The City Council opened the door to high-rise apartment buildings in the Southside neighborhood Tuesday by signing off on new zoning regulations that could allow for thousands more homes at UC Berkeley’s doorstep.
The vote to raise height limits and loosen development requirements was the culmination of years of yes-in-my-backyard advocacy to build more student housing in what is already Berkeley’s densest neighborhood. It’s one of several rezoning decisions the City Council is making in a multi-year push to write new regulations allowing for greater density in a wide swath of neighborhoods.
“We have come such a long way from where the conversation started,” said Southside Councilmember Rigel Robinson, who recalled an earlier version of the rezoning proposal that envisioned adding up to 1,000 new homes. “Now we’re looking at a set of zoning amendments that will allow upwards of 2,500 units to be built right next to campus — this is such a huge deal.”
The new zoning rules set an 85-foot height limit for the north end of Telegraph Avenue and nearby portions of Bancroft Way, Durant Avenue, Channing Way and Haste Street. In effect, that change means a developer who includes a share of affordable units in their project could build a 12-story building thanks to California’s “density bonus” law — and perhaps even taller, Robinson noted, as the state continues to sweeten the legislation’s incentives.
Council members also voted to require developers to pay a prevailing wage to construction workers who build projects in the neighborhood, a move that drew support from local building trades.
For the most part, though, the new rules pare back regulations that could restrain development: They do away with density caps and reduce requirements to set buildings back from the property line or surrounding buildings, allowing for bigger projects. The regulations reduce mandates for projects to include open space while allowing developers to count certain indoor amenities toward the requirement, including gyms, study areas and — to the consternation of critics — pet-washing stations.
Compared to some of Berkeley’s previous debates over high-rise housing development, there was relatively little opposition to the zoning changes. But some argued the loosened regulations went too far.
Councilmember Sophie Hahn introduced a wide-ranging set of additions to the proposed ordinance that would have created several new development requirements. They included a mandate that buildings have “green roofs” to make up for lost open space, and a referral for city staff to study whether existing buildings in the neighborhood deserve landmark protections, which would make it more difficult to demolish structures and replace them with new housing.
Lawmakers in Sacramento have passed a series of laws, driven by California’s housing crisis, that have slashed cities’ authority to reject projects or order changes to them.
And the City Council indicated Tuesday that it’s open to further streamlining the approval process: Robinson put forward a referral asking city staff to consider making housing projects throughout Berkeley eligible for “by-right” approval, with no public hearings, if they meet affordability requirements and pay workers a prevailing wage. Any changes to the approval process would have to come back before the council for a final vote.
Making the case for her changes to the zoning ordinance on Tuesday, Hahn told the council, “In a by-right environment, where there are no opportunities project-by-project to mitigate unintended impacts, I think it’s incumbent on us to be particularly careful — not just about the broad brushstrokes, but also the details.”
Housing advocacy groups opposed Hahn’s ideas, arguing they would add unnecessary costs to new construction that could keep some projects from being built. Supporters of the rezoning effort said allowing more housing in Southside will help address a dire shortage of student housing and mean less competition for homes elsewhere in Berkeley.
“I just have general concerns about new housing always being loaded with new and expensive requirements,” said Councilmember Mark Humbert. “Housing [in and of] itself, especially in this area, is a community benefit.”
The council voted down a motion from Hahn to pass the zoning changes with some of her proposed modifications, with Hahn and Councilmember Kate Harrison in favor and the remaining six councilmembers opposed; Councilmember Susan Wengraf did not attend Tuesday’s meeting. Hahn and Harrison also voted to strip Robinson’s referral to consider expanding by-right approvals from the rezoning package, but were again outvoted.
After those votes, the council approved the rezoning package unanimously.
