Page One

Berkeley’s planning commission criticized city planners Wednesday for making changes to the city housing policy that could limit citizen participation in the approval process of proposed developments. 

The revision to the city’s housing element, part of the city’s governing General Plan, came at the request of City Council before the document was sent for state approval in April. 

Commissioners said changes made to the housing element, specifically the appendix, did not reflect the council’s vision. Rejecting a proposed development on the grounds that it is a “detriment” to the community might become more difficult, according to the commission. 

“There are a substantial number of changes in policy on housing that the council didn’t approve,” said Zelda Bronstein, the commission chair. 

But city planners disagreed. 

Steve Barton, housing department director, said the appendix revisions were technical and did not alter established policies in the housing element or weaken citizens’ rights. 

Barton also said the controversy has spawned unfair accusations at staff that could make the city’s ability to retain staff difficult.  

“Attacks on staff turn procedural flaws into mountains,” said Barton, referring to an unnamed letter addressed to state regulators that accused housing employees of unlawfully altering city housing policy. 

The housing element spells out Berkeley’s housing policy and serves as the blueprint for future residential development.  

The appendix controversy emerged during a recent Zoning Adjustment Board hearing about a proposed 16-unit development at 1155 Hearst St. The property was zoned to have no more than eight units, but a staff report advised the ZAB to approve the project, citing language in the appendix instead of the main body of the document. 

The report quoted the appendix: “The city needs each of its commercial and residential zones to produce housing in sufficient numbers to accommodate Berkeley’s regional housing needs... .” 

According to Bronstein this language contradicts the housing element approved by City Council. She said the element specifies that large-scale housing developments be concentrated along major transit corridors downtown and in commercial areas, not in residential zones. 

Barton agreed that the staff member erred in basing his recommendation on the appendix, but dismissed the notion that the text could be used by developers to push projects through. 

“The housing element is written to separate the issue of affordability from development, Barton said. “It was not written to take a stand on development.” 

The commissioners were also troubled by the appendix’s discussion of “detriment.” 

Historically, Berkeley has used the concept of detriment to promote resident involvement in planning decisions. If citizens demonstrate that a legal development proposal nevertheless poses a significant “detriment” to the community, the Zoning Adjustment Board can reject the project. 

According to Bronstein, this practice was endorsed in the housing element, but was given a mixed review in the revised appendix. 

In one section, the appendix suggests that Berkeley could produce more housing if housing developments were made into a matter of right, and provided a stronger definition of “detriment.” 

Barton insisted that such language was merely background analysis and did not affect the policy. 

Bronstein disagreed. “It is part of the plan and does signal policy directives,” she said. 

The California Department of Housing and Community Development received the housing element on May 7 and is expected to approve or reject it no later than Aug. 5.  

No matter what the state’s decision, several commissioners have already expressed intentions to review the appendix revisions. 

“We want the appendix to be consistent with the wishes of the community, and we want staff to resume the close relationship with the planning commission we had during our work on the General Plan,” Bronstein said.