Page One
Residents fueled state’s rejection of housing plan
State regulators, who earlier this month rejected Berkeley’s affordable housing plan – a verdict that could cost the city valuable state funds, received encouragement from an unlikely source: Berkeley residents.
State officials this week released 24 letters and e-mails they received while reviewing the city’s plans. More than half were criticism from Berkeley.
Correspondences of 13 residents and local developer Patrick Kennedy, of Panoramic Interests, offered a wide range of opinions, but they all shared the conclusion that the housing plan should be rejected.
The plan, also called the housing element, sets forth the city’s housing policy. Berkeley was required to draft a new housing element that shows it will have 1,269 units of state-mandated affordable housing in the pipeline by 2007. City Council endorsed the housing element last December. The state rejected it Aug. 1.
Most of the letters focused on a dispute between planning commissioners and city planners regarding the element’s appendix, which gives background on the plan. The critics sided with planning commissioners who said city planners made late revisions to the appendix without going through proper channels.
An e-mail signed by planning commissioners Zelda Bronstein, Gene Poschman and Rob Wrenn cautioned the state that city planners added substantial language to the appendix without City Council approval. After that, the plan no longer complied with the city’s General Plan as state law requires, commissioners said.
Other residents were more forceful with criticism.
“City staff knowingly submitted their own work product to the state of California, knowing that it had not been reviewed elected officials... ,” wrote Berkeley resident Michael Katz. “By doing so, staff members intentionally evaded the public review process required by the state and by our city.”
Only the developer Kennedy argued that the housing element should be rejected because of content, saying that development restrictions in the document were too strict.
Kennedy urged the state to strike down city regulations that allow legally zoned developments to be rejected because of neighborhood objections or to preserve historical structures.
State regulators appeared to side with Kennedy. They rejected Berkeley’s housing element, asking the city to reduce its constraints to development.
State officials would not say whether the letters affected their decision, only that they read and considered all of the letters.
The housing element is scheduled to be reconsidered by city staff and be presented to the planning commission in September.
Contact reporter at
matt@berkeleydailyplanet.net
