Avenue/ Southside Plan
Adeline Street/ South Shattuck Strategic Plan
UniversityAvenue/UniversityAvenueStrategicPlan
BAY AREA
Priority Development Areas
Bay Area Plan
0 1.20.3
Miles
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT
AREAS

2. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
$ $
INCOME BRACKETS
Income brackets are defined in relation to Area Median Income (AMI)
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
<30 % AMI
31 - 50 % AMI
51 - 80 % AMI
Residential density is defined as the number
of dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
FLOOR AREA RATIO [FAR]
Ratio of total floor area of a structure to the total
square footage of its parcel
LOT USE
AFFORDABILITYDENSITY
DENSITY BONUS
An increase in the number of residential units on a
parcel beyond what the zoning ordinance allows
ZONING CONCESSIONS
Reductions in certain zoning regulations, such as:
100% Affordable
Housing
Inclusionary Housing
Units that are reserved as affordable housing. Rents
for below-market-rate units are set as 30% of the
income of target tenant group (see “Income Brackets”
table to the right).
100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
ASSOCIATED PROBLEMSINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Housing
Trust
Fund
Parking spaces
Parking spaces
Parking level entrance
4 - 10 du/ac
20 - 40 du/ac
50 - 100 du/ac
Single Family Dwelling
Townhouses
Apartments
Below market rate (BMR) units
Residential affordability is defined as 30% or less of household income spent on rent
BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) UNITS
DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
open space parking setbacks height limits
Services
Lack of community Peripheral location
“Ghettoizing” the poor
Lengthy build process
No in-building services
Less affordable
Building

3. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / BERKELEY DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
2010
1995
2014
2000
SNAPSHOT OF BERKELEY DEMOGRAPHICS
BERKELEY OVER TIME
Total Population
Median Age
27% of Berkeley’s Population is 18-24 yrs old
Workforce employed by UC Berkeley
Median houshold Income
Average Household Size
Renter / Homeowner Households
POPULATION GROWTH NUMBER OF UNITS BUILT
(In Buildings with 5+ Units)
% OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING
COMMUTER POPULATION
11, 197
52,330
27,176
AT A GLANCE
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013
116,716
103,328 103,137 103,027
112,914
116,768
White
African American
Asian, Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
Hispanic Latino
55%
10%
19%
5%
11%
BREAKDOWN BY RACE
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2008
4027
2125
578 573
1150
2010 Census Data, Berkeley Daily Planet
2010 Census Data
Workers commuting
into Berkeley daily
Work & live in
Berkeley
Berkeley residents
working elsewhere
Data from LEHD
City of Berkeley - Consolidated Plan for Housing & Community Development (2010)
Berkeley Housing Element (2009)
2010 Census Data, 2015-2023 Berkeley Housing Element
Housing in Berkeley has become more expensive over time; construction has declined while demand, especially from students, has
increased.
48%of commuters to Berkeley make <50% of AMI
36%of Berkeley residents make <50% of AMI
UC BERKELEY STUDENT
POPULATION GROWTH
37,581
Census Data,American Community Surveys
Census Data
UC Berkeley
10 15 20 23 27 30 33 37 40 45 50
¯
70,000-140,000
30,000-70,0000
0-5000
5000-10,000
10,000-15,000
15,000-30,000
DENSITY
29,662
116,768
31 yrs
23%
$61,960
2.17
59% / 41%

4. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
1979
2008
2009
2011
2013
2015
1990
California passes Senate
Bill 375
California Superior Court
effectively bans Inclusionary
Zoning for rental residences
Berkeley creates Housing
Mitigation Fee
Association of Bay Area
Governments passes Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Changes proposed to
Berkeley density policy
Berkeley creates Housing
Trust Fund
California passes Density
Bonus Law
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
BERKELEY’S CURRENT PATHS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED CHANGES
DISINCENTIVES
Reduced rent
from BMR units
Density
bonus
granted
% of total units in project
that are reserved for:
DISINCENTIVES
Per-unit
mitigation fee
INCENTIVES
Density bonus
Mitigation fee
exemption
INCENTIVES
100% market-
rate rents
Berkeley City Council is
reviewing a proposal that, if
passed, would grant a 35%
density bonus to developers
who pay the housing
mitigation fee as well as a
density bonus fee.
moderate
income
low
income
very low
income
10%
5%10%
11%20%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%40%
California’s density bonus policy reduces Berkeley’s discretionary control over zoning and density, and gives developers incentives to
include affordable housing on-site.The proposed changes could create an enticing local alternative.
POLICY BACKGROUND
Grants a % increase above local limits
on the allowed number of residential
units for a project along with two
zoning concessions in exchange for
inclusion of below market rate (BMR)
units. Local governments cannot deny
a density bonus to proposed projects
that meet the state’s criteria.
10% very
low income
50% accessible
for seniors
20% low
income
Housing
Trust
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
$28,000
$28,000 $10,000
35%density
bonus
mitigation fee per unit
per unit fee per base unit fee for the developer for affordable housing
INCLUSIONARY
100% AFFORDABLE
+ &
$

5. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / COMPARISONS: SAN FRANCISCO & SANTA MONICA
SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA MONICA
Square Miles
Population
Median Income
Renters/ Owners
% of Renters spending >30%
of Household Income on Rent
47
837,442
$75,604
65% / 35%
38%
8
84,084
$71,400
72% / 28%
41%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
Residential developers building 10 + multifamily units must choose from the following options:
Mayor’s Office of
Housing and
Community
Development
Build affordable housing off-
site, within 1 mile radius of
market rate projectInclude 12% BMR
DEMOGRAPHICS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
Residential developers building multifamily housing must choose from the following 4 options:
Housing
Trust
Fund
Build affordable housing off-site,
within .25-mile radius of market
rate project
Donate, sell, or
option land to city
or non-profit hous-
Square Miles
Population
Median Income
Renters/ Owners
% of Renters spending >30%
of Household Income on Rent
San Francisco and Santa Monica both have instituted housing policies not present in Berkeley, namely setting density standards and a
radius requirement for off-site affordable housing.
DEMOGRAPHICS DENSITY STANDARD
The San Francisco planning code standards outline maximum dwelling unit density based on zoning district and
building use.
DENSITY STANDARD
The Santa Monica municipal code outlines maximum dwelling unit density based on zoning district and
building use.
Inclusionary units

6. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION
5 - 1,407
1,407 - 5,616
5,617- 12,000
12,001 - 22,450
22,450 - 35,076
BERKELEY POPULATION BY
INCOME BRACKET
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS
These bar graphs show the
number of BMR rental units in
Berkeley affordable to low, very
low, and extremely low income
households, broken out by
method of production
# LOW-INCOME UNITS
# EXTREMELY-LOW-
INCOME UNITS
# VERY-LOW-INCOME UNITS
JOB DISTRIBUTION
(jobs per sq mi)INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING UNITS
MAPPED
100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS
MAPPED
AVG.
MARKET
RENT*
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME NECESSARY
TO AFFORD AVG.
MARKET RENT
2010 2014
INCOME
DISTRIBUTION
54% of Berkeley renters are overpaying for rent.While sheer
production of housing is necessary, it’s important to look at the
distribution of affordable housing, both geographically and
economically, to ensure that that production is equitable. Below-
market-rate units should be available within Berkeley’s economic
centers, and should meet the needs of the lowest income groups.
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
35,000
45,000
DISTRIBUTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
33 units
168 units
3,650
7,865
# of households
4,305
126 units
255 units 248 units
0 units
9,565
0 to 19 units
20 to 39 units
0 to 19 units
20 to 39 units
40 to 59 units
60+ units
100% affordable housing, in contrast to inclusionary units, is distributed outside job centers and provides more deeply affordable units.
$1,765
$70,600
$2,171
$86,840
*3-person, 2-bedroom
MODERATE & UPPER INCOME
LOW INCOME
VERY LOW INCOME
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
Berkeley 2010 & 2015 affordable housing nexus studies
Job distribution data from LEHD, income distribution data from 2013 ACS
2007-2011 American Community Survey data

7. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
There is significantly better access to neighborhood amenities, public transit, and retail in the areas with a high concentration of
inclusionary housing than in the areas with a high concentration of 100% affordable projects.
NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES
INCLUSIONARY UNITS
TRANSIT
WALK, BUS, BIKE SCORES
WALK, BUS, BIKE SCORES
LAND USE
ShattuckAve
MLKJrWay
Virginia St
Blake St
University Ave
Hearst Ave
Bancroft Way
Education
Bus Routes
Bart
Community Center
Park
Grocery
Hospital
Cultural Institution
Cultural Institution
Institution
Residential Units
Commercial
Mixed Use Residential
Recreational
959869
AMENITIESAREA
ShattuckAve
MLKJrWay
Virginia St
Blake St
University Ave
Hearst Ave
Bancroft Way
AFFORDABLE UNITS
TRANSIT
LAND USE
M.L.KJrWay
SacramentoSt
SanPabloAve
Alcatraz
Russel St
Ashby St
Dwight Way
Education
Bus Routes
Institutional
Residential Units
Commercial
Mixed Use Residential
Recreational
Mixed Use Light
Industrial
Bart
Community Center
Park
Grocery
Hospital
8859 99
AMENITIESAREA
M.L.KJrWay
SacramentoSt
SanPabloAve
Russel St
Ashby St
Dwight Way

8. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Ashby Lofts (54 Units)
Communal Outdoor Courtyard/ Terrace
Computer Work Space
On-Site Workshops
Helios Corner (80 Units)
“Artists Thrive in Live/Work Lots at 800 Heinz Ave.”
- The Berkeley Daily Plant,August, 2005
Margaret Breland
Homes
(28 Units)
Wheel-Chair Accessible
“It offers more than just an apartment
home, it offers a worry-free lifestyle.”
- Harriet Tubman Terrace Website
Workout FacilitiesActon Courtyard (70 Total Units, 20 BMR)
Washer-Dryer In-Unit
Berkeley Central
(118 Total Units, 23 BMR) Pet friendly
Allston Place
(60 Total Units, 12 BMR)
Communal Outdoor
Courtyard/ Terrace
In-building Access to car-share
services
“Set your home apart from the rest”
- Hillside Village Apartments
[We put an] emphasis on high-quality design
that looks like a market-rate building
- SAHA Homes
“Our mission is to create and preserve affordable
housing...to build community and enrich lives”
- RCD Housing
“We go to great lengths designing ammenities
and choosing locations that put everything
within reach.”
- Avalon Berkeley
“A home that suits your personal
needs”
- Equity Residential (Gaia Building)
Both emphasize clean, modern designs.100% affordable projects put a strong emphasis on empowering residents through community
activities, while inclusionary buildings focus on giving residents access to services on a more individual level.
IN-BUILDING AMENITIES
BUILDING TYPOLOGIES
BUILDING TYPOLOGIES
AMENITIES & SERVICES
AMENITIES & SERVICES
QUOTES
QUOTES

9. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
SCENARIO EVALUATION
CONCEPT-TO-OPERATION TIMELINE
50-unit building
SCENARIO A:
SCENARIO B:
PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Meets 10%
BMR unit req.
Pays $1.4 million
($28,000/unit) to city
5 BMR units
14 BMR units
A typical affordable housing
project costs $350,000-$400,000
per unit to build
Funding
sources:
20-25% 75-80%
etc.
$100,000 of city funding produces 1 unit of
affordable housing
It takes more time to build 100% affordable housing projects; however, you get more affordable units per development with that
approach.
I. Concept II. Pre-Development III. Development IV. Construction V. Operation
I. Concept & Securing Financing II. Pre-Development III. Final Design IV. Construction V. Operation
3.5 - 8 years
3 - 6 years

10. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / HYPOTHETICAL COST & REVENUE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Scenario C, reflecting the proposed policy change, produces more units in aggregate while charging higher fee costs to developers.
However, the resulting development has the greatest capitalized value after fees are considered of the three scenarios.
Pay
mitigation
fee?
Seek 35%
density
bonus?
Include
BMR
units?
FEES
ANNUAL NET
REVENUES
CAPITALIZED VALUE
NET FEES*
$1.4 million
one-time mitigation
fee
$0
$1.9 million
one-time mitigation
& density bonus
fees
* At a capitalization rate of 6% (equal to that used in the 2015 Nexus Study)
SCENARIO A
Current policy:
Pays mitigation
fee
SCENARIO B
Current policy:
Builds on-site
BMR housing
SCENARIO C
Proposed
policy:
Pays mitigation
+ density
bonus fees
Housing
Trust
Fund
$1.4
million
$1.9
million
This is a hypothetical analysis of the costs a
50-unit proposed development might incur
related to affordable housing requirements
under 3 scenarios. Scenarios A and B look at
the current density bonus policy, and
Scenario C looks at the proposed changes.
2124 Bancroft Way
BANCROFT APARTMENTS
$1,563,000
on 50 market-
rate units
$1,945,776
on 62 market-
rate & 6 BMR
units
$2,110,050
on 68 market-
rate units
$24,650,000
$33,267,500
$32,429,600
Housing
Trust
Fund

11. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott Chilberg, Holly Clarke, Soham Dhesi, Eleanor Fisher, Rebecca Pynoos Nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Eric Anderson, Justin Kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / LOOKING AHEAD
Services
Proposed market-rate
development
Proposed 100% affordable
housing project
The lack of community issue was
qualitatively supported, but needs
further research.
Spatial analysis shows 100% affordable
projects are primarily in peripheral
locations outside job centers. However,
the small city size mitigates this issue.
In-building services exist in both
cases, but address different needs.
No noticeable income difference
between market-rate and 100%
affordable development neighborhoods.
Extremely low income housholds
are underserved by inclusionary
housing. Moderate income
households are underserved by both
due to structure of policies.
100% affordable housing projects have
a slightly lengthier build process, but
result in more affordable units per
development.
RECOMMENDATION #1:
Conduct a feasibility study of the proposed fee
structure and levels, looking especially at the
potential to administer the fees on all, instead of just
base, units.Also look at possible ways to promote
unit production for moderate-income households.
RECOMMENDATION #2:
Develop systems for gathering and analyzing data
on below-market-rate unit production, location,
and affordability to allow for a holistic and
adaptive affordable housing strategy.
RECOMMENDATION #3:
Create mechanisms for early community
engagement between developers and community
members around new proposals.
RECOMMENDATION #4:
Conduct a study on the effects of high-density
developments on neighborhoods and incorporate
community education.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Priority Development Areas
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS