Berkeley City Council
March 15, 2022

Tuesday, March 15, 2022 WORKSESSION AGENDA Page 1

PROCLAMATION

CALLING A SPECIAL ME ETING OF THE

BERKELEY CITY COUNCI L
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Tuesday, March 15, 2022
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE
PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID MODEL WITH BOTH IN-PERSON

AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
This meeting of th e City Council will be conducted i n a “hybrid” model with both in-person attendance and virtual participation. T his m eeting i s a t est of t he t echnology nee ds a nd meeti ng management processes f or hybrid meetings. All other meetings will continue to be conducted exclusively through teleconference an d Zoom videoconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency.

Proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination or verified negative COVID-19 test is required for in-person attendance.

In-person attendees are required to wear a mask that covers their nose and mouth for the duration of the meeting.

If you are feeling sick, please do not attend in-person.

Live audio is available on KPFB Radio 89.3. Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this URL https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87248793756. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 872 4879 3756. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

To submit a writt en communication for th e City Council’s consideration and inclusi on in the public record, email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.
1 Tuesday, March 15, 2022 WORKSESSION AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Worksession

1. Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400 Public Comment - Items on this agenda only
Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 10th of March 2022.

Jesse A
rreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Date: March 10, 2022
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E), no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed and served on the City more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33), via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx

and KPFB Radio 89.3.

Archived indexed video streams are available at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

2 Tuesday, March 15, 2022 WORKSESSION AGENDA Page 3
Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be posted on the City's website at http://www.cityofberkeley.info .

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet.

3 4
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Housing Element Update and Residential Objective Standards

SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley’s Housing Element Update for the Statewide “6th Cycle” is underway alongside its counterpart project, Multi-Unit Residential Objective Standards (“Objective Standards”). This report follows up on the December 9, 2021 Council worksession on the Housing Element and provides an update on progress to date. The purpose of this report and worksession is to:

1. Share the feedback from recent public engagement efforts.

2. Present the preliminary sites inventory and describe the environmental review process.

3. Present on the analysis and draft development standards for two- to four-unit projects in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R Districts outside of the Hillside Overlay.

4. Describe the preliminary methodology for analyzing and drafting development standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects.

5. Receive direction from the City Council on Housing Element policy, zoning standards for missing middle housing, and development criteria for residential projects with five or more units.

CURRENT SITATUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Outreach Feedback
At the time this report was written, the Housing Element team had made presentations to 13 Berkeley boards, commissions, and committees1, conducted 18 stakeholder 1 Planning Commission (9/1/2021); Homeless Services Panel of Experts (9/1/2021); Commission on Disability (9/1/2021); Landmarks Preservation Commission (9/2/2021); Zoning Adjustments Board (9/9/2021); Commission on Aging (9/15/2021); Energy Commission (9/22/2021); Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission (9/27/2021);

5 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

interviews, met with Housing Commission representatives from the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), held two public workshops with more than 60 participants each, and released two citywide online surveys.

Since the December Council Housing Element work session, the project team held a public workshop, completed a citywide online survey and held two concurrent meetings of the Planning Commission and Zoning Adjustments Board subcommittees. The following are key takeaways from these outreach efforts:

1. Public Workshop. The second public workshop occurred over Zoom on January 27, 2022. The goal for the workshop was to share insights from community engagement efforts, update the Berkeley community on Housing Element sites inventory methodology, introduce the Residential Objective Standards project, and receive input on zoning standards to facilitate housing production.

An invitation and registration link for the public workshop was sent to over 340 subscribers of the Housing Element email list and attended by approximately 60 participants, comparable to the first public workshop in September 2021.

During the second public workshop, several key themes were reiterated:
a. Locations to facilitate housing production. Participants identified both higher density neighborhoods (Downtown, Southside) and lower density neighborhoods (West, North, and South Berkeley) as locations to consider for increasing housing capacity through added height and/or density.

Several comments highlighted the desire to avoid clustering affordable housing primarily along high traffic corridors.
b. Housing criteria. Proximity to community resources, including grocery stores and retail, are important criteria. Several participants commented on the need for active ground floor uses and more mixed-uses to further foster a walkable environment.
c. Multi-Unit 2-4. Participants generally supported the concept of increasing allowable density in low-density residential districts, particularly if constructed with objective standards to maintain appropriate neighborhood scale and adequate planting, landscaping, and open space. d. Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed Use. Participants shared support for encouraging innovative and creative design, as well as incentivizing community and shared open spaces, particularly for multi-family projects. Several commenters expressed that developments should minimize solar impacts on adjacent residential units.

Housing Advisory Commission (9/30/2021); Rent Stabilization Board (11/18/2021); Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Subcommittees (12/15/2021 and 2/16/2022); Civic Arts Commission (1/19/2022); City/UC/Student Relations Committee (1/28/2022).

6 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

2. Downtown and West Berkeley Tour and Online Survey. Two residential walking tours and online surveys were made available from November 24, 2021 through January 31, 2022. The goal of the tours was to inform and get feedback from community members on the diversity of housing types and building sizes in the City and to understand what makes residential development compatible with neighborhood scale.

The walking tours and surveys were advertised at the December 9, 2021 Council work session, on the flyer for the January Housing Element workshop, and emailed to more than 330 subscribers of the Housing Element email list in November, early January, and late January. They were also announced at the December and January Planning Commission meetings, at December subcommittee meetings of the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Planning Commission and the January 4x6 meeting.
a. The Downtown Walking Tour received a total of 23 survey responses and included 11 tour stops, primarily mixed-use residential projects with five or more units in addition to two smaller residential-only developments. The most common features that participants found to be compatible were building height, massing, and design features such as building articulation, color and materials, and windows. Features that would establish more compatibility included additional landscaping, planting, architectural details, and vehicular access and loading.
b. The West Berkeley walking tour received a total of 26 survey responses and included 12 tour stops, with a range of “missing middle” housing types including multiple detached units on one lot, cottage court housing, and mixed-use projects. The most common features that survey participants found compatible were placement of structures (setbacks and location on lot), heights, and overall building shape, size, and form. The features that would create more compatibility included building and parking orientation, and additional landscaping and planting.

3. Subcommittee meetings of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board. These concurrent meetings occurred over Zoom on December 15, 2021 and February 16, 2022. The goal for the meetings was to introduce the Objective Standards project, discuss an analysis of Berkeley’s development standards for two- to four-unit residential projects and receive targeted feedback on a number of key issues. Analysis involved development of two to four-unit housing prototypes and an assessment of project feasibility based on current development standards. Over 25 members of the public attended the February meeting – many of whom were design professionals or interested residents – providing feedback on the technical nature of the material.

There was general support for ministerial approval of projects that met objective standards and tiered standards that incentivized density and preservation of

7 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

existing housing stock. Commissioners and the public requested refinements or further research to:
 Create more flexible open space requirements.
 Understand shadow impacts to solar.
 Incentivize smaller units / denser projects which naturally encourage housing that is more affordable.
 Model adjacent and abutting lots for improved neighborhood context.

Preliminary Sites Inventory Capacity and Environmental Review The City is required by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify sufficient sites to accommodate 8,934 residential units to meet the anticipated population growth between 2023 to 2031. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15% to 30% above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for No Net Loss (AB 166)2. Thus, the overall sites inventory must accommodate between approximately 9,750 and 10,500 units. The sites must be zoned to allow for residential uses and the zoning standards must allow for the unit capacities assumed in the sites inventory.

The sites inventory process assessed capacity in three categories:

1. Likely Sites include projects that received their land use entitlement after 2018 but have not received their certificate of occupancy. For these projects, the affordability breakdown reflects actual project plans, including density bonus units. HCD also allows jurisdictions to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the “likely sites” category based on recent development trends and assumed levels of affordability based on ABAG’s Affordability of ADUs report3. The North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations are included under “likely sites” based on current planning efforts. The site inventory estimates 1,200 units to be developed at those sites during the 6th cycle, with 35% affordability split evenly between Very Low- and Low-Income affordability levels. The preliminary assessment of “likely sites” to develop account for over 5,100 units towards our 8,934 RHNA goal, and 33 percent of the lower income allocation.

2. Pipeline Sites include projects that are under review or actively engaging with the City in anticipation of submitting an application for review. Affordability levels reflect proposed project plans to the extent they are known. The preliminary 2 AB 166 requires cities to demonstrate capacity is available for affordable units in the case that development on a specific site results in fewer units (total number and by income category) than assumed in the Housing Element. 3 September 8, 2021. Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. ABAG. http://21elements.com/documents- mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-adu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file

8 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

assessment of “pipeline sites” account for over 2,400 units, and 10 percent of the lower income allocation.

3. Opportunity Sites are not associated with actual development proposals. These parcels are identified as “opportunity sites” or potential sites for future housing development using HCD’s criteria and methodology (outlined below). Berkeley’s zoning districts, with the exception of the C-AC district, do not have maximum density standards expressed in “dwelling units per acre”. As a result, unit assumptions for opportunity sites were calculated using the average mean of the base density from recent entitlement projects within the district (or districts with similar zoning standards if there were no recent projects within the district to analyze). The preliminary assessment of “opportunity sites” account for over 9,000 units distributed across 364 parcels, and accommodates 86 percent of the lower income RHNA goal.

AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low- Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20% affordable units for lower income households on-site. Preliminary analysis shows that this will affect approximately 18 opportunity sites (1,419 units), located along commercial corridors.

HCD’s criteria for selecting opportunity sites includes:
a. Vacant. Land is identified as vacant in the Alameda County Assessor’s land use data.
b. Underutilized. Parcel has an improvement-to-land assessed value ratio of

0.75 or less.
c. Older. Buildings on the parcel are greater than 30 years old for non- residential buildings and greater than 40 years old for residential buildings. d. Jurisdiction. Parcel is not Federal-, State- or county-owned. e. Historic or Landmarked. Parcel does not contain historic buildings or landmarked resources.
f. Existing Residential. Parcel does not contain condos, large apartment buildings, or rent-controlled units.
g. Supermarkets. Unless a developer has expressed interest in a particular site, HCD typically does not accept supermarkets as potential opportunity sites due to their long-term leases and community need.

HCD’s affordability assumptions are based on the premise that affordable units are more likely to be developed on larger sites that allow for higher densities and a greater total number of units. For the purposes of affordability assumptions on opportunity sites, HCD’s methodology combines the “lower income” categories,

9 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Very Low- and Low-Income. The affordability assumptions, based on the State’s guidance, are:
a. Parcel Size. On sites that are less than 0.35 acres, the potential unit capacity is included solely in the moderate and above-moderate categories. On sites that are greater than 0.5 acre, the affordability distribution is then dependent on the resulting density and unit capacity calculations. Note, adjacent parcels under the same ownership are included and consolidated to achieve a minimum 0.5 acre threshold. b. Density. The potential unit capacity from opportunity sites where the assumed density is less than 75 units per acre are placed in the Above Moderate-Income category. On sites where the assumed density is greater than or equal to 75 units per acre, the potential units are split among the three affordability categories (Lower-, Moderate-, and Above Moderate-Income) based on the number of units that can be accommodated on the site.
c. Unit Capacity. If a site can accommodate up to 30 units, then the potential capacity is categorized in the Above Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate between 31 and 50 units, the potential capacity is categorized in the Moderate-Income category. If a site can accommodate more than 50 units, the potential units are categorized in the Lower- Income category.

Preliminary analysis of Berkeley’s “Likely Sites”, “Pipeline Sites”, and “Opportunity Sites” using HCD’s methodology yields over 16,500 units and meets RHNA requirements within each income category. This suggests that the City’s existing zoning is adequate to meet HCD requirements for a compliant Housing Element.

Recent development activity, however, suggests current zoning alone does not deliver the level of deed-restricted affordable housing and economic diversity that the City aims to achieve. Density Bonus and inclusionary units have fallen short of providing the overall 20% Very-Low and Low-Income units expressed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance in part because projects typically pay a fee in lieu of providing all or part of the inclusionary requirement.

City Council has provided direction on where and how to encourage additional housing, particularly affordable housing that supports a diversity of income levels and household types (see Attachment 1, Council Housing Referrals). Based on Council’s referrals and resolutions, the City is preparing a programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report

10 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

(DEIR) that will study potential environmental impacts that could result from up-zoning and new policies in the following areas, by traffic analysis zone (TAZ)4:

1. North Berkeley and Ashby BART TOD projects assumed a maximum of 2,400 units in its EIR5 and the Housing Element EIR will match that assumption. The Sites Inventory estimate currently assumes 1,200 units will be permitted during the Housing Element 2023-2031 cycle.

2. R-1 and R-1A districts are anticipated to increase in density based on SB 9 and zoning amendments in response to Council’s referral for missing middle housing6 and resolution to end exclusionary zoning7. The Terner Center’s SB 9 modeling indicates that the City of Berkeley could anticipate approximately 1,100 new market-feasible units through SB 98. Using HCD’s 70th percentile methodology, the EIR assumes 770 additional units distributed throughout the R-1 and R-1A districts for the 2023-2031 period.

3. Southside Zoning Modification Project proposed an expansion of approximately 800 units over existing Southside Plan Area zoning in its July 2020 Initial Study9.

Given past development trends and the limited number of opportunity sites in the Southside, the Housing Element EIR assumes approximately 1,200 units total to accommodate up-zoning in the C-T, R-S and R-SMU districts.

As part of the environmental review process, the Housing Element team will be evaluating foreseeable physical impacts as well as a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation strategies to reduce or avoid potential environmental effects. The alternatives may consider increases in allowed heights and densities or find that higher unit capacities result in greater potential impacts. Ultimately, the EIR must study a realistic development potential for the eight-year period of the Housing Element Update 4 July 2014. Final Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Map. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ModelFinalTAZ_North-1.pdf 5 October 2021. Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station TOD EIR. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/Ashby%20and%20North%20Berkeley%20BART%20Stations%20Zoning%20Project%20DEIR% 20October%202021.pdf
6 April 23, 2019. Missing Middle Housing Report. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04- 23_Supp_2_Reports_Item_32_Rev_Droste_pdf.aspx
7 February 23, 2021. Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley. Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02- 23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx
8 July 21, 2021, Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes? Terner Center. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Terner-Center-SB9-model-jurisdiction- output.xlsx
9 July 2020. Southside Zoning Ordinance Amendments Projects Initial Study. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/Final%20Southside%20Zoning%20Ordinance%20Amendments_Initial%20Study.pdf

11 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

to avoid overestimating impacts and unduly burdening future development projects with increased mitigation measures.

Rezoning: Two to Four Unit Residential Objective Standards In alignment with the Housing Element Update and EIR, the Objective Standards team is studying modifications to zoning standards for residential development with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts outside of the Hillside Overlay. These standards are intended to implement the Council’s direction to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow for multifamily “missing middle” housing in Berkeley’s lower-density residential districts.

To inform the development of these standards, the City a) illustrated and analyzed existing development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts; and b) prepared four prototype models of example two- to four-unit development projects.

These models show a range of configurations for “missing middle” projects in Berkeley and highlight potential conflicts with existing standards (Attachment 2, Illustrated Missing Middle Models).

Key observations from the analysis of existing development standards and prototype feasibility include:

1. Lot Coverage. In R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum lot coverage varies between 35 percent and 50 percent depending on the location of a lot (internal or corner) and the height of the proposed development (one and two stories or three stories). Maximum lot coverage is a limiting standard, particularly for internal lots, and lot coverage standards that vary by number of stories are more complicated to apply.

2. Open Space. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is currently required in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2. A minimum of 300 square feet and 150 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is required in the R-2A and MU-R, respectively. A minimum width and length of 10 foot by 10 foot is required for ground floor open space; a minimum length of six feet is required for above-ground usable open space. Two of the four prototypes studied do not meet minimum usable open space requirements due to side yard driveways and paved on-site parking area.

3. Height and Stories. In R-1, R-2A, R-2, R-2A, the maximum average height is 28 feet and three stories. A maximum average height of 35 feet is achievable with an administrative use permit (AUP) and is commonly granted by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) with few—if any—modifications. For some buildings, it is possible to incorporate four stories into a 35-foot average building height, which would increase total habitable floor area.

4. Setbacks. In the R-1 and R-1A, a four-foot side setback is required for all floors, while setbacks in the R-2 and R-2A vary between the first two floors (four-foot side setback) and the third floor (six-foot side setback) and cannot be reduced

12 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

with an AUP. MU-R has no minimum side setback requirement. The upper floor setbacks add complexity to three-story construction. Three of the four prototypes studied do not meet the increased third-story interior side setback required in the R-2 and R-2A districts.

5. Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Achievable floor areas based on modeling of existing zoning standards demonstrate a range between 4,881 square feet on an internal lot in the R-2A to 7,800 square feet on a corner lot in the MU-R. There is no maximum FAR standard in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts; achievable floor area is limited by other standards such as lot coverage, height, stories, and setbacks. In MU-R, the maximum FAR is 1.5, which is a limiting standard where existing standards otherwise allow for 100% lot coverage, up to 10-foot setbacks, 35-feet height and three stories.

Based on the existing standards and prototype analysis, the Objective Standards team drafted proposed standards and alternative options for residential projects with two to four units in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts outside of the Hillside Overlay (Attachment 3, Draft Proposed Multi-Unit 2-4 Development Standards). Proposed standards would apply only to two- to four-unit projects; single-family dwellings will continue to be subject to existing standards. The standards will be further revised and refined to address ZORP Subcommittees and Council input.

Key proposed zoning modifications for consideration include:

1. Lot Coverage. To promote housing production and allow for a range of project configurations, the draft proposed standards increase allowed lot coverage as the number of units increases.

2. Open Space . To allow for flexibility in the location and configuration of usable open space while maintaining existing minimum dimensions, the draft proposed standards modify the standards to include outdoor area on the ground within front, street side, or rear setback areas and also above ground (e.g. balconies) used for active or passive recreation use.

3. Height and Stories. To incentivize multi-unit housing production, the draft proposed standards allow maximizing height and increasing the maximum to four stories for projects with three or four units.

4. Setbacks. The draft proposed standards include applying a maximum front setback (measured from the front property line) to ensure consistent building placement with adjacent structures, and reducing minimum rear setbacks to be consistent with existing ADU and SB 9 requirements.

5. Step backs. To enhance the feasibility for multi-unit configurations, the proposed draft standards apply a front step back (measured from the face of the building wall and not the property line) and removes all other upper-story setback and step back requirements.

13 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

6. Floor Area and FAR . The City Council previously directed the City Manager to consider scaling the FAR to increase as the number of units increase on a site.

The proposed draft standards increase height, number of stories, and lot coverage as the number of units on the site increases, which effectively increases achievable floor area as number of units increase without creating a new FAR standard.

7. Preservation. To incentivize preservation of existing housing units, the proposed draft standards consider an option to increase allowable floor area for sites with retained existing habitable space.

8. Permit Requirements. City Council direction calls for allowing two-to four-unit projects in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, MU-R zoning districts. The proposed draft standards would allow two- to four-unit projects with a Zoning Certificate in the R- 1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. Two- to four-unit projects are currently permitted by-right in the R-1 under SB 9. Three- and four-unit projects are currently not permitted in the R-1A zones. Where permitted, two- to four-unit projects all require a Use Permit and a public hearing.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on the proposed zoning modifications and development standards for two- to four-unit projects in low-density residential districts.

Rezoning: Multi-Unit 5+ and Mixed-Use Residential Objective Standards The City is in the preliminary stages of developing objective standards for residential projects with five or more units and mixed-use projects (“multi-unit 5+”). The intent of this effort is to add, remove, or modify objective standards as needed to provide clarity and predictability for streamlined projects (e.g. SB 35), reduce the number of use permits a project requires, and to ensure that such projects are compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

The following is a summary of the overall methodology for developing multi-unit 5+ standards:

1. Analyze Recent Project Approval Findings. Using residential projects entitled since 2016, the Objective Standards team will compare the current Zoning Ordinance requirements to as-built dimensions and analyze the relevant non- detriment findings in the staff reports to inform potential objective standards. The initial list of development standards to review will be based on the standards currently being evaluated for two- to four-unit projects (e.g. coverage, height, setbacks).

2. Identify Trends by Zoning District and Project type. The Objective Standards team will study recent development trends by zoning district and by residential project type (e.g., mixed-use, multifamily, or group living accommodations) to determine where modifying of existing standards is necessary.

14 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

3. Tailoring Draft Standards. Using the findings and trends analysis, the Objective Standards team will develop preliminary draft zoning standards. Draft development standards will recognize the different residential types and scales of multi-unit 5+ projects. For example, a three-story, five-unit residential-only building may require different objective standards from a five-story, 100-unit mixed-use building especially when transitioning between low-density residential neighborhoods and higher density, or mixed-use areas.

Included in this effort is consideration of how new development under revised building envelope standards may impact neighboring rooftop solar access where a Commercial or MU-R district borders a Residential district.

In the initial review of existing development standards for multi-unit 5+, the Objective Standards team has identified key early policy questions that require Council input.

1. Mixed-Use vs. Residential-Only. In all Commercial districts except the C-T, C- DMU, and C-AC, development standards vary between mixed-use residential and residential-only projects, providing significantly greater achievable floor area for mixed-use projects. These regulations were intended to encourage mixed-use development along the City’s commercial corridors; however, this incentive has resulted in unintended ground floor vacancies. This was noted in a 2017 Council referral requesting flexible ground floor uses10 to fill vacancies.

Modifying the development standards along the commercial corridors outside the nodes would provide residential-only projects the benefits afforded to mixed-use residential projects. This change would provide flexibility of uses while continuing to support areas of commercial activity and increasing housing capacity.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on whether residential-only projects on commercial corridors–outside designated nodes—should have the same built envelope and maximum floor area as mixed-use residential projects.

2. Height and Stories. In the C-DMU Core, the ZAB may issue a Use Permit to increase the height to a maximum of 180 feet for three buildings and a maximum of 120 feet for two buildings. To-date, one 180-foot building has been constructed, one 120-foot building has been issued building permits, one 180-foot building has been entitled, and one 180-foot building is awaiting entitlement. The Southside Plan’s preliminary environmental analysis projected up to three 12-story buildings that would include up to 500 units.

To provide clarity and predictability for future potential projects, and increase housing capacity in the limited number of identified opportunity sites in the 10 April 4, 2017. Referral to allow non-commercial ground floor uses. Wengraf et al. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/04_Apr/Documents/2017-04- 04_Item_21_Referral_to_the_Planning_Commission_to_Allow_Non-commercial_Use.aspx

15 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Downtown and Southside areas (approximately 14 parcels in Downtown and nine in Southside), rezoning provides an opportunity to increase maximum heights and/or the number of tall buildings allowed within C-DMU Core and Southside.  Staff requests City Council’s feedback on potentially raising maximum heights and/or uncapping the number of tall buildings in Downtown and the Southside once objective standards and programmatic elements to incentivize affordable units are in place.

Project Timeline and Implications
In order to meet the Housing Element’s statutory deadline of January 31, 2023, the EIR timeline and HCD’s review periods, environmental review for this project has been initiated. Berkeley is on target to meet the statutory deadline for the Housing Element with little or no leeway in the timeline due to a 74-day decrease in timeline imposed by AB 215 which came in to effect on January 1, 2022.

The schedule will remain uncertain until the project nears completion. The project team is working diligently to meet the statutory deadline for a compliant Housing Element, but recognizes that final adoption requires various parties, within and outside the City, to act under very tight timelines. The Housing Element EIR will cover rezoning and Residential Objective Standards; however, adoption of these elements can occur a few months after adoption of the Housing Element without penalty from the State if additional time or review is required.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s 6th cycle RHNA is 8,934 residential units11. The City is not required to build housing, but it is required to identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the anticipated growth over the next eight-year period. If actual housing production is less than the RHNA, eligible affordable housing projects are subject to a streamlined approvals process (SB 35).

Table 1: Berkeley RHNA Allocation, 5th & 6th Cycles
Income Level 2015-2023 RHNA Units 2023-2031 RHNA Units
Very Low (< 50% AMI) 532 2,446
Low (50-80% AMI) 442 1,408
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 584 1,416
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 1,401 3,664
11 December 16, 2021. Final RHNA Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/tools- resources/digital-library/proposed-finalrhnaallocationreport2023-2031pdf

16 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

Total 2,959 8,934

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Housing Element Update is expected to result in greater infill housing development potential near transit and in employment-rich areas. Prioritizing density and affordable housing in these areas will incentivize community members to use alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will bring the City closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency goals.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Based on Council direction, project findings, and stakeholder and public input to date, the Housing Element team will prepare and release a public draft Housing Element Update in early Summer 2022. The general public will have 30 days to review and submit comments, and the City must allocate a minimum of two weeks to address and respond to public comments before submitting a Draft Housing Element to HCD for a 90-day review. After incorporating HCD comments, a final Housing Element Update is anticipated to be submitted to Council in early 2023 for local adoption prior to submittal for State certification.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Housing Elements are subject to regulatory oversight by HCD. If the State does not certify the 6th Cycle Housing Element prior to May 31, 2023, the City faces a number of penalties and consequences. In addition to significant fines of up to $100,000 per month, the City can be sued by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. A court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the City brings its Housing Element into compliance. Failure to comply would also impact Berkeley’s eligibility and competitiveness for federal, state, and regional affordable housing and infrastructure funding sources.

CONTACT PERSON
Grace Wu, Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7484 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division, (510) 981-7489

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Housing Referrals

2. Illustrated Missing Middle Models

3. Draft Proposed Standards for Two- to Four-Unit Residential Development in the R- 1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts.

17 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

18 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

LINKS:

1. December 9, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 2 . Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/City_Council__1 2-09-2021_-_Special_Meeting.aspx

2. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows.

Supplemental Packet 3. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/202 1-11-
09_Item_20_Objective_Standards_Recommendations_for_Density,_Design_and _Shadows.aspx

3. November 9, 2021. Objective Standards for Density, Design, and Shadows.

Supplemental Packet 2. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/202 1-11-09_Supp_2_Reports_Item_20_Supp_Droste_pdf.aspx

4. September 21, 2021. Housing Element Update Work Session 1 . Report from City Manager to Berkeley City Council.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/09_Sep/City_Council__0 9-21-2021_-_Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

5. April 28, 2021. Housing Element Update and Annual Progress Report, Off- Agenda Memo from City Manager to Berkeley City Council. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _General/Housing%20Element%20Update%20042821.pdf

6. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Public Process and Zoning Concepts for 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Droste et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/D ocuments/Initiation%20of%20Public%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concept s%20-%20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf

19 Housing Element Update WORKSESSION
March 15, 2022

7. March 25, 2021, Initiation of Participatory Planning for Berkeley’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Supplemental report to Berkeley City Council, Councilmember Hahn et al.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021 -03-25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx

20 ATTACHMENT 1
Table of City Council Housing Referrals
Date Description
7/12/16 Allow increased development potential in the Telegraph Commercial (C-T) District between Dwight Avenue and Bancroft Avenue and refer to the City Manager development of community benefit requirements with a focus on labor practices and affordable housing. http://records.cityofberkeley.info/Agenda/Documents/DownloadFile/7_12_2016%3b%20CLK%20- %20Report%20(Public)%3b%20DISTRICT%207%3b%20%3b%20REGULAR%3b%20ALLOW%20INCREAS.pdf ?documentType=1&meetingId=192&itemId=2338&publishId=6522&isSection=False&isAttachment= 4/4/17 Create a citywide Use Permit process to allow non-commercial use on the ground floor in appropriate locations, where commercial might otherwise be required. Consider a pilot project in the C-T District. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/04_Apr/Documents/2017-04- 04_Item_21_Referral_to_the_Planning_Commission_to_Allow_Non-commercial_Use.aspx 5/30/17 Develop a pilot Density Bonus program for the C-T District to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/05_May/Documents/05-30_Annotated.aspx 10/31/17 Facilitate student housing by increasing the height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the portions of the R- SMU, R-S and R-3 District which are located within the Southside area west of College Avenue. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/10_Oct/Documents/2017-10- 31_Item_27_City_Manager_and_Planning_Commission_-_Rev.aspx 1/23/2018 More Student Housing Now Resolution
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/01_Jan/Documents/2018-01- 23_Item_30_Adopt_a_More_Student_Housing.aspx
5/1/18 Convert commercial space into residential use within all districts in the Southside located west of College Avenue.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/05_May/Documents/2018-05- 01_Item_25_Referral_to_the_Planning.aspx
11/27/18 Move forward with parts of More Student Housing Now resolution and implementation of SB 1227. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/11_Nov/Documents/Item_26_Supp_Worthington.aspx

21 ATTACHMENT 1
4/23/19 Analyze and report back on possible Zoning Ordinance changes to foster alternative housing types under a “Missing Middle Initiative”
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/04-23_Annotated_Agenda.aspx 3/25/21 Initiate public process and zoning concepts (including ending exclusionary zoning) in the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/Initiation%20of%20Pu blic%20Process%20and%20Zoning%20Concepts%20-%20Mayor%203-25-21.pdf 3/25/21 Initiate participatory planning for Berkeley’s RHNA and Housing Element Update https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021-03- 25_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Supp_Hahn_pdf.aspx
11/9/21 Consider an Affordable Housing Overlay as part of the Housing Element Update to allow increased height and density for 100% affordable projects.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021-11- 09_Item_09_Affordable_Housing_Overlay.aspx
11/9/21 Adopt a Resolution recognizing housing as a human right; refer to the City Manager’s office several measures to begin developing social housing in the City of Berkeley. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021-11- 09_Item_13_Resolution_Recognizing_Housing_as_Human_Right__Referring_to_City_Manager_Sever al_Measures_to_Begin_Developing_Social_Housing_in_the_City_of_Berkeley.aspx 2/25/22 Promote artist housing, including the use of ground floor retail space, as part of the Housing Element Update
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2022/01_Jan/Documents/2022-01- 25_Item_11_Referring_the_Civic_Arts_Commission.aspx

22 City of Berkeley
Missing Middle Illustrations
February 7, 2022
Prepared by:

Ben Noble
Urban Field Studio
Attachment 2

23 2
3Introduction
Part 1: Existing Standards Illustrated 4
4 5
6 6
R-1 Existing Standards
Model 1: R-1 Single Building on Internal Lot
R-1A Existing Standards
Model 2: R-1A Single Building on Corner Lot
R-2 Existing Standards 7
8 9
Model 3: R-2 Two Buildings on an Internal Lot
Model 4: R-2 Two Buildings on Internal Lot
Model 5: R-2 Two Buildings on Corner Lot
10 11
12 13
R-2A Existing Standards
Model 6: R-2A Two Buildings on a Corner Lot
Model 7: R-2A Two Buildings on Internal Lot
MU-R Existing Standards
14 15Model 8: MU-R Four Buildings on Corner Lot
Model 9: MU-R Two Buildings on Internal Lot
16 SB 9 Minimum Standards 17
17Model 10: R-1 Two Buildings with Split Lot (SB 9)
Summary of Part 1 18
Part 2: Missing Middle Models of 2-4 units 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
Prototype 1: New Detached Building behind Existing
Comparison Table for Prototype 1
Prototype 2: Attached Sidecourt
Comparison Table for Prototype 2
Prototype 3: Detached Cluster
Comparison Table for Prototype 3
Prototype 4: Attached Row homes
Comparison Table for Prototype 4
Summary of Part 2
28 Table of Contents

24 3
Introduction
Project Overview
Illustrations of the existing Zoning Ordinance were produced to identify development standards that may require revisions to achieve the goals of the Objective Standards project. Existing zoning standards may require revisions to allow 2-4 units in R1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts. This will be the first of two studies; a subsequent study will feature revisions to allow 5+ units.

The revisions may include allowed land uses, permit requirements, Use Permit findings, and development standards to facilitate the City Council’s referrals for Missing Middle Development1 and to End Exclusionary Zoning2. Areas of subjectivity particularly in relation to standards that can be modified with discretionary permits will be studied separately as well. This report compares the existing standards (Part 1) with prototypes of missing middle housing (Part 2) to illustrate desired forms of 2-4 unit housing and to highlight considerations for amendments of existing development standards.

Part 1: Illustrated Existing Standards
An analysis and comparison of existing development standards and methods of measurement for zoning districts appropriate for 2-4 units were studied. The illustrations do not demonstrate design, but show how a standard lot (measuring 40’ by 130’ and 5,200 sf) can sustain up to four units. In Part 1, the existing developable envelope is shown with a dashed line that illustrates setbacks, lot coverage, open space,
and average building height. Furthermore, the habitable floor area and building envelope are also limited by stepbacks and FAR requirements. The resulting developable volume is illustrated with a blue volume to highlight the maximum allowable building massing allowed by existing standards.

These illustrations visually explain the standards and provide context as we contemplate the scale and size of the units that are already allowed, or could be allowed in zones that allow 2-4 units.

Generally, no parking is required, though parking is shown selectively where space allows. A summary table is provided at the end of the section to summarize the models.

Part 2: Development Feasibility Studies for 2-4 units
Prototypes of missing middle housing were developed to show how 2-4 units reasonably fit on a typical lot to guide discussion and development of the Objective Standards. A comparison is drawn between what existing zoning allows and what is shown in the prototypes to spur discussion about adjustments needed for any of the zoning districts, the compatibility with neighboring buildings, and other aspects of design.

1. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04-23_Item_32_Missing_Middle_Report.aspx

2. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02-23_Item_29_Resolution_to_End_Exclusionary.aspx

25 4
Model 1
Model 1 shows how the existing development standards apply to the typical R-1 lot. The R-1 district allows single-family dwellings, but not two-family or multifamily dwellings except as provided for under SB 9.

R-1 Existing Standards
Part 1: Existing Standards Illustrated

26 5* This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP This first model shows the typical maximum building envelope on a standard R-1 lot for one unit only. This is the prevailing typical single-family housing typology for residential zoning. As shown in this model, lot coverage is a limiting standard in the R-1 district that prevents the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line.

Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
1 1 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’, 35’ w AUP 35’* Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
No minimum Meets standard
Stories 3 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 40% max 40% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,080 sf
Front 20’ min 20’ Total Floor Area
6,000 sf 6,240 sf
Rear 20’ min 20’ FAR Not limited 1.2
Side 4’ min 4’ Density 1 unit per lot 8.4 du/ac
Street Side 4’ min N/A Usable Open Space 400 sf/du Meets standard Building Separation N/A N/A
Model 1: R-1 Single Building on Internal Lot

27 * This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP 6 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
2 2 Lot Area
5,000 sf min
4,500 sf for 2 units
5,200 sf
Average Height 28’, Additions: 14’, 22’ for
rear, 35’ w AUP
35’* Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
2,250 sf min (2
units max)
2,600 sf
Stories 3, 2 for a rear building 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’ Lot Coverage 45% max on corner lot 45% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,336 sf
Front 20’ 20’ Total Floor Area
6,750 sf 7 ,008 sf
Rear 20 min ** 20’ FAR Not limited 1.3
Side 4’ min 4’ Density Max 2 units per lot 16.75 du/ac
Street Side 4’ min N/A Usable Open Space 400 sf/du Meets standard Building Separation 8’ min for 1 story, 12’ for 2
stories, 16’ for 3 stories**
N/A
The R-1A district allows up to two primary dwellings on one lot. Model 2 shows how a single building can be divided into two units. This scenario could apply to the renovation of an existing building dividing either horizontally (floor by floor) or vertically (front from back) or to new construction. As shown in this model, lot coverage is a limiting standard in the R-1A district that prevents the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed lines.

Model 2: R-1A Single Building on Corner Lot

28 7
Model 5 (Corner Lot)
Model 4 (Interior Lot)Model 3 (Interior Lot)
The R-2 district allows single-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings subject to minimum lot size requirements. Model 3, 4, and 5 show the existing development standards for R-2 which allows each to have two units on a 5,200sf lot. Models 3 and 4 show internal R-2 lots and Model 5 shows a corner lot condition.

Model 3 shows how two units are located at the property edges, which is typical construction because it maximizes the open space between units. Model 4 illustrates the minimum separation requirements between two buildings for R-2. Model 5 illustrates the setbacks applicable to a corner lot and minimum separation requirements between units.

R-2 Existing Standards

29 8* This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
2 2 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’, Additions: 14’, 35’ w AUP35’* Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sf 2,600 sf
Stories 3 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 35% for 3 story building on
interior lot
35% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 1,820
Front 20’ min 20’ Total Floor Area Not limited 5,229
Rear 20’ min ** 20’ FAR Not limited 1.0
Side 4’ for first two stories, 6’ for
third story
4’ /6’ Density 3+ units per lot 16.75 du/ac
Street Side 10’ N/A Usable Open Space 400 sf/du Meets standard Building Separation 8’ min for 1st story, 12’ for
2nd story, 16’ for 3rd story**
Meets
standard
Model 3 shows two buildings, a larger one at the street frontage and a smaller one at the back. This could illustrate an existing building with a new additional dwelling unit added behind, or new construction of two buildings. Upper level stepbacks are illustrated which require a two foot stepback at the third floor. This model exceeds minimums for building separation to maximize the open space between both units. In the R-2 district lot coverage and third-story stepbacks are limiting standards that prevent the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line.

Model 3: R-2 Two Buildings on an Internal Lot

30 9* This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP *** SB 478 prohibits a floor area ratio standard of less than 1.0 Model 4 shows the developable volume of two units based on stepback and building separation standards that vary by story. Between Model 2 and 4, the FAR drops from 1.0 to 0.9 because of building separation standards. In this model, building separation as well as lot coverage and third-story stepbacks are limiting standards that prevent the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line.

Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
2 2 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’, Additions: 14’, 35’ w AUP35’ Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sf 2,600 sf
Stories 3 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 35% max for 3 story build-
ing on interior lot
35% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 1,820 sf
Front 20’ min 20’ Total Floor Area Not limited 4,881 sf Rear 20’ min 20’** FAR Not limited*** 0.9
Side 4’ for first two stories, 6’ for
third story
4’ / 6’ Density 3+ units per lot 16.75 du/ac
Street Side 10’ N/A Usable Open Space 400 sf/du Meets standard Building Separation 8’ min for 1st story, 12’ for
2nd story, 16’ for 3rd story**
Meets
standard
Model 4: R-2 Two Buildings on Internal Lot

31 * This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP 10 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
2 max 2 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’, Additions: 14’, 35’ w AUP35’ Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sf min 2,600 sf
Stories 3 max 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 40% max for 3 story building
on corner lot
40% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,080
Front 20’ min 20’ Total Floor Area Not limited 5,884
Rear 20’ min 20’ FAR Not limited 1.1
Side 4’ for first two stories, 6’ for
third story
4’ Density 3+ units per lot 16.75 du/ac
Street Side 10’ min 10’ Usable Open Space 400 sf/du min Meets standard Building Separation 8’ min for 1st story, 12’ for
2nd story, 16’ for 3rd story**
Meets
standard
Model 5 shows two separate units built on a corner lot in the R-2 zone. Setbacks are bigger for a corner lot in comparison to an internal lot. This shows how the building separation increases by story, however the ground floor is shown at 10 feet because this is the resulting distance between two buildings on the lot given the configuration of setbacks and lot coverage. It exceeds the 8-foot building separation at the ground floor. On a corner lot, the street side setback and building separation are limiting standards which further constrains the developable envelope compared to interior lots.

Model 5: R-2 Two Buildings on Corner Lot

32 11
Model 7 (Interior Lot)Model 6 (Corner Lot)
The R-2A district allows single-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings subject to minimum lot size requirements. Model 6 and 7 show the existing development standards for R-2A which allows three units on a 5,200sf lot. Model 6 shows the three units on a corner lot. Model 7 shows the three units on an interior lot.

Corner lots (40%) and interior lots (35%) have different lot coverage requirements for three-story buildings.

Models 6 and 7 illustrate the stepback requirements that vary by story. Model 7 also illustrates the building separation requirements that vary by story.

R-2A Existing Standards

33 * This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP 12 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
3 max 3 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’ max, Additions: 14’, 35’
w AUP
35’* Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
1,650 sf min 1,733 sf
Stories 3 max 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 40% for 3 story building on
corner lot
40% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,080
Front 15’ min 20’ Total Floor Area Not limited 6,212
Rear 15’ min 20’** FAR Not limited 1.2
Side 4’ min for first two stories, 6’
for 3rd story
Meets
standard
Density 3+ units per lot 25.1 du/ac
Street Side 6’ min for 1st story, 8’ for 2nd
story, 10’ for 3rd story
Meets
standard
Usable Open Space 300 sf/du min Meets standard
Building Separation 8’ min for 1st story, 12’ for
2nd story, 16’ for 3rd story**
N/A
Models 6 and 7 compare R-2A conditions with Model 6 on a corner lot and Model 7 for an internal lot. The larger of the two buildings shown in Model 6 is split into two units to make three units total on the lot.

This model shows that lot coverage is a limiting standard that prevents the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line. The developable envelope is also further limited by increased side setbacks for second and third stories.

Model 6: R-2A Two Buildings on a Corner Lot

34 13* This requires an AUP **May be reduced with an AUP *** SB 478 prohibits a floor area ratio standard of less than 1.0 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
3 max 3 Lot Area 5,000 sf min 5,200 sf
Average Height 28’ max, Additions: 14’, 35’
w AUP
35’ Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
1,650 sf min 1,733 sf
Stories 3 max 3 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 35% max for 3-story interior
lot building
35% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 1,820 sf
Front 15’ min 15’ Total Floor Area Not limited 4,881 sf Rear 15’ min 15’** FAR Not limited*** 0.9
Side 4’ min for first two stories, 6’
for 3rd story
Meets
standard
Density 3+ units per lot 25.1 du/ac
Street Side 6’ min for 1st story, 8’ for 2nd
story, 10’ for 3rd story
N/A Usable Open Space 300 sf/du Meets standard
Building Separation 8’ for 1st story, 12’ for 2nd
story, 16’ for 3rd story**
Meets
standard
Model 7 shows two buildings on an internal lot with the bigger one split into two units (on separate levels) to make three units total on the lot. Stepbacks differ from the R-2 Zone. This shows how the building separation varies between 8-16 feet at each story. This model shows that lot coverage is a limiting standard on an interior lot and reduces that possible building volume below what is allowed on a corner lot.

Model 7: R-2A Two Buildings on Internal Lot

35 14
Model 9 (Interior Lot)Model 8 (Corner Lot)
The MU-R district allows single-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings. Model 8 and 9 show the existing development standards for MU-R which allow four units on a 5,200 sf lot with minimal setbacks but a 1.5 FAR maximum. Model 8 shows the four units on a corner lot. Model 9 shows the four units separated into two buildings on an interior lot.

MU-R Existing Standards

36 * This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP 15 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
4 max 4 Lot Area Not limited 5,200 sf
Average Height 35’ max 35’ Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
1,250 sf min 1,300 sf
Stories 3 max 3 Lot Dimension 40’ min width 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 100% max 50% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,600 sf
Front 5’ min 5’ Total Floor Area 7 ,800 sf 7 ,800 sf
Rear No min 0’ FAR 1.5 max 1.5
Side No min 0’ Density 3+ units per lot 33.5 du/ac
Street Side 5’ min 5’ min. Usable Open Space 150 sf per du Meets standard Building Separation No min
Model 8 shows four units as detached single-unit homes on a corner lot. Access to tuck-under parking can be provided along the long side of the lot and patios are associated with each home. The distribution of the building area that 1.5 FAR results in is equal across the lot and not restricted by building separation standards.

As shown in this model, floor area ratio (FAR) is the limiting standard in the MU-R district that prevents the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line.

Model 8: MU-R Four Buildings on Corner Lot

37 * This requires an AUP ** May be reduced with an AUP 16 Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
4 max 4 Lot Area Not limited 5,200 sf
Average Height 35’ max 35’ Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
1,250 sf 1,300 sf
Stories 3 max 3 Lot Dimension 40’ min width 40’ x 130’
Lot Coverage 100% 40% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint Not limited 2,600 sf
Front 5’ min 5’ Total Floor Area 7 ,800 sf 7 ,800 sf
Rear No min 0’ FAR 1.5 max 1.5
Side No min 0’ Density 3+ units per lot 33.5 du/ac
Street Side 5’ min N/A Usable Open Space 150 sf per du Meets standard Building Separation No min 38’ 4”
Model 9 shows two stacked flat duplexes on an internal lot and the maximum FAR of 1.5. Maximum FAR is the limiting standard that prevents the blue building volume from occupying the entire developable envelope shown by the dashed line.

Model 9: MU-R Two Buildings on Internal Lot

38 17* Must be allowed under SB 9
Standards Existing Standard Illustrated
Volume
Assumptions Existing Standard Illustrated Volume
Primary Dwelling
Units
4* 4 Lot Area 1,200 sf min for lot
split*
2,600 sf
Average Height 28’, 35’ w AUP 35’ Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
600 sf min* 1,300 sf
Stories 1 2 Lot Dimension Not limited 40’ x 65’
Lot Coverage 40% max 30% Outputs
Setbacks Total Footprint 1,040 sf max 1,040 sf
Front 20’ min 20’ Total Floor Area Not Limited 2,400 sf Rear 4’ min* 20’ FAR 1 unit per lot 0.9
Side 4’ min 4’ Density Not Limited 33.5 du/ac
Street Side 4’ min N/A Usable Open Space 400 sf/du Meets standard Building Separation Only as required by building
code
Meets
standard
Unit Size 800 sf* 800 sf
SB 10 allows an existing R-1 lot to be split into two lots. This example shows the potential for SB 9 lot split with two units on each resulting lot, sized at 800 sf per unit and stacked on top of each other. It does not illustrate the maximum lot coverage, because this design assumes each unit is a single story. The model shows building stories and coverage less than the R-1 standard due to the minimum 800 square-foot unit size under SB 9.

Model 10: R-1 Two Buildings with Split Lot (SB 9)

39 18
The FAR and densities from all models are provided here to gain a sense of maximum development intensity allowed under existing standards. Theoretically, the resulting development should result in the same maximum floor area with the same development standards, but what the illustrations show is that there is a difference due to whether or not units are attached and whether they are on corner lots or internal lots.

The “limiting factors” column identifies the standards that limit the achievable floor area within the developable envelope defined by height and setback standards.

Summary of Part 1
Units Floor Area FAR Density Limiting Factors
R-1
Model 1: Single Building on Internal Lot 1 6,240 sf 1.2 8.4 du/ac Lot coverage R-1A
Model 2: Single Building on Corner Lot 2 7 ,008 sf 1.3 16.9 du/ac Lot coverage R-2
Model 3: Two Buildings on Internal Lot 2 5,229 sf 1.0 16.9 du/ac Corner lot building separation, upper
story setbacks, and
lot coverage
Model 4: Two Buildings on Internal Lot 2 4,881 sf 0.9 16.9 du/ac Model 5: Two Buildings on Corner Lot 2 5,884 sf 1.1 16.9 du/ac R-2A
Model 6: Two Buildings on a Corner Lot 3 6,212 sf 1.2 25.1 du/ac Corner lot setbacks and lot coverageModel 7: Two Buildings on Internal Lot 3 4,881 sf 0.9 25.1 du/ac MU-R
Model 8: Two Buildings on Internal Lot 4 7 ,800 sf 1.5 33.5 du/ac FAR Model 9: Four Buildings on Corner Lot 4 7 ,800 sf 1.5 33.5 du/ac SB 9
Model 10: Two Buildings with Split Lot
(SB9)
4 2,400 sf 0.9 33.5 du/ac SB 9 allows 800 sf
min per unit
Observations
• Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage is a limiting standard in all R districts. Lot coverage standards on interior lots further reduces building volumes compared to corner lots. Lot coverage standards that vary by number of stories are complicated.
• Height and Stories. For some buildings it may be possible to incorporate four stories into a 35-foot average building height.
• Upper-Floor Side Stepbacks. Setbacks in R-2 and R-2A vary per floor, which provides an odd wedding-cake shape to three story buildings. A uniform side setbacks requirement for all floor would be easier to construct.
• Building Separation. Building separation standards that vary by floor also force odd design and may not be needed or desirable for buildings sharing a single lot. • FAR. In the case of MU-R, FAR is the limiting standard that constrains the building volume from occupying the developable area.

40 19
Part 2: Missing Middle Models of 2-4 units
This exercise references the existing standards illustrated in Part 1, but does not follow them. The intent of providing prototypes of missing middle housing is to explore how lots could be developed based on observation of typical design and precedents in the area and identify where existing standards are in conflict. The prototypes explore a range of possible development configurations. For that reason, some common configurations, such as three or four new detached single-family homes on one lot, were not selected for modeling.

Four prototypes were chosen to demonstrate how lots may densify. The prototypes include:
• Prototype 1: An existing building with a separate new building behind • Prototype 2: Detached cluster of two duplexes
• Prototype 3: Attached sidecourt building
• Prototype 4: Attached row homes

41 20
Prototype 1 shows an existing building split into two units with a new three-story, two unit building built in the backyard. This version shows on-site parking for the rear building. This example is for four units on an interior lot of a block. The context within the neighborhood block is provided below.

Prototype 1:

New Detached Building behind Existing

42 * AUP required
21 Key Takeaways:
• Minimum Lot Area Per Unit. On a typical 5,200 sq. ft. lot, a four-unit project does not meet the minimum lot area per unit requirement in all of the R districts. • Rear Setback. The new building in the rear yard conflicts with the rear setback standard in the R-1 and R-1A district. In the R-2 and R-2A districts the building is allowed in the rear setback with an AUP. • Lot Coverage. In the R-2 and R-2 A districts, the prototype conflicts with the lot coverage standard because it is a three-story building on an interior lot. If it were on a corner lot or two stories or less, the prototype would conform with the lot coverage standard in these districts. • Usable Open Space. This prototype conflicts with the usable open space standard in all R districts. • MU-R District. This prototype conforms with all existing standards in the MU-R district.

Model Info
Complies with Existing Standards?
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Number of Units 4 No No Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area Per Unit 1,300 sf No No No No Yes
Total Footprint 2,100 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Floor Area 5,000 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area 5,200 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Coverage 40% Yes Yes No No Yes
Lot Width 40’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Depth 130’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit ≈ 215 sf No No No No Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Height, Average 27-32’ Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes Stories 2-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Setbacks
Front 20’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rear 5’ No No Yes* Yes* Yes
Side 4’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Street Side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Building Separation 30 ft. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comparison Table for Prototype 1

43 22
Prototype 2 shows a new or remodeled building split into three units with entries in the front, rear and side, on an interior lot of a block. The context within the neighborhood block is provided below.

Prototype 2: Attached Sidecourt

44 * AUP required
23 Comparison Table for Prototype 2
Key Takeaways:
• Rear Setback. The building extending into the rear yard conflicts with the rear setback standard in the R-1 and R-1A district. In the R-2 and R-2A districts the building is allowed in the rear setback with an AUP.
• Lot Coverage. The prototype conflicts with the lot coverage standard in all R districts. • Interior Side Setback. The R-2 and R-2A districts require increased 6-foot interior side setbacks for three-story buildings. This prototype conflicts with this standard. • Lot Area Per Unit. On a typical 5,200 sq. ft. lot, a three-unit prototype does not meet the minimum lot area per unit requirement in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 districts. • MU-R District. This prototype conforms with all existing standards in the MU-R district.

Model Info
Complies with Existing Standards?
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Number of Units 3 No No Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area Per Unit 1,733 sf No No No Yes Yes
Total Footprint 2,160 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Floor Area 6,480 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area 5,200 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Coverage 41% No No No No Yes
Lot Width 40’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Depth 130’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit2 ≈ 400 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Height, Average 30’’ Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes
Stories 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Setbacks
Front 20’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rear 20’ No No Yes* Yes* Yes
Side 4’ Yes Yes No No Yes
Street Side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Building Separation n/a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

45 24
This model shows two new three-story duplexes (two units each). This version shows on-site parking. This example is for four units on an interior lot block, the context is provided below.

Prototype 3: Detached Cluster

46 * AUP required
25 Comparison Table for Prototype 3
Model Info
Complies with Existing Standards?
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Number of Units 4 No No Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area Per Unit 1,300 sf No No No No Yes
Total Footprint 1,820 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Floor Area 3,640 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area 5,200 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Coverage 35% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Width 40’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Depth 130’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit ≈ 330 sf No No No Yes Yes Floor Area Ratio 0.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Height, Average 32’ Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes
Stories 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Setbacks
Front 12’ No No No No Yes
Rear 26’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Side 4’ & 10’ Yes Yes No No Yes
Street Side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Building Separation 21’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Key Takeaways:
• Front Setbacks. With a 12-foot front setback, this prototype conflicts with front setback standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts.
• Usable Open Space. With approximately 330 square feet of usable open space, this prototype meets the usable open space standard in the R-2A and MU-R districts but conflicts with the standard in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 districts.
• Interior Side Setback. The R-2 and R-2A districts require increased 6-foot interior side setbacks for three-story buildings. This prototype conflicts with this standard. • Lot Area Per Unit. On a typical 5,200 sq. ft. lot, a four-unit prototype does not meet the minimum lot area per unit requirement in the R districts.
• MU-R District. This prototype conforms with all existing standards in the MU-R district.

47 26
This model shows a new building split into four three-story row homes. This version shows on-site parking.

Prototype 4: Attached Row homes

48 * AUP required
27 Key Takeaways:
• Lot Area Per Unit. On a typical 5,200 square foot lot, this prototype with four units conflicts with the minimum lot area per unit standardin the R districts.
• Interior Side Setback. The R-2 and R-2A districts require increased 6-foot interior side setbacks for three-story buildings. This prototype conflicts with this standard. • MU-R District. This prototype conforms with all existing standards in the MU-R district.

Comparison Table for Prototype 4
Model Info
Complies with Existing Standards?
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Number of Units 4 No No Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area Per Unit 1,300 sf No No No No Yes
Total Footprint 2,130 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Floor Area 6,390 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Area 5,200 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Coverage 40% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Width 40’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lot Depth 130’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit ≈ 490 sf Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Height, Average 32’ Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes
Stories 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Setbacks
Front 20’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rear 20’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Side 4’ Yes Yes No No Yes
Street Side 10’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Separation 0’ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

49 28
The tables show that the following limit the prototypes shown in Part 2:
• Lot area per unit
• Lot coverage
• Front setbacks
• Rear setbacks
• Side setbacks
• Usable open space per dwelling unit
The City may wish to consider the following changes to existing standards to accommodate 2-4 unit development in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MUR districts:
• Simplify “wedding cake” upper story side setbacks and building separation requirements. Requiring a singular 4’ side setback and eliminating building separation requirements would allow projects to be more easily constructed.
• Simplify lot coverage regulations by applying a single standard for each zoning district that does not vary by number of stories. Also, consider increasing allowed lot coverage as the number of units increase (max 50%) to incentivize housing producing and accommodate a broader range of development types.
• Reduce rear setbacks to 4 feet setbacks to allow for more capacity on site.

Summary of Part 2

50 Attachment 3
From ZORP Subcommittee, February 16, 2022

DRAFT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH TWO TO FOUR UNITS IN THE R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, AND MU-R ZONING DISTRICTS
This document presents draft standards for residential projects with two to four units in the R- 1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R zoning districts. These standards are intended to implement the City Council’s direction to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow for small-scale multifamily development in Berkeley’s lower-density residential districts.

These draft standards also reflect Senate Bill (SB) 9, which requires all California cities to allow two dwelling units on one parcel in a single-family zone if the development meets certain requirements. SB 9 also requires cities to allow an “urban lot split” in a single-family zone, with two units allowed on each of the two newly created parcels (resulting in four units total).

The draft standards in this document are organized into two main sections:
 Allowed Uses and Permits Required
 Development Standards
For certain standards, different options are presented along with staff recommendations. City staff and consultants will request feedback on these options at the ZORP Subcommittee meeting on February 16, 2022.

ALLOWED USES AND PERMITS REQUIRED
City Council direction calls for the City to allow 2-4 unit projects in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, MU-R districts. The options below address permits required for this use.

Option 1: Allow All 2-4 Unit Projects By-right (Recommended) Option 1 would allow 2-4 unit residential development, including new buildings and additions, with a Zoning Certificate in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. The City would approve the development ministerially if it complies with all objective standards – which are being developed as part of this project. No discretionary permit or public hearing would be required.

Table 1 shows proposed changes to the allowed use table for residential districts consistent with this option.

51 2
TABLE 1: PERMITS REQUIRED FOR 2-4 UNIT PROJECTS (OPTION 1) DistrictsZC = Zoning Certificate
UP(PH) = Use Permit required
AUP = Administrative Use Permit required
NP = Not Permitted
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Dwelling Types
Multi-Unit 2-4 Two-Family ZC NP ZC UP(PH) ZC UP(PH) ZC UP(PH) ZC AUP Multi-Family Unit 5+ NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Option 1 reflects the requirement under SB 9 for the City to allow up to four units by-right on a lot in the R-1 district. This option applies this same permit requirement to 2-4 unit projects in the R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. Staff and consultants recommend this option so that permit requirements for 2-4 unit projects are uniform in all of the lower-density residential districts and in the MU-R district.

Option 2: SB 9 Projects By-right; Use Permit for Other 2-4 Unit Projects As shown in Table 2, a second option would allow 2-4 unit projects by-right in the R-1 district as required by SB 9. In all other lower-density residential districts, 2-4 unit projects would continue to require a Use Permit (or AUP in MU-R). This option limits by-right approval of projects to those eligible SB 9 projects in the R-1 district.

TABLE 2: PERMITS REQUIRED FOR 2-4 UNIT PROJECTS (OPTION 2) DistrictsZC = Zoning Certificate
UP(PH) = Use Permit required
AUP = Administrative Use Permit required
NP = Not Permitted
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Dwelling Types
Multi-Unit 2-4 Two-Family ZC NP [1] UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) AUP Multi-Family Unit 5+ NP NP UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
[1] A Zoning Certificate is required for projects qualifying for ministerial approval pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21 and/or Section 66411.7. All other projects require a Use Permit.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 3 shows existing development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts and proposed new standards for 2-4 unit projects in these districts. Proposed standards would apply only to 2-4 unit projects; other types of projects (e.g., single-family dwellings) would continue to be subject to existing standards. An asterisk (*) following a standard signifies alternative options are presented after the table.

52 3
TABLE 3: DRAFT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 2-4 UNIT PROJECTS R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Density, Maximum Existing: No max.

Proposed: 36 du/ac
Existing: No max.

Proposed: 36 du/ac
Existing: No max.

Proposed: 36 du/ac
Existing: No max.

Proposed: 36 du/ac
Existing: No max.

Proposed: 36 du/ac
Lot Area, Minimum
New Lot
Existing: 5,000 sq. ft.

Proposed: 1,200 sq. ft.

Existing: 5,000 sq. ft.

Proposed: 1,200 sq. ft.

Existing: 5,000 sq. ft.

Proposed: 1,200 sq. ft.

Existing: 5,000 sq. ft.

Proposed: 1,200 sq. ft.

Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Per Dwelling Unit
Existing: N/A
Proposed: 600 sq. ft. [2]
Existing: 2,250 [1]
Proposed: 600 sq. ft. [2]
Existing: 2,500 sq. ft. [1]
Proposed: 600 sq. ft. [2]
Existing: 1,650 sq. ft. [1]
Proposed: 600 sq. ft. [2]
Existing: 1,250 sq. ft. [1]
Proposed: 600 sq. ft. [2]
Lot Width, Minimum
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Existing: 40 ft.

Proposed: No min.

Usable Open Space
per Dwelling Unit,
Minimum
Existing: 400 sq. ft.

Proposed: 400 sq. ft*
Existing: 400 sq. ft.

Proposed: 400 sq. ft.*
Existing: 400 sq. ft.

Proposed: 400 sq. ft.*
Existing: 300 sq. ft.

Proposed: 300 sq. ft.*
Existing: 150 sq. ft.

Proposed: 150 sq. ft.

Floor Area Ratio,
Maximum
Existing: No max.

Proposed: No max.*
Existing: No max.

Proposed: No max.*
Existing: No max.

Proposed: No max.*
Existing: No max.

Proposed: No max.*
Existing: 1.5
New: 1.5 for 2 units; 1.7 for
3 units, 1.9 for 4 units*
Main Building Height,
Average
New Buildings
Existing: 28 ft. and 3 stories;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: 28 ft. and 3
stories for 2 units; 35 ft. and
3 stories for 3 or 4 units*
Existing: 28 ft. and 3 stories;
35 ft. w/ AUP; 22 ft. and 2
stories for rear main
building
Proposed: 28 ft. and 3
stories for 2 units; 35 ft. and
3 stories for 3 or 4 units*
Existing: 28 ft. and 3 stories;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: 35 ft. and 3
stories for 2 units; 35 ft. and
4 stories for 3 or 4 units*
Existing: 28 ft. and 3 stories;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: 35 ft. and 3
stories for 2 units; 35 ft. and
4 stories for 3 or 4 units*
Existing: 35 ft. and 3 stories
Proposed: 35 ft. and 3
stories for 2 units; 35 ft. and
4 stories for 3 or 4 units*
Additions
Existing: 14 ft.;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: Same as new
buildings
Existing: 14 ft.;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: Same as new
buildings
Existing: 14 ft.;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: Same as new
buildings
Existing: 14 ft.;
35 ft. w/ AUP
Proposed: Same as new
buildings
Existing: 35 ft. and 3 stories
Proposed: Same as new
buildings
* Other options presented outside of table
[1] Additional unit allowed for remaining lot area per district standards [2] If a lot existing as of [ordinance effective date] is subdivided, no more than 4 units is allowed for all newly created lots combined

53 4
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Lot Line Setbacks
Front, Min. Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 20 ft. [3]*
Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 20 ft. [3]*
Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 20 ft. [3]*
Existing: 15 ft.

Proposed: 15 ft. [3]*
Existing: 5 ft.

Proposed: 5 ft. [3]*
Front, Max. Existing: No max. Proposed: 25 percent more than the average front setback of adjacent homes* Rear, Min. Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 20 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 15 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: No min. [4]
Proposed: No min.

Interior Side, Min. Existing: 4 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 4 ft.; 6 ft. for rear
main building
Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 4 ft.; 6 ft. for third
story
Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 4 ft.; 6 ft. for third
story
Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Street Side, Min. Existing: 4 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 4 ft.; 6 ft. for rear
main building
Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 10 ft.

Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 6/8/10 ft. for 1/2/3
stories
Proposed: 4 ft.*
Existing: 5 ft.

Proposed: No min.

Third Story Step Back, Minimum
Front
Existing: No min.

Proposed: 5 ft.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: 5 ft.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Rear
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Interior Side
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min. [5]
Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min. [5]
Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Street Side
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min. [5]
Proposed: No min.*
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.*
Building Separation,
Minimum
Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Existing: 8-16 ft. [6]
Proposed: No min.

Existing: 8-16 ft. [6]
Proposed: No min.

Existing: 8-16 ft. [6]
Proposed: No min.

Existing: No min.

Proposed: No min.

Lot Coverage,
Maximum
Existing: 40%
Proposed: 40% for 2 units,
45% for 3 units, 50% for 4
units*
Existing: 40-45% [7]
Proposed: 40% for 2 units,
45% for 3 units, 50% for 4
units*
Existing: 35-50% [6][7]
Proposed: 40% for 2 units,
45% for 3 units, 50% for 4
units*
Existing: 35-50% [6][7]
Proposed: 40% for 2 units,
45% for 3 units, 50% for 4
units*
Existing: 100%
Proposed: 100%
* Other options presented outside of table
[3] Or average front setback of adjacent homes, whichever is less. [4] Minimum 5 ft. if rear of lot abuts a street
[5] Increased third-story setback requirement may result in a step back from lower building wall [6] Varies by number of stories
[7] Varies by location of lot (interior or corner)

54 5

1. Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit
A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is currently required in the R-1, R-1A, and R-2. A minimum of 300 square feet and 150 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit is required in the R-2A and MU-R, respectively.

Option 1: Modifying Standards for Usable Open Space (Recommended) To allow for flexibility in the location and configuration of usable open space, this option would modify the standards defined in BMC Section 23.304.090 Usable Open Space to include outdoor area on the ground within front, street side, or rear setback areas and also above ground (e.g. balconies) used for active or passive recreation use. Minimum width and length for ground floor usable open space remains 10 feet and minimum width and length of above ground usable open space remains six feet.

Option 2: Reducing Required Open Space Area
To encourage housing production and reduce constraints to development, this alternative option proposes a decrease in required usable open space area per dwelling unit and maintains the standards defined in BMC Section 23.304.090 Usable Open Space, which limits the area that a balcony can contribute to the required usable open space to 50 percent.

TABLE 4: MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OPTION 2 R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Usable Open
Space per Dwelling
Unit, Minimum
200 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft.

2. Building Height
A maximum average building height of 35 feet is currently allowed with a Use Permit in all lower-density residential districts, and without a Use Permit in the MU-R district. New height standards for 2-4 unit projects are designed to allow for multi-unit projects while considering impacts on and compatibility with surrounding homes.

Option 1: Increased High/Stories with Additional Units (Recommended) To incentivize housing production, this option allows increased height or stories for projects with three or four units (see Table 4). In R-1 and R-1A districts, 28 feet and 3 stories would be allowed for two-unit projects, and 35 feet and 3 stories would be allowed for three or four-unit projects. In the R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts, 35 feet and three stories would be allowed for two-unit projects, and 35 feet and 4 stories would be allowed for three or four-unit projects.

Buildings may also be subject to upper floor step backs as described in Section 3 below.

55 6
TABLE 5: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OPTION 1
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Two Units
Feet 28 ft. 28 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.

Stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories Three or
Four Units
Feet 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.

Stories 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 4 stories 4 stories FIGURE 1: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OPTION 1
Staff and consultants recommend this option to incentivize housing production and maximize the number of units possible on a site consistent with the existing 35-foot height limit.

Option 2: 28 Feet in R-1 and R-1A; 35 Feet in R-2, R-2A, and MU-R As shown in Table 5, this option limits building height to 28 feet and 3 stories in the R-1 and R- 1A districts, which is the current base height allowed without an AUP. Maximum height in the R-2, R-2A, and MU-R district would be 35 feet and 3 stories.

TABLE 6: MAXIMUM ALLOWED MAIN BUILDING HEIGHT OPTION 2
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Feet 28 ft. 28 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.

Stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories R-1 and R-1A (three or four units) R-2, R-2A and MU-R (three or four units)

56 7
FIGURE 2: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OPTION 2

3. Setbacks
The setback options described below consider existing standards and setbacks required under SB 9 and State ADU law. For SB 9 projects, the City may require setbacks of no more than 4 feet from side and rear property lines. State ADU law also requires the City to allow ADUs 4 feet from side and rear property line. The existing Zoning Ordinance also allows, with an AUP, a reduced setback to 0 feet in the R-2 and R-2A and to 12 feet in the R-1A.

Option 1: Minimum and Maximum Front and Side/Rear Matching SB 9/ADU Law (Recommended)
As shown in Table 7, this option allows for a reduced minimum front setback to match the existing front setbacks of adjacent homes and adds a new maximum setback to ensure that building placement is compatible with adjacent structures. For all districts, the maximum setback is 25 percent more than the average front setback of adjacent structures to allow for flexibility by approximately five feet. If the average setback of adjacent homes is 20 feet, this standard would require a new building to be setback no more than 25 feet from front property line. On corner lots, the maximum setback would be measured by the front setback of the adjacent front yard property.

Rear setbacks are reduced to 4 feet for three and four-unit projects. Interior side and street side setbacks match existing. Figure 3 illustrates this option with dimensions shown for the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 districts.

R-1 and R-1A R-2, R-2A and MU-R

57 8
TABLE 7: LOT LINE SETBACKS OPTION 1
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Front
Min. 20 ft. [1] 20 ft. [1] 20 ft. [1] 15 ft. [1] 5 ft. [1] Max. 25 percent more than the average front setback of adjacent homes Rear, Min.

Two Units 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 0 ft.

Three or Four Units 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. No min.

Interior Side, Min. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. No min.

Street Side, Min. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. No min.
[1] Or average front setback of adjacent homes, whichever is less.

FIGURE 3: OPTION 1 SETBACKS FOR R-1, R-1A, AND R-2 (3 AND 4-UNIT PROJECTS) Staff recommends Option 1 setbacks to maximize the number of units on typical lots, to require building placement consistent with surrounding context, and to allow rear setbacks consistent with SB 9 and State ADU law.

58 9
Option 2: Maintain Existing Setbacks Except as Required for SB 9 projects This option maintains existing minimum setbacks with a reduced rear setback only in the R-1 district for qualifying SB 9 projects (see Table 7). Figure 4 illustrates this option with dimensions shown for the R-1 district.

TABLE 8: LOT LINE SETBACKS OPTION 2
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Front
Min. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 5 ft.

Max. No maximum
Rear, Min. 20 ft. [1] 20 ft. [2] 20 ft [2] 15 ft. [2] 0 ft.

Interior Side, Min. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 0 ft.

Street Side, Min. 4 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
[1] 4 feet minimum for qualifying projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21 and/or Section 66411.7. [2] A reduced setback to 0 feet in the R-2 and R-2A and to 12 feet in the R-1A allowed with AUP FIGURE 4: OPTION 2 SETBACKS FOR R-1

59 10

4. Third-Story Step backs
Options for third-story step backs aim to mitigate visual and neighbor impacts from new three or four-story buildings. Step backs are measured from the face of the building, as opposed to set backs, which are measured from the property line.

Option 1: Front third-story step back in R-1 and R-1A Only This option requires a minimum 5-foot third-story front step back in the R-1 and R-1A districts (see Table 8). No other third-story step backs would be required.

TABLE 9: THIRD-STORY STEP BACKS OPTION 1
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Front, minimum 5 ft. 5 ft. No min. No min. No min.

Rear, minimum No min. No min. No min. No min. No min.

Interior Side,
minimum No min. No min. No min. No min. No min.

Street Side,
minimum No min. No min. No min. No min. No min.

FIGURE 5: THIRD-STORY STEP BACKS IN R-1 AND R-1A (OPTION 1) Staff and consultant recommend this option to allow for three and four-unit projects on typical lot conditions. Building volume would also continue to be constrained by other standards, such as maximum lot coverage.

60 11
Option 2: Front/Side/Rear Step Backs in R-1 and R-2; Front Step Backs in R-2, R-2A, MU-R This option requires a 15-foot front, 5-foot rear, and 5-foot interior side step back in the R-1 and R-2 districts (see Table 9). A 5-foot front step back is required in the R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts. On a 5,000 square foot lot with a 40 percent coverage, this option would reduce floor area by approximately 1065 square feet, or about 46.7 percent of the total potential 2,000 square feet.

TABLE 10: THIRD-STORY STEP BACK OPTION 2
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Front, minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft 5 ft.

Rear, minimum 5 ft. 5 ft. No min. No min. No min.

Interior Side,
minimum 5 ft. 5 ft. No min. No min. No min.

Street Side,
minimum No min. No min. No min. No min. No min.

FIGURE 6: THIRD-STORY STEP BACKS IN R-1 AND R-1A (OPTION 2)

5. Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage is a limiting standard in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A districts, particularly for 3- and 4-unit projects. The options below consider changes to existing lot coverage standards to allow for different types of multi-unit projects in these districts.

Option 1: Increased Allowed Lot Coverage with Additional Units (Recommended) As shown in Table 11, this option increases allowed lot coverage in the R districts as the number

61 12
of units increases. The allowed lot coverage in the MU-R district remains unchanged. Staff recommends this option to incentivize housing production.

TABLE 11: MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OPTION 1
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Two Units 40% 40% 45% 45% 100%
Three Units 45% 45% 50% 50% 100%
Four Units 50% 50% 55% 55% 100%
Option 2: Reduced Maximum Lot Coverage for All 2-4 Unit Projects As shown in Table 12, this option increases allowed lot coverage to 50 percent in the R districts for all 2-4 unit projects. The allowed lot coverage in the MU-R district remains unchanged.

TABLE 12: MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OPTION 2
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
Two, Three,
and Four Units 50% 50% 50% 50% 100%

6. Floor Area Ratio
Currently there is no FAR standard for the R-1, R-2, R-2, and R-2A districts and a maximum 1.5 FAR in the MU-R district. The City Council has directed staff to consider scaling the FAR to increase as the number of units increase on a site.

Senate Bill (SB) 478 adopted in 2021 requires a minimum FAR of 1.0 for projects with three to seven units. If a city has no FAR standard, other development standards, such as lot coverage and height, may not preclude an FAR of at least 1.0 for these projects.

Option 1: No New FAR Standard in R District; Scaled FAR in MU-R (Recommended) This option does not establish a maximum FAR in the R districts. Allowed floor area is constrained by maximum building height, lot coverage, and setback standards. In the MU-R district, allowed FAR would increase as the number of units increase on the site.

Staff and consultants recommend this option as other standards in the R districts will be sufficient to control the maximum allowed building envelop. An additional FAR standard is not needed. Staff-recommended standards for height, coverage, and setbacks scale to increase with increased units to address prior City Council direction.

Option 2: Increased FAR for Preservation and Increased Units This option establishes a new FAR standard in the R-1, R-2, R-2, and R-2A districts. Allowed FAR increases when more units are provided on a site and when an existing street-facing building is

62 13
preserved. SEE TABLE 13.

TABLE 13: MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (OPTION 2)
R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A MU-R
2 units
Demolition [1] 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
No demolition 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
3 units
Demolition 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4
No demolition 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7
4 units
Demolition 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6
No demolition 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9
[1] “Demolition” means demolition of existing street facing main building On a 5,200 sq. ft. lot, a 0.8 FAR would allow for two 2,080 square-foot homes (4,160 square feet total). For projects with three or four units, Table 13 shows a maximum FAR of at least 1.0 as required by SB 478. On a typical 5,200 square-foot lot, an FAR of 1.0 would allow for three 1,733 square foot homes.

63 64