Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Mpdu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects narrow moratorium on MPDU density bonuses near College Parkway
Summary
Councilmember Fiedler's proposed, geographically limited moratorium on MPDU density bonuses around the College Parkway/Route 2 corridor failed after a long public hearing that split residents and housing advocates. The measure lost on a 3‑4 vote.
Councilmember Amanda Fiedler proposed Bill 5‑26 on Feb. 2 to impose a temporary, geographically limited moratorium on the application of MPDU density bonuses and MPDU requirements in a corridor around College Parkway and Ritchie (Route 2), pending traffic and infrastructure performance targets or completion of major Bay Bridge projects.
Supporters of the moratorium — local residents, community councils and some neighborhood associations — said the College Parkway/Route 2 corridor already suffers severe congestion, has school‑capacity and emergency response concerns, and contains environmentally sensitive watersheds. “Traffic congestions worsens daily,” Scott McLeod told the council, urging a pause until transport and school impacts are addressed.
Opponents including housing advocates, affordable‑housing groups and education union representatives warned that the moratorium would undermine the county’s recently adopted Housing Attainability Act and the new MPDU program. “A moratorium on affordable units does not preserve community character. It preserves exclusivity,” said Will Johnson, a teacher who testified against the bill.
Administration staff opposed a geographically limited moratorium and said housing policy should be addressed countywide. After hours of public testimony and two sponsor amendments that would have narrowed the radius and clarified application, the council voted 3‑4 and Bill 5‑26 failed.
Outcome and next steps: Bill 5‑26 was defeated (3‑4). Supporters said the vote reflected concerns about failing intersections and the need for additional traffic planning; opponents said the county should prioritize housing supply and use other tools to address traffic and infrastructure.
What the record shows: Extensive public testimony—both for and against—emphasized the tradeoffs between local traffic/safety concerns and countywide housing goals. Several council members said the County must address infrastructure and school capacity while also pursuing housing options.
