16 ms·

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

204 points by jseliger 3y ago

thereisnospork 3y ago
A surprisingly progressive proposal coming from Berkeley, but of course they are still playing games with parking minimums maximums, setback requirements, and income segregation. Seems like it would be a step forward at least.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is great. Except they left a parking minimum of 1 per unit, setback requirements, lot coverage maximums, and height restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build additional units that are fit for habitation. A policy that looks great at a glance is awful in practice. I looked into adding a rental unit in my backyard with an architect. The limits resulted in something that would have to be under 400 sq ft / 37 sq m and would be awful to live in. To their credit the city is now looking at moving to 4 units per lot by right and as part of that process is considering fixing some of the gaps they left the last time, but it illustrates the need to look at zoning codes very closely to make sure the intended development is actually allowed (or question if the gaps are being left on purpose).
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform
    - skybrian 3y ago
      But we just saw that when zoning goes up against financial incentives, zoning wins. Why would more financial incentives help when you can't build anyway? Seems like magical thinking.
      - no_wizard 3y ago
        It’s the reverse really. Though I didn’t realize prop 13 effectively prohibits a LVT, the way it works in simple broad strokes is that it heavily taxes under utilized land, so holding vacant property or undeveloped land etc. becomes more expensive over time. It incentives utilization and thereby would drive more building faster and increase supply, as the more utilized the land becomes the better off it is for the land owner
    - crotchfire 3y ago
      I'm afraid you are about to be swarmed by the HN downvoting hordes, for having the impudence to say something actually intelligent here.
      - astrange 3y ago
        LVT is unconstitutional in California (prop 13) and wouldn't help because boomers genuinely believe 1969 was the perfect year and nothing can be allowed to look different from it; you cannot motivate them to stop this with money.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Totally agree. The whole zoning code needs to be reworked. In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well. The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.
    - theluketaylor 3y ago
      > The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right. https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Catalog_23-0506-lowres.pdf https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        South Bend seems to be doing a lot. They are hosting a lot of talks and engage with all kinds of urbanist ideas. Great to see.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    The entire parking minimum mess only exists because we have street parking for which we pay a very high price, but the average voter thinks of as free. I wish we could get rid of it entirely, but that would never fly because it's completely unimaginable to voters. Policy is fun and great; politics is cancer...
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Street parking is free in that it does not cost extra. Just like credit cards are free even though they charge merchants 3%. Everyone loves taking advantage of the commons.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.
    - theluketaylor 3y ago
      That's only true when you can ignore building codes on things like loft stairs and other space-stealers. ADUs in my city must be permanent structures that meet all codes and be fully inspected throughout the build. Anything under 500 sq ft / 46 sq m under north american building codes is a tough scene for livability. There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).
- notatoad 3y ago
  yeah, i'm pretty skeptical that berkeley will actually manage to accomplish something progressive. if this change had actual merit, somebody would have put a stop to it by now. I'd assume that between setbacks, parking minimums, height limits, and floor-area-ratio requirements, they're going to end up changing basically nothing.
  - sobellian 3y ago
    They address this in the article. > All density limits for the R-1, R-2 and R-1A zones have been removed. Any number of homes can be built, provided the building does not exceed 3 stories, with a 4 foot side or rear setback and 15-20 foot front yards. In practice, this will allow about 6 to 10 homes on most city parcels. > Allow 60% of a parcel to be developed, up from the 30 - 45% standard. No floor area ratio requirements. > No parking is required per the city’s climate change anti-driving policy. The article also mentions that under the status quo most of these parcels can only see 1-2 homes.
m3kw9 3y ago
Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down
- DragonStrength 3y ago
  New state law will take the decision of what gets built out of their hands if they don't meet minimums.
- BirdieNZ 3y ago
  Upzoning increases land prices. It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices if it is accompanied with development (more housing units per square metre of land). Upzoning doesn't guarantee increased development as developers only build when it makes financial sense to do so, and flooding the market with more units would decrease the potential profit they can make. Existing residents who don't develop their land usually end up with a big windfall of higher land prices, because their large lot sizes could have many more housing units built on it with new upzoning laws. Now, they still might revolt for other reasons, like not wanting undesirables like people poorer than themselves to move in next door, or not wanting to see as many houses in their morning walk, but from a financial sense, upzoning is a big positive for existing landowners.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices It never does. Upzoning does NOT reduce per-unit prices, but it certainly increases everyone's misery.
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      Ah yes, real estate prices are famously low in the most upzoned parts of the country (Manhattan). If you can build a 100 floor skyscraper on a piece of land, that land is insanely valuable!
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
tekla 3y ago
> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city I am not surprised.
- earthwalker99 3y ago
  >In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city Short of sleazebag propaganda, there is no logic or context, historical or otherwise, that can justify describing this as "left wing." They are right wing activists by definition. I don't care what they call themselves.
  - bakchodi 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jahewson 3y ago
    Indeed they are not true Scotsmen.
  - linguae 3y ago
    There was a major environmentalist and neighborhood preservationist movement in California during the 1960s and 1970s that helped fuel anti-growth measures. While they weren't strictly leftist (there are right-wing slow- and anti-growth advocates), they did complement the views of the New Left, which embraced environmentalism and came out of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s. The San Francisco freeway revolts of 1959 and 1964 were early examples of this (https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html). Consider folk songs like "Big Yellow Taxi" (1970) from Joni Mitchell with the famous lyrics "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Such sentiments resonated among many Californians and was especially popular along the coast. These sentiments helped lead to anti-growth measures taking effect throughout the state, especially in the coastal areas. For example, San Jose during the 1950s and 1960s undergone a campaign of dramatic expansion throughout Santa Clara Valley, even reaching Coyote Valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Hamann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Hamann), but this growth was curtailed in the 1970s and San Jose has not expanded beyond its boundaries. Santa Cruz also took on an anti-growth attitude in the 1970s. While not all anti-growth sentiment is left-wing (there are some right-leaning areas of California, particularly in the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills, that also have slow-growth or no-growth policies for maintaining "quality of life" and "rural character"), much of the anti-growth sentiment along the coast traditionally had an environmentalist and grassroots community preservationist flavor to it, with opposition to "developers" who threaten it.
causality0 3y ago
Each home only getting twelve percent of an acre qualifies as "exclusionary housing only for rich people"? Just how insane is the cost of living in Berkeley?
- BirdieNZ 3y ago
  485m² of land in one of the highest-income urban areas in the world is for rich people only, yeah.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    Not even top 25 in the US. Median household income in Berkeley, CA is $97,834.
    - lmm 3y ago
      Berkely is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA, which had the fourth-highest per-capita income on the 2010 US census and is likely to place higher on the more recent one. It's absolutely one of the highest-income metropolitan areas in the world.
      - jeffbee 3y ago
        In addition, looking a college town median income is a demographic anomaly. There are 50000 people at the University with zero income. If you look at prime-earning-age householders in the Census, Berkeley is way off the scale.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I feel like Bay Area rich people don’t really live in Berkeley. Maybe they used to?
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  > Just how insane is the cost of living in Berkeley? It’s very high.
- 3y ago
7e 3y ago
[flagged]
- next_xibalba 3y ago
  What is a breeding population??
  - 7e 3y ago
    Any population which can grow unchecked.
    - anoxor 3y ago
      (Implies the lesser human who think having kids isn’t a low key evil for killing the earth)
  - pokstad 3y ago
    In case someone stumbles upon this in the future, I want to preserve the original comment they replied to: > This is a mistake. Housing restrictions are what keep breeding populations from overrunning the world. Berkeley becomes Mumbai. It will be ruined, and within a generation of breeding, housing costs will be high yet again. So there is no permanent fix, only the uglification of beautiful places, and the environmental harm of more humans overrunning the Earth. Building more housing is like building more highways. It increases demand.
j7ake 3y ago
Excellent news! What a relief for a city dominated by struggling students to have more housing per area.
- dkural 3y ago
  It's not approved yet.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all the usual bullshit with no citations, such as "The ensuing housing shortage caused mass homelessness." What a crock. That doesn't even make sense.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    How exactly is this a "more handouts for developers"? Removing zoning restrictions just makes building possible, it doesn't create any subsidies for building. Handouts for developers is opening good agricultural land for development. Fixing generations of terrible zoning for infill development is just unlocking existing sites to be more than exclusively single family homes. > instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial Economically infeasible as there isn't currently a way to rehabilitate contaminated land and hope to break even on development. More superfund-like efforts at all levels of government need to do the cleanup and then turn things loose for development. > commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's Couldn't agree more, those areas should be turned into fantastic mixed-use development neighbourhoods. That shouldn't be exclusive to tearing down generations of bad zoning exclusions and restrictions. > prevent groundwater percolation Advocating for affordable water management solutions being made part of any substantial renovation or re-devleopment like permeable pavement makes a lot of sense. I'd want to make sure it doesn't become another barrier that keeps construction costs high, but there isn't a reason better water management and infill density can't go hand in hand.
cyberax 3y ago
Now make a bookmark and check back in 5 years. What will happen: prices in Berkeley will go in lockstep with other areas around it (likely way up). Meanwhile, congestion will worsen and crime will also likely rise.
- rottencupcakes 3y ago
  You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento. Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?
    - quesera 3y ago
      Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options. And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options. SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs. I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close. Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther out...but fewer people want to.
      - cyberax 3y ago
        > And Napa is dry, rural Napa is more green than the SFBA in general. It also is about as hot as most of the Bay Area outside of SF. > and has no jobs. Good. Keep asking questions. What caused the lack of jobs?
lettergram 3y ago
I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by.
- marxisttemp 3y ago
  Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?
  - jahewson 3y ago
    Isn’t that logic backwards? It’s only higher-density areas that have significant numbers of people living on the streets.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Why would a homeless person want to live in a low density area? The solution to homelessness being more housing which means increased density has nothing to do with homeless people preferring to live in dense areas.
- kevinburke 3y ago
  There are very few places in the USA that have the density of Berkeley and lots of places that have much lower densities. People who don't want density have plenty of options they can move to; the problem is the misanthropes who want the amenities that come with a large city while also having none of the downsides of living in a city, including no neighbors.
- apsurd 3y ago
  > crime per-capita increases I learned this right here on HN! How silly is it that most any statistic talking about behaviors of populations are nothing more than population-density graphs. "Where's all the crime!?" Sure enough it's where all the people are.
jeffbee 3y ago
I'm not as optimistic as Darrell. I think the city will manage to pass a strict demolition ordinance at the same time as the general upzoning, nullifying the practical effect.
- infecto 3y ago
  I would agree. My take is a little more cynical though. Berkeley likes to feel as if it’s progressive and accepting of others but hand wave away how it’s an exclusive oasis.
duped 3y ago
Has the author lived in Berkeley? I have, I don't think upzoning can fix it. It's a small community tucked up against the hills. New construction in the hills is just setting the stage for the next devastating fire. Closer to the bay, it's already pretty dense. This would do a lot of good in Emeryville and Oakland, but it's not like Berkeley is suburban sprawl like over the hills in the rest of Alameda... Berkeley needs to get rid of rent control and focus on cleaning up their streets (literally, garbage is just everywhere) before worrying about fitting more people into such a tiny area. People are already packed in like sardines.
- sanxiyn 3y ago
  "Berkeley is already pretty dense" is a laughable statement with its single-family homes near downtown.
  - duped 3y ago
    It's not like it's San Jose or Oakland.
- kevinburke 3y ago
  I mean, cleaning up the streets gets a lot easier when there isn't as much homelessness, reducing homelessness only happens when you add more homes and reduce overcrowding. In addition, new homes pay 2024 market rate property taxes, which the city can reinvest in things like garbage cans and street sweepers.
  - duped 3y ago
    This doesn't fix Prop 13 or rent control, which are bigger impediments to housing and taxation in Berkeley than housing. Upzoning isn't going to turn the communes into townhomes or turn that parking lot over the shellmound into housing.
rr808 3y ago
Are they going to add train lines, schools and parks? Or is it just cram in more people into a space until its unbearable. I live in a Jersey City which has sprouted lots of new apartments. Lack of parks and schools are a real problem, at least we have good train service though.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I mean is just unbearable. To actually to not have a city with 80+% of single family zoning. Just insane, how can they survive having 2 family live on a plot of land. Single family homes are literally the least efficient use of space. They are the reason there isn't enough space for parks in the first place. I agree that you might more schools, but given how much lower the birthrate is, the existing facilities are likely ok.
  - rr808 3y ago
    I think you dont get my point. I lived in London for a decade. There are lots of small units but always parks in the area. Here now the apartments are bigger and more spacious but there are very few small parks. In my area population is up 4x and they built one small extension to the school.
- xvedejas 3y ago
  My colleague lives in a European city which has undergone a building boom, and it was surprising to me how density doesn't just mean more people per area, but also more area per person. A very spacious apartment is much more affordable there than in any major US city, and more people therefore get more space to themselves. It's kind of amazing how much more livable that arrangement is.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Spacious apartments aren't nearly as possible in the US because of various deficiencies in our building codes, one major one being that single stair buildings aren't allowed, which means apartment buildings have to be built like hotels.
rhaps0dy 3y ago
Down in the article is what Berkeley residents should do to get this passed: > No council meeting has been scheduled yet but Berkeley residents should email the city council at council@cityofberkeley.info with the title “Support Missing Middle Housing.” Request that the city council should pass the Planning Commission’s proposal “as is.” Feel free to discuss your own housing woes as reasons for why it should be passed. These letters will be filed by staff into the future item and can make or break Missing Middle housing in Berkeley.
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
  Yeah, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Not until a majority of Berkeley residents are politically active renters.
  - crotchfire 3y ago
    And remember, international students can't vote. That includes a lot of the grad students.
    - RuggedPineapple 3y ago
      Are you sure about that? Only federal offices have a baked in requirement that voters be citizens. On the municipal level many west coast cities have opened up local elections to all residents regardless of citizenship. I don't know about Berkeley specifically (its been close to 20 years since I went to school there) but its neighbors Oakland[1] and SF[2] both have opened at least some local elections to non-citizen residents. Like I said, I don't know the answer and while I made a token effort to check, Berkeley city code actually seems somewhat difficult to find from a first party source. Just want to make sure this wasn't an off the cuff remark. [1]: https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Noncitizen_Residents_Voting_Measure_(November_2022) https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Nonc... [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citizen_Voting_in_School_Board_Elections_Amendment,_Proposition_N_(November_2016) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citiz...
amluto 3y ago
> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.
- ravetcofx 3y ago
  This will prevent developers from keeping old poor habits around of bad land use
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    If there is concern about underutilizing land, pass a land value tax and the market will figure out what's the best way to improve the value of the property itself beyond the windfall from the unimproved land going up in value due to surrounding economic activity. When it comes to housing the US seems to suffer some kind of disability that makes it impossible to not be tempted to steer towards a planned economy.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      Let the people with the most money decide?
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        That's not how markets work
        Negitivefrags 3y ago
        Isn't that exactly how markets work? Isn't that exactly the whole point of capitalism? If people with money want strawberries, they buy more strawberries. Price of strawberries goes up. Farmers who could choose to grow strawberries or some other thing decide that they want to grow strawberries because the price is high. More strawberries are grown. The people who have the money to buy the strawberries indirectly caused more strawberries to be created. So yeah, the people with the money decide what gets created. This is a good thing.
low_tech_punk 3y ago
If only BSD applies to the re-distribution of land as well as software.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Any warranties disclaimed? Any liabilities waived? No guarantee of fitness and merchantability? Maybe you you'd be interesting in buying a bridge which I'd gladly sell to you?
aorloff 3y ago
Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy. We are capable of great things here in Berkeley, primarily in comedy, jazz, and food. I wouldn't expect much out of our local government.
- babyshake 3y ago
  Can you speak more to the comedy and jazz in Berkeley and where to find it? Also feel free to suggest any food spots, especially ones that aren't as obvious as Viks, Cheeseboard, Chez Panisse, etc.
  - mcbishop 3y ago
    Wat Mongkolratanaram A Thai temple that serves Sunday brunch in their courtyard. https://m.yelp.com/biz/wat-mongkolratanaram-berkeley https://m.yelp.com/biz/wat-mongkolratanaram-berkeley
  - e-_pusher 3y ago
    It is not in Berkeley, but Yoshi’s in Oakland is a great Jazz club.
  - astrange 3y ago
    There's the poutine place.
  - aorloff 3y ago
    Some of the baddest cats out there in 10 years show up here https://www.bhsjazz.org/events https://www.bhsjazz.org/events
josuepeq 3y ago
I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easier to navigate by car. People who have the means to drive, will mostly drive when factoring decisions like this: Today I went from Church/Market to Chestnut/Fillmore in the Marina on public transit, which took me about 40 minutes. If I was going to drive my car, 15 minutes. In Berkeley, there are also buses that traverse every major street, BART cutting through downtown and then over to North Berkeley, but it is significantly more difficult to get everything done without a car - food deserts abound, and the main retail and entertainment areas are also lopsided on the east side of town, with the other being 4th street, which is more like a destination retail area - CB2, Apple. Without a 1:1 ratio of parking, we gain an abundance of traffic congestion in people circling blocks to find a parking spot on the street. If parking is available for rent in less than a 1:1 ratio, the affluent - with the deeded parking space in their market rate apartments - usually end up with the few parking spots in a development, on the idea that they can afford to pay premiums for it. Below Market Rate units usually only have a few spots available for multiple residents to pay for at full price. Parking imbalances give credence to the idea that cars are exclusive, everyone else should take the bus. Its not easy to force people to give up their cars.
- chottocharaii 3y ago
  Okay so if that’s the case the developers/owners will work out the most economic model; whether it’s best to satisfy demand with bays or without bays This is self-correcting. Minimums only ensure an inappropriate amount of parking will be built
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I agree that parking minimums can cause inappropriate amounts of parking to be built. It seems obvious to me that parking maximums can do the same thing.
  - 3y ago
anovikov 3y ago
This is all because redlining was prohibited...
thelastgallon 3y ago
This is a welcome change! A few cities have started removing parking minimums. https://www.kvue.com/amp/article/money/economy/boomtown-2040/austin-eliminates-parking-mandates/269-438ecefb-1f61-41e1-8d83-42fa33ec6a86 https://www.kvue.com/amp/article/money/economy/boomtown-2040... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38855427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38855427
thelastgallon 3y ago
The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-z...
getpost 3y ago
Good luck building apartments in active mudslide areas. Berkeley residents will be lucky not to lose the single family dwellings that are already built. Slide hazards will only get worse with ongoing climate change. See the map at the following link! https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/20/risk-of-major-landslides-in-berkeley-hills-is-growing https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/20/risk-of-major-landsl...

204 points by jseliger 3y ago

A surprisingly progressive proposal coming from Berkeley, but of course they are still playing games with parking minimums maximums, setback requirements, and income segregation. Seems like it would be a step forward at least.

theluketaylor 3y ago
This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is great. Except they left a parking minimum of 1 per unit, setback requirements, lot coverage maximums, and height restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build additional units that are fit for habitation. A policy that looks great at a glance is awful in practice. I looked into adding a rental unit in my backyard with an architect. The limits resulted in something that would have to be under 400 sq ft / 37 sq m and would be awful to live in. To their credit the city is now looking at moving to 4 units per lot by right and as part of that process is considering fixing some of the gaps they left the last time, but it illustrates the need to look at zoning codes very closely to make sure the intended development is actually allowed (or question if the gaps are being left on purpose).
- no_wizard 3y ago
  I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform
  - skybrian 3y ago
    But we just saw that when zoning goes up against financial incentives, zoning wins. Why would more financial incentives help when you can't build anyway? Seems like magical thinking.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      It’s the reverse really. Though I didn’t realize prop 13 effectively prohibits a LVT, the way it works in simple broad strokes is that it heavily taxes under utilized land, so holding vacant property or undeveloped land etc. becomes more expensive over time. It incentives utilization and thereby would drive more building faster and increase supply, as the more utilized the land becomes the better off it is for the land owner
  - crotchfire 3y ago
    I'm afraid you are about to be swarmed by the HN downvoting hordes, for having the impudence to say something actually intelligent here.
    - astrange 3y ago
      LVT is unconstitutional in California (prop 13) and wouldn't help because boomers genuinely believe 1969 was the perfect year and nothing can be allowed to look different from it; you cannot motivate them to stop this with money.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Totally agree. The whole zoning code needs to be reworked. In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well. The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    > The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right. https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Catalog_23-0506-lowres.pdf https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      South Bend seems to be doing a lot. They are hosting a lot of talks and engage with all kinds of urbanist ideas. Great to see.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  The entire parking minimum mess only exists because we have street parking for which we pay a very high price, but the average voter thinks of as free. I wish we could get rid of it entirely, but that would never fly because it's completely unimaginable to voters. Policy is fun and great; politics is cancer...
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Street parking is free in that it does not cost extra. Just like credit cards are free even though they charge merchants 3%. Everyone loves taking advantage of the commons.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    That's only true when you can ignore building codes on things like loft stairs and other space-stealers. ADUs in my city must be permanent structures that meet all codes and be fully inspected throughout the build. Anything under 500 sq ft / 46 sq m under north american building codes is a tough scene for livability. There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).
notatoad 3y ago
yeah, i'm pretty skeptical that berkeley will actually manage to accomplish something progressive. if this change had actual merit, somebody would have put a stop to it by now. I'd assume that between setbacks, parking minimums, height limits, and floor-area-ratio requirements, they're going to end up changing basically nothing.
- sobellian 3y ago
  They address this in the article. > All density limits for the R-1, R-2 and R-1A zones have been removed. Any number of homes can be built, provided the building does not exceed 3 stories, with a 4 foot side or rear setback and 15-20 foot front yards. In practice, this will allow about 6 to 10 homes on most city parcels. > Allow 60% of a parcel to be developed, up from the 30 - 45% standard. No floor area ratio requirements. > No parking is required per the city’s climate change anti-driving policy. The article also mentions that under the status quo most of these parcels can only see 1-2 homes.

m3kw9 3y ago

Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down

DragonStrength 3y ago
New state law will take the decision of what gets built out of their hands if they don't meet minimums.
BirdieNZ 3y ago
Upzoning increases land prices. It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices if it is accompanied with development (more housing units per square metre of land). Upzoning doesn't guarantee increased development as developers only build when it makes financial sense to do so, and flooding the market with more units would decrease the potential profit they can make. Existing residents who don't develop their land usually end up with a big windfall of higher land prices, because their large lot sizes could have many more housing units built on it with new upzoning laws. Now, they still might revolt for other reasons, like not wanting undesirables like people poorer than themselves to move in next door, or not wanting to see as many houses in their morning walk, but from a financial sense, upzoning is a big positive for existing landowners.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices It never does. Upzoning does NOT reduce per-unit prices, but it certainly increases everyone's misery.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    Ah yes, real estate prices are famously low in the most upzoned parts of the country (Manhattan). If you can build a 100 floor skyscraper on a piece of land, that land is insanely valuable!
    - bobthepanda 3y ago

tekla 3y ago

> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city I am not surprised.

earthwalker99 3y ago
>In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city Short of sleazebag propaganda, there is no logic or context, historical or otherwise, that can justify describing this as "left wing." They are right wing activists by definition. I don't care what they call themselves.
- bakchodi 3y ago
  [dead]
- jahewson 3y ago
  Indeed they are not true Scotsmen.
- linguae 3y ago
  There was a major environmentalist and neighborhood preservationist movement in California during the 1960s and 1970s that helped fuel anti-growth measures. While they weren't strictly leftist (there are right-wing slow- and anti-growth advocates), they did complement the views of the New Left, which embraced environmentalism and came out of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s. The San Francisco freeway revolts of 1959 and 1964 were early examples of this (https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html). Consider folk songs like "Big Yellow Taxi" (1970) from Joni Mitchell with the famous lyrics "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Such sentiments resonated among many Californians and was especially popular along the coast. These sentiments helped lead to anti-growth measures taking effect throughout the state, especially in the coastal areas. For example, San Jose during the 1950s and 1960s undergone a campaign of dramatic expansion throughout Santa Clara Valley, even reaching Coyote Valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Hamann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Hamann), but this growth was curtailed in the 1970s and San Jose has not expanded beyond its boundaries. Santa Cruz also took on an anti-growth attitude in the 1970s. While not all anti-growth sentiment is left-wing (there are some right-leaning areas of California, particularly in the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills, that also have slow-growth or no-growth policies for maintaining "quality of life" and "rural character"), much of the anti-growth sentiment along the coast traditionally had an environmentalist and grassroots community preservationist flavor to it, with opposition to "developers" who threaten it.

causality0 3y ago

Each home only getting twelve percent of an acre qualifies as "exclusionary housing only for rich people"? Just how insane is the cost of living in Berkeley?

BirdieNZ 3y ago
485m² of land in one of the highest-income urban areas in the world is for rich people only, yeah.
- jahewson 3y ago
  Not even top 25 in the US. Median household income in Berkeley, CA is $97,834.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Berkely is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA, which had the fourth-highest per-capita income on the 2010 US census and is likely to place higher on the more recent one. It's absolutely one of the highest-income metropolitan areas in the world.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      In addition, looking a college town median income is a demographic anomaly. There are 50000 people at the University with zero income. If you look at prime-earning-age householders in the Census, Berkeley is way off the scale.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  I feel like Bay Area rich people don’t really live in Berkeley. Maybe they used to?
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> Just how insane is the cost of living in Berkeley? It’s very high.
3y ago

7e 3y ago

[flagged]

next_xibalba 3y ago
What is a breeding population??
- 7e 3y ago
  Any population which can grow unchecked.
  - anoxor 3y ago
    (Implies the lesser human who think having kids isn’t a low key evil for killing the earth)
- pokstad 3y ago
  In case someone stumbles upon this in the future, I want to preserve the original comment they replied to: > This is a mistake. Housing restrictions are what keep breeding populations from overrunning the world. Berkeley becomes Mumbai. It will be ruined, and within a generation of breeding, housing costs will be high yet again. So there is no permanent fix, only the uglification of beautiful places, and the environmental harm of more humans overrunning the Earth. Building more housing is like building more highways. It increases demand.

j7ake 3y ago

Excellent news! What a relief for a city dominated by struggling students to have more housing per area.

dkural 3y ago
It's not approved yet.
NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all the usual bullshit with no citations, such as "The ensuing housing shortage caused mass homelessness." What a crock. That doesn't even make sense.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  How exactly is this a "more handouts for developers"? Removing zoning restrictions just makes building possible, it doesn't create any subsidies for building. Handouts for developers is opening good agricultural land for development. Fixing generations of terrible zoning for infill development is just unlocking existing sites to be more than exclusively single family homes. > instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial Economically infeasible as there isn't currently a way to rehabilitate contaminated land and hope to break even on development. More superfund-like efforts at all levels of government need to do the cleanup and then turn things loose for development. > commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's Couldn't agree more, those areas should be turned into fantastic mixed-use development neighbourhoods. That shouldn't be exclusive to tearing down generations of bad zoning exclusions and restrictions. > prevent groundwater percolation Advocating for affordable water management solutions being made part of any substantial renovation or re-devleopment like permeable pavement makes a lot of sense. I'd want to make sure it doesn't become another barrier that keeps construction costs high, but there isn't a reason better water management and infill density can't go hand in hand.

cyberax 3y ago

Now make a bookmark and check back in 5 years. What will happen: prices in Berkeley will go in lockstep with other areas around it (likely way up). Meanwhile, congestion will worsen and crime will also likely rise.

rottencupcakes 3y ago
You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento. Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?
  - quesera 3y ago
    Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options. And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options. SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs. I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close. Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther out...but fewer people want to.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > And Napa is dry, rural Napa is more green than the SFBA in general. It also is about as hot as most of the Bay Area outside of SF. > and has no jobs. Good. Keep asking questions. What caused the lack of jobs?

lettergram 3y ago

I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by.

marxisttemp 3y ago
Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?
- jahewson 3y ago
  Isn’t that logic backwards? It’s only higher-density areas that have significant numbers of people living on the streets.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Why would a homeless person want to live in a low density area? The solution to homelessness being more housing which means increased density has nothing to do with homeless people preferring to live in dense areas.
kevinburke 3y ago
There are very few places in the USA that have the density of Berkeley and lots of places that have much lower densities. People who don't want density have plenty of options they can move to; the problem is the misanthropes who want the amenities that come with a large city while also having none of the downsides of living in a city, including no neighbors.
apsurd 3y ago
> crime per-capita increases I learned this right here on HN! How silly is it that most any statistic talking about behaviors of populations are nothing more than population-density graphs. "Where's all the crime!?" Sure enough it's where all the people are.

jeffbee 3y ago

I'm not as optimistic as Darrell. I think the city will manage to pass a strict demolition ordinance at the same time as the general upzoning, nullifying the practical effect.

infecto 3y ago
I would agree. My take is a little more cynical though. Berkeley likes to feel as if it’s progressive and accepting of others but hand wave away how it’s an exclusive oasis.

duped 3y ago

Has the author lived in Berkeley? I have, I don't think upzoning can fix it. It's a small community tucked up against the hills. New construction in the hills is just setting the stage for the next devastating fire. Closer to the bay, it's already pretty dense. This would do a lot of good in Emeryville and Oakland, but it's not like Berkeley is suburban sprawl like over the hills in the rest of Alameda... Berkeley needs to get rid of rent control and focus on cleaning up their streets (literally, garbage is just everywhere) before worrying about fitting more people into such a tiny area. People are already packed in like sardines.

sanxiyn 3y ago
"Berkeley is already pretty dense" is a laughable statement with its single-family homes near downtown.
- duped 3y ago
  It's not like it's San Jose or Oakland.
kevinburke 3y ago
I mean, cleaning up the streets gets a lot easier when there isn't as much homelessness, reducing homelessness only happens when you add more homes and reduce overcrowding. In addition, new homes pay 2024 market rate property taxes, which the city can reinvest in things like garbage cans and street sweepers.
- duped 3y ago
  This doesn't fix Prop 13 or rent control, which are bigger impediments to housing and taxation in Berkeley than housing. Upzoning isn't going to turn the communes into townhomes or turn that parking lot over the shellmound into housing.

rr808 3y ago

Are they going to add train lines, schools and parks? Or is it just cram in more people into a space until its unbearable. I live in a Jersey City which has sprouted lots of new apartments. Lack of parks and schools are a real problem, at least we have good train service though.

panick21_ 3y ago
I mean is just unbearable. To actually to not have a city with 80+% of single family zoning. Just insane, how can they survive having 2 family live on a plot of land. Single family homes are literally the least efficient use of space. They are the reason there isn't enough space for parks in the first place. I agree that you might more schools, but given how much lower the birthrate is, the existing facilities are likely ok.
- rr808 3y ago
  I think you dont get my point. I lived in London for a decade. There are lots of small units but always parks in the area. Here now the apartments are bigger and more spacious but there are very few small parks. In my area population is up 4x and they built one small extension to the school.
xvedejas 3y ago
My colleague lives in a European city which has undergone a building boom, and it was surprising to me how density doesn't just mean more people per area, but also more area per person. A very spacious apartment is much more affordable there than in any major US city, and more people therefore get more space to themselves. It's kind of amazing how much more livable that arrangement is.
- astrange 3y ago
  Spacious apartments aren't nearly as possible in the US because of various deficiencies in our building codes, one major one being that single stair buildings aren't allowed, which means apartment buildings have to be built like hotels.

rhaps0dy 3y ago

Down in the article is what Berkeley residents should do to get this passed: > No council meeting has been scheduled yet but Berkeley residents should email the city council at council@cityofberkeley.info with the title “Support Missing Middle Housing.” Request that the city council should pass the Planning Commission’s proposal “as is.” Feel free to discuss your own housing woes as reasons for why it should be passed. These letters will be filed by staff into the future item and can make or break Missing Middle housing in Berkeley.

givemeethekeys 3y ago
Yeah, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Not until a majority of Berkeley residents are politically active renters.
- crotchfire 3y ago
  And remember, international students can't vote. That includes a lot of the grad students.
  - RuggedPineapple 3y ago
    Are you sure about that? Only federal offices have a baked in requirement that voters be citizens. On the municipal level many west coast cities have opened up local elections to all residents regardless of citizenship. I don't know about Berkeley specifically (its been close to 20 years since I went to school there) but its neighbors Oakland[1] and SF[2] both have opened at least some local elections to non-citizen residents. Like I said, I don't know the answer and while I made a token effort to check, Berkeley city code actually seems somewhat difficult to find from a first party source. Just want to make sure this wasn't an off the cuff remark. [1]: https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Noncitizen_Residents_Voting_Measure_(November_2022) https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Nonc... [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citizen_Voting_in_School_Board_Elections_Amendment,_Proposition_N_(November_2016) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citiz...

amluto 3y ago

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

ravetcofx 3y ago
This will prevent developers from keeping old poor habits around of bad land use
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  If there is concern about underutilizing land, pass a land value tax and the market will figure out what's the best way to improve the value of the property itself beyond the windfall from the unimproved land going up in value due to surrounding economic activity. When it comes to housing the US seems to suffer some kind of disability that makes it impossible to not be tempted to steer towards a planned economy.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Let the people with the most money decide?
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      That's not how markets work
      - Negitivefrags 3y ago
        Isn't that exactly how markets work? Isn't that exactly the whole point of capitalism? If people with money want strawberries, they buy more strawberries. Price of strawberries goes up. Farmers who could choose to grow strawberries or some other thing decide that they want to grow strawberries because the price is high. More strawberries are grown. The people who have the money to buy the strawberries indirectly caused more strawberries to be created. So yeah, the people with the money decide what gets created. This is a good thing.

low_tech_punk 3y ago

If only BSD applies to the re-distribution of land as well as software.

nine_k 3y ago
Any warranties disclaimed? Any liabilities waived? No guarantee of fitness and merchantability? Maybe you you'd be interesting in buying a bridge which I'd gladly sell to you?

aorloff 3y ago

Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy. We are capable of great things here in Berkeley, primarily in comedy, jazz, and food. I wouldn't expect much out of our local government.

babyshake 3y ago
Can you speak more to the comedy and jazz in Berkeley and where to find it? Also feel free to suggest any food spots, especially ones that aren't as obvious as Viks, Cheeseboard, Chez Panisse, etc.
- mcbishop 3y ago
  Wat Mongkolratanaram A Thai temple that serves Sunday brunch in their courtyard. https://m.yelp.com/biz/wat-mongkolratanaram-berkeley https://m.yelp.com/biz/wat-mongkolratanaram-berkeley
- e-_pusher 3y ago
  It is not in Berkeley, but Yoshi’s in Oakland is a great Jazz club.
- astrange 3y ago
  There's the poutine place.
- aorloff 3y ago
  Some of the baddest cats out there in 10 years show up here https://www.bhsjazz.org/events https://www.bhsjazz.org/events

josuepeq 3y ago

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easier to navigate by car. People who have the means to drive, will mostly drive when factoring decisions like this: Today I went from Church/Market to Chestnut/Fillmore in the Marina on public transit, which took me about 40 minutes. If I was going to drive my car, 15 minutes. In Berkeley, there are also buses that traverse every major street, BART cutting through downtown and then over to North Berkeley, but it is significantly more difficult to get everything done without a car - food deserts abound, and the main retail and entertainment areas are also lopsided on the east side of town, with the other being 4th street, which is more like a destination retail area - CB2, Apple. Without a 1:1 ratio of parking, we gain an abundance of traffic congestion in people circling blocks to find a parking spot on the street. If parking is available for rent in less than a 1:1 ratio, the affluent - with the deeded parking space in their market rate apartments - usually end up with the few parking spots in a development, on the idea that they can afford to pay premiums for it. Below Market Rate units usually only have a few spots available for multiple residents to pay for at full price. Parking imbalances give credence to the idea that cars are exclusive, everyone else should take the bus. Its not easy to force people to give up their cars.

chottocharaii 3y ago
Okay so if that’s the case the developers/owners will work out the most economic model; whether it’s best to satisfy demand with bays or without bays This is self-correcting. Minimums only ensure an inappropriate amount of parking will be built
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I agree that parking minimums can cause inappropriate amounts of parking to be built. It seems obvious to me that parking maximums can do the same thing.
- 3y ago

anovikov 3y ago

This is all because redlining was prohibited...

thelastgallon 3y ago

This is a welcome change! A few cities have started removing parking minimums. https://www.kvue.com/amp/article/money/economy/boomtown-2040/austin-eliminates-parking-mandates/269-438ecefb-1f61-41e1-8d83-42fa33ec6a86 https://www.kvue.com/amp/article/money/economy/boomtown-2040... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38855427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38855427

thelastgallon 3y ago

The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-z...

getpost 3y ago

Good luck building apartments in active mudslide areas. Berkeley residents will be lucky not to lose the single family dwellings that are already built. Slide hazards will only get worse with ongoing climate change. See the map at the following link! https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/20/risk-of-major-landslides-in-berkeley-hills-is-growing https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/20/risk-of-major-landsl...