March 25th, 2024

Mayor Jesse Arreguín and City Council 2180 Milvia Street,
Berkeley, California 94704

Dear Mayor and Council,

We are writing in strong support of Berkeley’s intent to reform housing regulations to promote “missing middle” housing, both in terms of zoning reform and reducing other restrictions on housing construction. We urge Council to pass a missing-middle housing package that will result in as many new homes being built as possible, while protecting rent stabilized units, as well as passing thoughtful easing of demolition permits so that a substantial number of parcels would be eligible for redevelopment.

Berkeley has a laudable goal of replacing single-family zoning with missing-middle zoning throughout the city. At the Berkeley Planning Commission meeting on 2/7/2024, Planning Commission voted to recommend to Council a package of housing regulations to replace single-family zoning with multi-family zoning across the city, that would allow for the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and more, in most of the city’s residential neighborhoods.

The Sierra Club prioritizes protecting the environment and preserving open space. We see urban policy and open-space policy as intimately connected. Our national policy in support of urban infill identifies it as “a key strategy for minimizing sprawl and vehicle miles traveled by reducing the need for people to drive”. As stated in our Urban Infill Policy Report:

Furthermore, our policy specifically stresses the importance of ‘missing middle’ housing in areas previously zoned for exclusionary single family housing:

This national policy guidance underlies our previous support for the Berkeley City Council’s resolution on February 23, 2021 to end exclusionary zoning, and Council’s direction for City staff and commissions to further enable the creation of missing middle housing in Berkeley, especially in previously exclusionary-zoned single-family-housing areas.

For missing middle housing to become a reality, Berkeley must address questions of demolition. Urban infill often involves the demolition of existing structures; and urban infill in previously exclusionary zoned areas will very often involve the demolition of single family homes. We understand that the Council will consider measures to regulate and enable such demolition. The Sierra Club’s Urban Infill policy offers two relevant pieces of guidance:

With this in mind we would offer the following perspectives:
● In the context of Berkeley’s current rent control laws, “affordable housing” and “affordable units'' should be taken to refer to rent-controlled units – ie, units in multi-family housing (excepting ‘golden duplexes’) built before 1980 – plus other rent-restricted units such as deeded affordable housing and building-wide Section 8 structures. Any demolition of this “reliably affordable housing’’ must be treated with great care and, as our policy indicates, should only be demolished if they will be replaced with equivalently restricted units.
● However, we also understand that there is a proposal likely for the November ballot that would also expand rent control protections to ‘golden duplexes’.
● Single family homes should never be considered “reliably affordable housing”, given the restrictions of Costa-Hawkins legislation. Even temporarily low rents may be changed at any time by landlords, so single family homes cannot be considered a reliable source of affordable housing.
● In the Bay Area, the greatest driver of gentrification and displacement is the restrictions on home construction in higher-income areas that drive higher-income households to move to lower-income areas, increasing housing costs in those communities. As a result, with our policy focus on ‘prevent[ing] the gentrification of communities’, we strongly endorse significantly increasing housing construction and supply in high income areas, such as the majority of the single family zoned areas in Berkeley.
● Given the need for both the creation of climate-friendly urban infill housing and the protection of existing reliably affordable housing, we encourage Berkeley to ensure that any barriers to urban infill home construction from proposed demolition restrictions are justified by substantial benefits in preserving reliably affordable housing.

We hope this offers some perspective for Berkeley’s consideration of ‘missing middle housing’ reform and the associated demolition policies. We look forward to seeing the actual measures and details and will comment further when those are available. In general, we are pleased to see missing middle housing moving forward in Berkeley, and we hope Berkeley will meet the moment by putting forward a bold policy that results in substantial progress towards addressing the housing crisis.

Respectfully,
Maxwell Davis, Chair
Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group