A surprisingly progressive proposal coming from Berkeley, but of course they are still playing games with parking minimums maximums, setback requirements, and income segregation. Seems like it would be a step forward at least.
My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is great. Except they left a parking minimum of 1 per unit, setback requirements, lot coverage maximums, and height restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build additional units that are fit for habitation. A policy that looks great at a glance is awful in practice. I looked into adding a rental unit in my backyard with an architect. The limits resulted in something that would have to be under 400 sq ft / 37 sq m and would be awful to live in.
To their credit the city is now looking at moving to 4 units per lot by right and as part of that process is considering fixing some of the gaps they left the last time, but it illustrates the need to look at zoning codes very closely to make sure the intended development is actually allowed (or question if the gaps are being left on purpose).
That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform
Seems like magical thinking.
In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well.
The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.
Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good.
In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right.
https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...
There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).
I'd assume that between setbacks, parking minimums, height limits, and floor-area-ratio requirements, they're going to end up changing basically nothing.
> All density limits for the R-1, R-2 and R-1A zones have been removed. Any number of homes can be built, provided the building does not exceed 3 stories, with a 4 foot side or rear setback and 15-20 foot front yards. In practice, this will allow about 6 to 10 homes on most city parcels.
> Allow 60% of a parcel to be developed, up from the 30 - 45% standard. No floor area ratio requirements.
> No parking is required per the city’s climate change anti-driving policy.
The article also mentions that under the status quo most of these parcels can only see 1-2 homes.