Extra

In his response to the Berkeley Together opinion piece Why We Oppose SB 9, Darrell Owens fails to address any of the specific arguments made. Instead, he attempts to link opposition to SB 9 to Donald Trump, and support for SB 9 with Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

When it comes to legislation, especially legislation related to zoning, the devil is in the details. General opposition to “exclusionary zoning” is one thing; support for the specific zoning changes in SB 9 is something else entirely.  

Bernie Sanders has endorsed local candidates and measures before but he hasn’t endorsed SB 9. It’s not likely that he would embrace the legislation’s attempt to force cities to set rear setbacks no greater than 4 feet or that he would support the absence of any inclusionary housing requirement. In Bernie Sanders’ home city of Burlington Vermont, where he began his political career as mayor, rear setbacks in residential districts are “in no event less than 20’ ”. Berkeley’s current rear setbacks range from 15’ in multi-family zones to 20’ in the single family zones that would be affected by SB 9.  

In Elizabeth Warren’s home city of Cambridge Mass., rear setback requirements are also “at least 20” feet both in areas zoned for single and two-family dwellings and those zoned for townhouses and multifamily dwellings (some single family areas require 25 feet). In Biden’s upscale suburb of Greenville, Delaware, rear setback requirements are even greater, and they are 20-25 feet in the neighboring city of Wilmington as well.  

To preclude cities from requiring rear setbacks greater than 4 feet is one of the extreme details of SB 9. Another extreme detail is requiring cities to allow lots as small as 1200 sq ft. Lots as small as 2400 square feet can be split in two. Sanders’ and Warren’s home cities don’t allow lots that small.  

Cambridge Massachusetts has a recently adopted innovative affordable housing zoning overlay that allows zoning standards to be adjusted to allow greater density for projects that are 100% below market affordable housing. Upzoning and greater density are tied to affordability. 

SB 9, by contrast, does not require that any of the up to six units that could be built on a single-family zoned parcel to be affordable to low or even moderate income people. SB 9 upzones without requiring any benefit to the community for the big jump in the value of the rezoned property. The Berkeley City Council in 2017 embraced the idea of “land value recapture”. When government action increases land values (e.g.from upzoning) then the city should share in the increased value. SB 9, by contrast, is just a straight giveaway to developers. 

Darrell Owens suggests that SB 9 will alleviate the displacement crisis, but it is likely to have the opposite effect since it does nothing to add affordable housing. The new units on the split lots allowed by SB 9 will rent at market rates, which are not affordable to low and middle income people. It will just mean more housing choices for high income people. 

SB 9 will drive up the price of single-family homes because speculators who want to demolish single family homes to replace them with four units on two small lots (with the possibility of adding an ADU and junior ADU) will compete with people who actually want to live in a single family home, thus making homeownership even more expensive and elusive. The greatest impact of SB 9 is likely to be in the single-family zoned San Pablo Park neighborhood where homes and lots are typically smaller than in other parts of Berkeley. Speculators will be able to buy these homes more cheaply than in single family areas characterized by larger homes on larger lots. When these homes are demolished, the lots split, and the backyards eliminated, the resulting newhigh rent market rate housing will have the effect of gentrifying the area. In Berkeley, older housing rents for less than equivalent sized newer housing. Rents in older rent controlled housing at vacancy (when any rent can be set) are lower than rents in newer housing built in the last 10-15 years. 

Demolishing existing older housing does not lead to greater affordability unless the new units are built affordable, i.e. required to be affordable to people defined as Low Income, Very Low Income, etc. Bernie Sanders has recognized that solving the housing crisis will require massive public spending on affordable housing. “End the housing crisis by investing $2.5 trillion to build nearly 10 million permanently affordable housing units”. Bernie is against “exclusionary zoning” but he’s also wants to combat “gentrification”, “segregation” and “speculation”. SB 9 would encourage speculation. Sanders supports “inclusionary zoning rules that require developers to set aside affordable housing on their projects”. SB 9 contains no inclusionary requirement. Sanders housing platform can be found here. 

Outside of Berkeley’s fire zone, most areas of Berkeley are zoned for more than one dwelling. It’s not the case that there aren’t many areas where duplexes, 4-plexes, and larger apartment buildings can already be built. Berkeley has more people living in multi-family buildings (myself included) than in single family homes. Tenants outnumber homeowners, and the tenant proportion of the population is growing. Statewide, homeowner households outnumber tenant households and single family zoning and single family homes are more prevalent than in Berkeley. 

The Berkeley City Council has voted in favor of allowing more multi-family zoning in place of single family zoning and has started a two-year process to do so. Berkeley should be allowed to decide what specific changes to make without state interference or preemption. Berkeley should decide on setbacks and other development standards, on minimum lot sizes, and on whether to allow lot splits. Berkeley should decide whether it wants to require affordable units as part of any upzoning as many people urged them to do when 4-plex zoning was being discussed. 

Berkeley should be allowed to exclude its fire zone from upzoning to prevent increased density (more people with more cars) interfering with safe evacuation of areas with narrow streets in the event of a wildfire. SB 9 does not exempt most of Berkeley’s fire zone from its provisions. 

Berkeley should be allowed to require public review and public input when new housing is built since replacing a single-family home with a new building with 2 or 4 units would have impacts. During the Council discussion of 4-plex zoning many people objected to the idea that such housing should be approved by staff without opportunity for public review and input. Berkeley has gotten better development by requiring a public process that often leads to modifications that reduce detrimental impacts and improve project design. SB 9 provides for ministerial approval of the four or more units that would replace the demolished single family home on a split lot. 

The devil is in the details and Berkeley should work out for itself what the details of zoning changes should be. It can do this once SB 9 has been defeated.