By Nico Calavita
Editor’s Note: On Thursday October 24 at 6:30pm, Council members for Districts 1 and 2 will hold a “Town Hall on Upzoning” (Middle Housing), Berkeley Adult School, 1701 San Pablo Ave. See this urgent appeal from the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council:
“Last month we alerted you to the fact that City Council is considering changing our zoning code to allow demolition of single family homes and building 3-story apartment buildings in most residential zones, without a public hearing or neighborhood notification. Join Berkeley Neighborhoods Council in demanding that such a significant change to our Zoning Code should not be made by a simple vote of Council and must be part of the Berkeley General Plan.
“Remember that despite what has been stated by our city council, this ordinance does not increase the affordable housing requirement, does nothing to encourage right of return, and has not had an Environmental Impact Report specific to this plan. This ordinance has now passed the hurdles of being approved by both the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission and may come to City Council for a vote in November.
“This October 24th meeting may be the last chance to speak out before the item comes to City Council for a vote as no other meeting has been scheduled to date.”
“Middle Housing” is coming to your neighborhood
If you live in a single-family home you probably know that two or three ADUs (Ancillary Dwelling Units), sometimes called in-law units or “Granny Flats,” could be built on the lot where you live, or the lots of your neighbors. Because of state law, localities have to approve the additional housing if the owners want to build on their lot. Well, I don’t know how you feel about that, but probably okay, and after all there is nothing that you—or the city—can do about it.
But now the City is proposing to create an even denser housing pattern. In the new year, the Berkeley City Council will decide on making it possible to add even more units in single-family neighborhoods, a proposal called “Middle Housing.” (Probably not in the hills, because building more housing there would make escaping from fires even more difficult and dangerous.)
Allowing more housing units on a piece of land is also referred to as “upzoning,” or “densification.” With the Middle Housing proposal, at least five units would be allowed on a typical lot. But to allow more density, other controls have to change also. More height, for example, allowing up to 35 feet (three stories), or allowing building much closer to lot boundaries and covering most of the lot with buildings. This is known as “lot coverage.”
There are two assumptions behind this densification/upzoning proposal. First, that we have a housing crisis not only for low-income families, but also for middle-income households: the teachers, the waiters, the dental assistants in Berkeley. And second, that promoting rental or condo housing on single-family lots will generate housing affordable to the middle class. When tested by actual experience the second assumption is highly debatable. In San Diego for example, with a housing market very similar to Berkeley’s, multifamily housing built on single-family lots rent for about $2,500 for a 500 square feet one bedroom unit, and about $3,000 for a two-bedroom 900 square feet unit. These are small units hardly affordable for the family of a starting teacher.
While the benefits are unclear, the possible impacts are dangerous for neighborhoods where the cost of housing is lower than in the rest of the city. As a city report states, architects who work in designing middle housing observed 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.”[i] 1It is very likely then that middle housing will be concentrated in lower income neighborhoods in the South and West of Berkeley.
People pushing for this middle-income housing (they call themselves YIMBYs – “Yes In My Backyard”), have declared that we need this program because of the legacy of discrimination and redlining in Berkeley. They say that middle housing will provide an opportunity for people of color to access affordable housing. But actually, if approved, middle housing – which is actually market-rate housing – is likely to lead to the gentrification of neighborhoods with “relatively low-value existing homes.” Tragically then, a program that is presented as helping neighborhoods that have suffered from discrimination and redlining, has the potential to lead to a massive influx of market-rate housing, making existing housing less affordable. And gentrification will mean not only higher housing costs that will push existing residents out, but changes in the shops and services to cater to the higher income newcomers.
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 buildings, with front and backyards and housing facing the street, provide much greater densities while being compatible with single-family housing.
The proposed changes, however, go beyond that, practically eliminating backyards to build more housing. Trees will be cut down, new additional hard surfaces will be put in place, causing temperatures to increase, creating what is called the “heat-island effect.” And the heat island effect affects neighborhoods inequitably. A National Geographic study, “Beating the Heat,” (July 2021) pointed out that wealthy neighborhoods are shady and cool while temperatures rise in lower income neighborhoods. 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 would destroy the existing informal network of backyard open space, reduce wildlife habitat and soil permeability.
Berkeley’s thousands of backyards are private and generally hidden from view, perhaps limiting the appreciation of their role in lessening climate change, limiting runoff through rain absorption and protecting wildlife. Nevertheless, they constitute the backbone of the open space system of the city and are essential to fight climate change.
But there is even more density possible. California’s Density Bonus Law allows up to 50 percent increase in density, plus other “incentives” like increasing lot coverage and height, reducing distances of buildings from neighbors’ yards (so-called setbacks) or required open space, if a developer provides a minimum of affordable housing. So if Council approves the proposed Middle Housing Ordinance, with its established densities, height, lot coverage, etc., that does not mean that that is what you are going to see on your neighbor’s lot. One day you might wake up at the sound of machinery beginning construction on the lot next to you of apartments much bigger than what the city would have approved.
And the Planning Department and City Council are moving forward as if this possibility did not exist.
Nico Calavita was a member of the City of Berkeley Housing Advisory Committee and Chair of the San Diego Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustee. He is a retired professor from the Graduate Program in Urban Planning at San Diego State University.
- “Middle Housing Discussion,” Justin Horner, Staff Report to Planning Commission, Planning and Development Department/Land Use Planning Division, Nov. 1 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2023-11-01_PC_Agenda_Packet_Paginated.pdf
↩︎ - Slide #14, “Setbacks & Building Separation,“ Middle Housing: Residential Objective Standards, Presentation to Planning Commission Public Hearing, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/2024_02_07_PC_Item%2011_Middle_Housing_Presentation.pdf ↩︎