Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Berkeley council to pull proposed citywide local density bonus, saying it risks shifting affordable housing off-site
Summary
Dozens of residents and local groups urged the council to move the proposed citywide local density bonus off the consent calendar for fuller review, arguing the plan lets developers avoid on-site affordable units in wealthy neighborhoods and diverts affordability to lower-resource areas.
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comment on April 14, multiple residents and community groups urged the Berkeley City Council to remove a referral on a citywide local density bonus for condominiums (item 13) from the consent calendar and place it on the action calendar for fuller review.
Speakers including neighborhood residents, housing advocates and community organizations said the proposed local density bonus would allow developers to avoid building on-site affordable units by paying fees, deepen segregation by moving affordability into lower-resource neighborhoods, and leave unspecified time frames and accountability for when fee revenue would be deployed. Resident Michael Aptey said the plan would institutionalize an affordable-housing delivery failure because it lacks a binding timeline or minimum funding commitment for deploying collected fees.
Others, including representatives of the Downtown Berkeley Association, supported the referral as a way to encourage condominium ownership downtown and diversify housing types. Councilmembers noted the item is a referral; several thanked the public for input and said staff will return with more details. The clerk recorded the consent calendar adopted at the meeting; the referral will come back to the council for detailed review per the referral process.
Council members acknowledged the public’s concerns and emphasized the referral’s goal is to have staff return with detailed recommendations rather than to adopt final policy at this meeting. Public commenters pressed for the item to be moved to the action calendar for additional public input; some urged safeguards including specific destinations for fees, binding timelines, and penalties if fees are collected but units are not built.
