Page One

State regulators this week rejected Berkeley’s affordable housing plan, putting the city at risk of losing valuable state housing funds and weakening its ability to regulate new housing developments. 

The plan, also referred to as the housing element, was approved by the City Council and sent for state approval in December. State officials, however, have sent the housing element back for revisions. They claim it limits new development and does not give enough detail about how Berkeley intends to meet its housing quota of 1,269 units by 2007. 

Without a state-certified housing element Berkeley could face difficulties in meeting its housing goals, according to Judy Nevis of the state Department of Housing and Community Development, which rejected the city plan. 

“There are some state programs where a housing element is a requirement or a competitive advantage,” said Nevis, adding that Berkeley could fail to qualify for certain housing grants. For example, the city could be barred from getting state money to pass on to local non-profit developers, she explained. 

The ruling might also leave Berkeley vulnerable to lawsuits, said Alex Amoroso of the Association of Bay Area Governments. Housing developers whose projects are rejected can now sue the city on grounds that, without a valid housing element, Berkeley cannot stop the creation of more housing, he said. 

City planning officials describe the state objections as minor. 

“The state didn’t say our policies were flawed,” said Carol Barrett, city planning director. “They said they have questions about how we address these issues.” 

Tim Stroshane of the city’s housing department said that the state would not punish Berkeley because it had intentions to build affordable housing. Planning officials said that the state’s objections concerned background information provided in the housing element’s appendix, not the city’s actual housing policies. 

One possible conflict involves a Berkeley policy which permits housing developments – in accordance with zoning laws – to be rejected if there are significant community objections. 

This policy contradicts state law which maintains that housing developers have the right to develop property if the development meets all zoning requirements, regardless of neighborhood concerns, Nevis said. She added that Berkeley did not have to necessarily change its policy, but it did need to demonstrate that it isn’t limiting the development of affordable housing. 

Nevis said that state regulators plan to meet with city planners in September to discuss the housing element. 

The housing element was the product of three years of public debate. Any changes to the plan must go through the Planning and Housing Advisory commissions for hearings and to the City Council for approval. 

Contact reporter at matt@berkeleydailyplanet.net