Extra

The Berkeley City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing for Tuesday July 23 at 3.30 to adopt a “Middle Housing” ordinance that would upzone most of the Berkeley’s residential neighborhoods. According to the Planning Department, Middle Housing is “Not single family and Not Podium or High Rise Housing.”

This “Middle Housing” zoning ordinance is undoubtedly the biggest land use decision in many decades in the City of Berkeley. An April 21 article in California Planning & Development Report titled “Berkeley Considers Massive Upzoning,” states that this “upzoning would allow the development of more than 100,000 homes according to one estimate, in a city where there are currently 47,000 homes.”

It is astounding that this “massive upzoning” is coming in front of Council for adoption, when the great majority of residents of Berkeley have no idea about “Middle Housing” coming in their midst. There have been meetings, but almost all part of the Housing Element process. No citywide meetings regarding this ordinance have been held. 

Equity Issues. It is very likely that middle housing will be concentrated in lower income neighborhoods. As reported in the November 1, 2023 memo to the Planning Commission, Berkeley city planners met with Missing Middle Architects who indicated that, since densification as proposed is based on the demolition of existing structures, “middle housing projects are most feasible on lots that are vacant or with a relatively low-value existing home.” 

If successful, then, it is likely that middle housing – which is market-rate housing -will lead to the gentrification of neighborhoods with “relatively low-value existing homes.” The recently approved Demolition Ordinance will protect existing affordable housing units that will be torn down as part of middle housing developments. That is admirable. However, the potential remains for a massive influx of market-rate housing in lower income neighborhoods. 

The point is that the proposed ordinance will have diverse effects on the various neighborhoods of the city. One problem with broad upzonings is that they treat neighborhoods that are socio-economically and geographically diverse the same. These possible effects have not been analyzed. 

Additionally, allowing greater densities will lead to higher land values, making existing property values go up, possibly making the upzoning counterproductive (existing single-family homes will become more expensive). 

Gentle Density. While I see problems with this version of “Middle Housing,” I want to stress that I am in favor of the densification of single-family neighborhoods with “gentle density,” i.e., with duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. These typologies, with front and backyards and housing facing the street, provide much greater densities while being compatible with single-family housing. 

Backyards/Open Space Protection. The proposed amendments, however, go beyond that, practically eliminating backyards. Trees will be cut down, new additional impervious surfaces will be put in place, causing temperatures to increase. As a National Geographic article “Bating the Heat” (07-21) pointed out, wealthy neighborhoods are shady and cool while temperatures rise in lower income neighborhoods, where usually lots are much smaller. 

The proposed ordinance reduces open space requirements, increases lot coverage and reduces the distance of a new building from a rear yard line from 20/15 feet to 4 feet. These changes are likely to destroy the existing interconnected, informal network of backyard open space, reduce wildlife habitat, the green canopy and soil permeability, making climate change worse. 

This kind of middle housing will lead to the browning of Berkley, especially in neighborhoods most likely to be affected by the “heat-island effect.” 

Planning Commission or Planning Department? What is in front of you is the Planning Commission’s recommendation, not the Planning Department’s. The Planning Commission would allow more flexibility for developers, while the Planning Department proposes more, and understandable, regulations and encourages smaller units. Maximum density (number of housing units per lot), for example, while not recommended by the Planning Commission, was proposed by the Planning Department to provide “a degree of predictability for existing residents as to what proposed projects may include.” (page 21 PH Report). The differences, however, are negligible. Both recommendations call for a massive upzoning. 

The Planning Commission believes strongly that we need more housing at all levels, and they hope that middle housing can produce units more “affordable” than the market generally produces, if planning regulations are cut down. 

That is debatable. But we can be sure that middle housing, as proposed, would likely lead, in the long run, to heightened gentrification in the southern and western neighborhoods of the city, some of which were red lined in the past. Additionally, their quality of life would be reduced, as back yards disappear, and the heat-island effect becomes worse. 

State Density Bonus Law. With this law, the density of development allowed in a locality can be increased up to 50 percent if the developer provides some affordable housing. Additionally, “incentives” must be provided, for example additional height or lees backyard or side yard distance requirements. No mention is made of this possibility in the report 

What to do. Council must not approve the proposed ordinance at this time. If Councilmembers approves Middle Housing, they should, as part of the adoption, mandate that in three to four years the city prepare a study on how and where middle housing – and demolitions related to it – is being built, at what affordability levels, if state density bonus law was utilized, and with recommendations for possible changes. 

Public Participation. Instead of adopting this middle housing ordinance, council should create mechanisms to widely publicize the proposal in ways that the general public can easily understand (especially density bonus law implications), including possible socioeconomic, equity and environmental impacts. 

Postponing approval makes sense also because the Hillside Overlay Zone, now included in the ordinance, is now being studied for emergency evacuations of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Planning Department had recommended that: “The middle housing zoning standards should not be applied to parcels in the Hillside Overlay zone until this study is completed” (Page 24). It seems the safe thing to do. On the other hand, excluding the Hillside Overlay Zone now, would be the inequitable thing to do. 

Council should postpone adoption. The city needs an equitable and transparent public participation process for this significant policy change. 

h