Council adopts the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, keeps the 7-story base
Council adopted the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 9–0 on Tuesday night (September 29). The zoning it replaces dates to the 1993 West Berkeley Plan, and the update started as a council referral in 2015. This is a summary of the main outcomes, not every comment.
This covers the meeting from about 8:25pm on, partway into the San Pablo item, so it doesn't include the earlier agenda items or the 4pm special meeting. Figures below are as stated at the meeting. The city's annotated agenda will be the official record of the votes once it's posted.
What's in the plan
The plan replaces the corridor's current zoning with a new San Pablo Commercial district. The main pieces that passed as proposed:
- Taller buildings. Apartments and mixed-use buildings can go up to 7 stories (75 ft), technically ~10 with the state density bonus, though few are likely to go past 8. This was the main fight of the night (below).
- Wider sidewalks. Sidewalks on San Pablo are mostly 13 ft today, and 12 ft in spots. New buildings have to set back far enough to make them at least 16 ft.
- Shops at the main intersections. At key corners (Ex. University, Dwight, Ashby), the ground floor has to be commercial facing the street. Things like outdoor markets and food stands get easier to permit.
- Public space as a trade. A developer can give up some private open space (like a roof deck) in exchange for a wider sidewalk, a small public plaza, or a walkway through the block.
- Design rules. Buildings have to break up their facades so they don't read as one flat box.
- A condo pilot, not yet real. A local density bonus for condo projects, which still needs study and another round of votes.
What council changed
Council passed Councilmember Kesarwani's motion 9–0 (it still needs a second reading). The changes from the Planning Commission's version:
- Office and other non-residential buildings can go to 75 ft, same as apartments. The Planning Commission had capped them at 40 ft.
- A minimum density of 100 homes per acre. Staff wanted 145; the Planning Commission wanted none. 100 keeps the corridor eligible for regional transit grants and leaves room for bigger family units.
- A drafting fix at the main intersections. Homes can go on the ground floor behind a storefront at least 50 ft deep. The commission's wording would have also allowed things like parking lots and manufacturing back there by accident.
- Housing on a few light industrial lots. These lots (at the Albany border, between Blake and Parker, and a larger block south of Heinz) don't allow housing today. Now they do, but only if the project is 100% affordable or at least 35% family-size (2–3 bedroom) units. Staff had proposed 50%.
- Small business protections, in theory. Councilmembers Tregub, O'Keefe, and Blackaby added language asking the City Manager to apply upcoming anti-displacement measures to San Pablo, look at a business license tax waiver for displaced businesses, and help businesses hurt by nearby construction.
The 5 vs. 7 story vote
Blackaby moved to set a 5-story base instead. It failed 2–7 (O'Keefe and Blackaby yes).
Either way, buildings probably end up at 7–8 stories. Staff said San Pablo projects will likely top out at 8, because construction costs jump above that. The state density bonus gives up to 50% more homes if 15% of the base units are very low income, and the city has to waive height limits to fit them.
| 5-story base | 7-story base | |
|---|---|---|
| Without the bonus | 5 stories | 7 stories |
| With the full bonus | ~7–8 stories | ~10 on paper |
| Likely height | 7–8 stories | 7–8 stories |
| Affordable homes on site | ~10%, very low income | Few or none (fee paid instead) |
So the vote was really about on-site units vs. money, and 7 is the rational choice for real-world reasons:
- The fee money goes further. A typical 150-unit project pays about $8.5 million into the Housing Trust Fund (staff's estimate), enough for the city's share of 40+ affordable units. Trust fund dollars get matched about 4.5 to 1 by outside funding.
- It reaches people on-site units don't. Trust fund buildings can serve very low incomes, the formerly homeless, and people who need on-site services.
- Fees only come from buildings that get built. Margins are thin, and the Housing Advisory Commission chair pointed to the city's own analysis showing projects near infeasibility. A lower base means fewer projects.
- On-site units don't disappear. Staff expects most projects to use the density bonus anyway, for its waivers and concessions.
The case for 5 is economic integration: affordable units inside market-rate buildings. It's an appealing goal, but the argument doesn't reckon with how projects actually get built here. Developers already use the density bonus with a 7-story base, so on-site units don't go away. What a 5-story base mostly changes is how many projects pencil out, and fewer buildings means fewer affordable units and less money for the trust fund.
Public comment
About 75 minutes, and it broke down the way these usually do. Opponents were mostly longtime residents (27, 30, 45 years in Berkeley), plus Berkeley Neighborhoods Council and Save Berkeley Shops, both well-known NIMBY groups. They wanted a 5-story base and a delay until commercial tenant protections are in place. It's hard to take the delay ask very seriously. This plan started as a council referral in 2015 and has been through years of workshops and commission hearings, and with these groups we tend to see endlessly moving goalposts. Supporters were mostly renters and young families who want more housing. The room leaned against; the online queue leaned for.
That lines up with what I see. I have close friends in the neighborhood who may have to move soon because there's nothing for them. They don't need very low income help. They need a starter home or a family-size rental.
Some observations
The light industrial lots look like council trying hard to get more family-size units. Per the staff report, these lots were worth about half as much as comparable residential land in 2025, mostly because housing isn't allowed on them. Allowing housing creates a lot of value for the owners, and the city is asking for something back: family-size units or fully affordable housing. The city's consultant said the family-unit share was set by weighing that jump in land value against construction costs, and suggested revisiting it in 3–5 years if nothing gets built.
The small business protections all came from councilmembers other than the two whose districts the corridor runs through. To me that looks fairly obviously political: each of them represents a district where displacement is a live controversy right now. I'm not opposed to helping businesses here, but this looks like more signaling than substance.
Blackaby leading the 5-story substitute is interesting too. It reads to me as defending a rearguard position on the Elmwood zoning changes. Being inconsistent here wouldn't help with that.
Sources
- City Council meeting page, September 29, 2026 (agenda, staff reports, and later the annotated agenda)
- Regular meeting eAgenda
- Council video archive on Granicus