Middle Housing FAQ

A: Work on the concept of “missing” middle housing began in 2019 when then-Councilmember Lori Droste requested that our City Planning Department study the idea. Mid-sized apartments like triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts are sometimes referred to as “missing,” because they are no longer permitted by our zoning code. However, these housing types—built before our zoning code became more restrictive—blend into the fabric of our neighborhoods, providing “naturally occurring” affordable housing when compared to single-family homes because they tend to be smaller in size. The Planning Department initiated community input related to developing middle housing development standards beginning in 2021 as part of our City’s Housing Element Plan and more than 40 community meetings, events, and briefings have taken place since then. You can find the full list of events beginning on p. 203 of the Council item. You can also review materials associated with a number of these meetings on the City’s Middle Housing Zoning Changes webpage.  

A: To ensure new middle housing blends in with our existing residential neighborhoods, the proposed ordinance includes the following key features:

• The maximum building envelope can be no more than three stories tall, as is fairly common in our residential neighborhoods. 
• To promote sunlight, middle housing is required to step down from three stories to two stories within 15 feet of the rear property line. Developments would also be required to have a combined total of a 20-foot setback in the front and rear (with a minimum of at least five feet in front and in back), four-foot side setbacks, and at least 40 percent of the lot maintained as open space. If a parcel is too small to accommodate these standards, then it would not be eligible for a middle housing development with streamlined review.
• To give neighbors greater certainty about what to expect from a middle housing development, the Council reintroduced the concept of a maximum number of units (previously removed by the Planning Commission), which can range depending on the size of the lot and the residential zone (i.e., R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, or MU-R). The current proposal would allow a maximum of 5-7 units, depending on the residential zone, on a typical 5,000-square-foot lot. A lot of a smaller size would be limited to fewer homes.
• To promote homeownership, I introduced a Council item in January that requests that our Planning Department make it easier to subdivide parcels that use the Middle Housing Ordinance. This means that a homeowner could, for example, choose to subdivide a large backyard into two separate parcels to create two backyard cottages as ownership units. This flexibility would enable entry-level homeownership opportunities for middle-class families that are out of reach today. 

Here are two examples of middle housing that already exists in Berkeley:

A: Middle housing will be more affordable by design compared to single-family homes because the units are more likely to be smaller in size than the typical single-family home. Moreover, middle housing developments will be required to pay an “inclusionary fee” into our Affordable Housing Trust Fund to help create deed-restricted below-market-rate affordable units elsewhere. I have read some e-mails suggesting that a middle housing development could take advantage of the state density bonus by creating a below-market-rate unit(s) on site; however, this is not financially feasible. Our City Planning staff are not aware of any mid-sized project—similar to the kind contemplated by this ordinance, which are allowed in some parts of our City—utilizing a state density bonus. Our City staff have also conducted developer interviews in which they learned that the cost and administrative requirements of maintaining a below-market-rate unit(s) in a mid-sized project would be financially infeasible.

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that developments that exceed three stories must rely on the California Building Code (rather than the California Residential Code), which applies stricter and more expensive building standards that make a density bonus project even less likely. Any reference to the possibility of a middle housing project using a density bonus is simply not a fact-based argument, and individuals making this argument have never presented any financial data to back up their claims.   

A: Existing city policies have strict rules about providing tenants with relocation expenses and the offer of a replacement unit at a similar rent level in the event that their unit is demolished. These rules would continue to be in effect, and any demolitions that would affect existing rental housing units would not be entitled to streamlined review. Therefore, the proposed Middle Housing Ordinance would not in any way increase the risk of displacing sitting tenants from Berkeley or remove existing tenant protections. Middle housing offers opportunities for incremental change, similar to the way in which certain households are creating an accessory dwelling unit (i.e., backyard cottage) to fill a family need.

All residential parcels have the ability to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), but only about 100 ADU permits are issued annually in our City. Rather than a sudden transformation, the Middle Housing Ordinance will lay the groundwork for a “trickle of projects” over time, as our Planning Director Jordan Klein described during a City Council meeting on middle housing last July. The City’s Environmental Impact Report estimated no more than 1,745 units over eight years (or, a little more than 200 units per year). The actual number of projects per year are likely to be less. A recent study commissioned by the City found that only ownership middle housing was financially feasible at this time, such as small-lot single-family homes created by subdividing a larger parcel or a fourplex condo/townhomes.