Extra

The public hearing scheduled for the April 29^th meeting should be continued to a special meeting to be held a later date. The Council should take no action on proposed residential upzoning on April 29.

The proposed changes will affect thousands of Berkeley residents and property owners in the flatlands of Berkeley. This is by far the biggest change in residential zoning to come before the Council since 1963. In 1963, the Council rezoned the flatlands, and much of what can be found in current residential zoning came out of that rezoning process.

Before the Council voted on zoning changes in 1963, every property owner in five areas of the flatlands where the changes were proposed received written notification from the City about the changes being proposed. The City staff conducted five public meetings to inform residents and to solicit comments. Then there were hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council for each of the five areas. The City also did postcard surveys to determine whether residents supported the proposed changes. In all five areas, majorities favored the proposed changes. Based on input received from the residents in the areas affected, the Council made some changes to what was originally proposed.

Continue the Public Hearing: The April 29^th public hearing should hbe continued and before the continued hearing takes place, every property owner in the areas that would be rezoned should receive written notification about the proposed changes and the continued public hearing. Most Berkeley residents do not check City Council agendas each week and have no idea that the Council is going to be discussing these major changes. It’s also crazy to put this important item on a regular meeting schedule and have the public hearing be the third of three public hearings that night. You’re having a special meeting to discuss a resolution on a foreign policy issue, but something that directly affects thousands of residents does not merit a special meeting? Also our General Plan’s Citizen Participation Element mandates maximizing citizen participation in land use changes. Acting on April 29 would clearly be inconsistent with General Plan policies. 

There are major problems with the proposed changes. The original Missing Middle proposals discussed by the Council called for eliminating single family zoning and allowing duplexes, triplexes and 4-plexes. The latest much more extreme proposal calls for allowing 5, 6 or 7 unit apartment buildings. Once you allow five units, the developer has the option of qualifying for a state density bonus by including one unit affordable to a low income household, that is a household with income at 80% of Area Median Income. (The 2024 limit for a low income family of three in Alameda County is $108,750.) 

The staff report does not include any analysis of how the state density bonus might be used by developers in conjunction with the new zoning being proposed. Certainly a 35 foot height limit would become a 50-52 foot height limit, and the number of units could increase to 7 to 11. The density bonus allows for additional concessions to developers which could lead to zeroing out setbacks. 

Extreme Lot Coverage: Increasing lot coverage to 60% is a very bad idea. With the ADU ordinance allowing ADUs of up 1000 square feet, with that square footage not counting toward lot coverage, you could easily, on a larger 5000 square foot lot, have 80% lot coverage which means the whole lot is covered except minimal side and rear setbacks and some kind of front setback. There would be no yards, little room for trees or gardens or greenery of any kind. Speculators buying up flatlands properties would likely remove existing trees and gardens and put any required open space on the roof (unless the Council precludes that option). Housing that does not include back yards will not be appealing to families who generally like to have somewhere safe where their kids can play outside. With lots more fully taken up by buildings and space for parking vehicles, and with minimal setbacks, there would a reduction in permeable surfaces to absorb rainfall in periods of heavy rain. 

Current lot coverage standards for all R districts distinguish between corner lots and interior lots, allowing greater lot coverage on corner lots, which makes a lot of sense. Lot coverage also varies by height. But the new lot coverage standard of 60% applies to all lots being rezoned, and buildings of any height, which is not a good idea. 

60% lot coverage exceeds the lot coverage standards for R-3 (multiple family), R-4 (multi-family) and R-5 (high density residential). If adopted, areas that were formerly R-1 or R-2 will allow more lot coverage than areas that are meant for denser multi-family housing. That makes no sense. 

One Size Fits All: Treating all areas zoned R-1 through R-2A the same is a bad idea. Some blocks have nothing but one and two story buildings. Constructing buildings that are 3 stories and stretch practically to the rear property line, not to mention 4-5 story buildings that could be built with a density bonus, could have a dramatic negative impact on the residents of adjacent homes. Solar panels could be shadowed, undermining their benefits, and there would reduced access to sunlight generally and a loss of privacy. When new 5 to 11 unit buildings appear on a particular block, the livability of houses on that block would be reduced for its residents. 

Ignoring the General Plan: The extreme changes being proposed, allowing 5 or more units and excessive lot coverage is clearly inconsistent with our General Plan Land Use element which calls for new development in R-zoned areas “compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.” The changes are also inconsistent with policies calling for minimizing negative impacts of new development on adjacent residential uses in residential areas and calling for “greater protection of solar access to adjacent properties when new projects or additions are proposed”. 

Threat of Gentrification The new zoning will likely encourage speculators to buy up less expensive single family homes in South and West Berkeley, so that they can demolish them, cut down the trees and build new large apartment buildings in their place. The new units will be market rate and will bring higher income residents into areas that still have substantial numbers of lower income tenants living in older rental housing, much of it rent controlled. Existing tenants will not be able to afford the new units. The area will gentrify. Homeownership opportunities will also be reduced as speculators are likely to buy the least expensive housing in the area, housing that will no longer be available to someone hoping to buy a less ridiculously expensive home instead of renting. 

Not affordable: Missing Middle does not mean affordable to middle income, let alone lower income people. There is no requirement that any of the 5 to 7 units that would be permitted under the proposed zoning would be affordable to people who cannot afford market rate apartments. Buying and demolishing an existing single family home (which should not be allowed by right) and building a new 3 story apartment building in its place will be not be cheap. It will likely only pay if a lot of smaller units are crammed onto the site. And rents will likely all be affordable only to “above moderate” income housholds. It won’t do anything for low-, very-low, and extremely-low income households except to price them out of their neighborhoods. 

No Design Guidelines: There are no design guidelines to go with the proposed new zoning. What’s to stop developers from building the same kind of crappy apartment buildings that helped prompt the 1973 voter-enacted Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance? 

A Better Approach to Missing Middle Upzoning: Stick with existing zoning development standards, especially lot coverage, height and setbacks, and rezone properties that are now R-1 or R-1A to R-2 or to R-2A, taking into account the character of specific neighborhoods when making the changes. The Fire zone should be left alone since increased density does not make sense in those areas which, besides the obvious wildfire risk and evacuation issues, are also poorly served by public transit and are car-dependent. (Remember the popular planning idea of “Transit-Oriented Development.”) 

Existing state law already requires cities to allow building a duplex and two ADUs on any single family zoned lot in Berkeley outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as designated by the state. Housing is being built, especially ADUs. Berkeley is doing its share, producing numerous housing units on major commercial streets, though most of it, unfortunately, is not affordable to low or even middle income families. And Census date from 2020 shows that Berkeley is already the third densest city in Northern California. (Only San Francisco and Daly City are denser.) 

Why not codify the changes in state law by using the City’s existing zoning standards and rezoning in an intelligent, considered, careful way that allows additional housing in neighborhoods without undermining neighborhood livability while repealing single family zoning consistent with state law changes.