Extra

Berkeley needs affordable housing, not more high-end units

Charlene Woodcock
Monday June 26, 2017 - 12:04:00 PM

To the Berkeley City Council:

I urge approval of Item 41, a modest proposal to begin to address the housing crisis. We need to deal with our urgent low-income and family housing now. In November the voters of Berkeley rejected those who’ve pushed high-end housing developments in Berkeley and instead elected a majority of candidates who promised to address the needs of families and low-income Berkeley residents who are being forced out of their homes by ever-increasing rents and high house prices.

At this point we surely do not need to encourage any project except for those that provide mixed housing that includes low-income and family units, most likely those of non-profit developers. A lower percentage of inclusionary units than 20% or an in-lieu fee lower than $34,000 are simply inadequate to the very serious problem we now have. Additionally, it is well past time that, in the face of climate change, Berkeley as a city ensure that any new building meets much more stringent energy and natural resource efficiency requirements than the very dated LEED Gold standard.

We need non-profit inclusionary projects. We do not need any more above-median-income housing. The 20% inclusionary units or increased in-lieu fee need to be required of all projects in the pipeline or we will reach nearly 3 times the ABA quota for above median housing and you will have betrayed the will of the voters of Berkeley. 

The outgoing city attorney should not be allowed to sabotage the will of the 2016 election voters by including in this policy an exemption for the many projects now in the pipeline. I urge that the council eliminate Paragraph 9 of the city attorney’s Revised Report: Changes to Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee; Amending Berkeley Municipal Code Section 22.20.065: "Except as set forth in section 2, this and future increases in the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee shall apply only to projects whose applications are not complete as of the effective date of the fee.” 

There is no justification for allowing the many projects in the pipeline to go through the process exempted from the requirements being put forth here to address our housing crisis. To do so would greatly increase the current radical imbalance in housing stock. 

I also urge that you accept the recommendations of the Housing Advisory Commission and support Items 50a and 51a and reject 50b and 51b. 

Thank you.