Proposed Berkeley Density Bonus
Is the proposed Berkeley Density Bonus for condos the cure for the downtown's stalled projects or the camel's nose under the tent?
On Monday, February 2 at 10 am agenda item 4 on the Land Use, Housing, & Economic Development Committee is “Referral to Establish a Citywide Local Density Bonus Program to Facilitate Lower-Cost Ownership Homes (Condominiums)” authored by councilmember Kesarwani with councilmembers Tregub, Blackaby and Mayor Ishii as co-sponsors.
If after reading the rest of this Activist’s Diary you are fired up to attend the Land Use meeting, the meeting is hybrid so you can attend in person at 2180 Milvia in the 6th floor meeting room or sign on to zoom https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1603118254 or call in 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) with meeting ID: 160 311 8354 to listen and comment .
Basically, the California State Density Bonus Law allows a developer to increase the density/number of units/size of a project over what would be allowed by zoning by including BMR (below market rate) units within the project. There are formulas in the government code of how big the bonus is according to the percentage of units that are set aside as affordable. Link to California Government Code Density Bonuses and other incentives effective January 1, 2026. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
The idea of a “Berkeley “ density bonus to compete with the state density bonus has been batted around for years, but to actually create a density bonus that is competitive with the state density bonus means the Berkeley bonus has to offer a sweeter deal, meaning there need to be more appealing giveaways to entice the developer to choose the Berkeley version over the state.
The Citywide Local Density Bonus is modelled after the state density bonus to incentivize new condominium development by allowing condo projects to take advantage of the same densities, bonuses, waivers and concessions available under state density bonus law. Under the Kesarwani et al local density bonus, however, condo projects would be able to pay the current in-lieu affordable housing fee to the City’s Housing Trust Fund for all units, rather than create on-site for-sale below-market-rate condo units-a requirement.
The Berkeley Density Bonus is an excellent way to give developers a bonus anywhere they choose (not just the downtown) without having to consider poorer people mixing in a project/building with their market rate clients.
The Kesarwani’s, et al Berkeley density bonus for condominiums is being promoted and pushed as the solution to the 19 stalled projects in the downtown as pointed out by the developer Patrick Kennedy of Panoramic Interests at the January 26 Agenda and Rules Committee.
It might be noted that Panoramic Interests has posted on their website that Panoramic Northside at 1752 Shattuck at Francisco has “Private Rooms” starting at $1395. https://www.panoramicberkeley.com/the-northside-home
Patrick Kennedy pushed in his comment that people in the hills were aching to sell their homes and move into condos in downtown Berkeley.
That is a mystery. How is it that a downtown that businesses are leaving or being pushed out, that centers around students including the design of the units as student housing is going to appeal to a homeowner in the Berkeley hills as the place to move to.
Students housing is studios and units with multiple bedrooms and an open combined tiny sitting area and kitchen with some rentals paid by the bed or room.
There is a myriad of problems as to why projects are stalled. Some are external factors, i.e. tariffs that go up or down on a whim, interest rates, financial uncertainty, the actions of ICE and DHS, etc. Some are “spec” projects to be sold as entitled (approved) to investors. With some there are problems with the design of the projects especially those pushing density bonuses to the outer limits.
At the January 26 Agenda Committee there were two other developers besides Patrick Kennedy supporting keeping the Berkeley Density Bonus on the February 10 City Council agenda, Bill Schrader and Mark Rhodes. Downtown Berkeley Association CEO John Caner finished out the four supporters.
Mark Rhodes called in his support. If he had come in person he would have been faced with the signs and flyers on the labor dispute with Rhodes Planning Group. The Carpenters Local Union LU713 states workers are being shortchanged by Collab USA Capital failing to require Prospective General Contractor and all of its sub-contractors to pay standard wages and benefits.
There were four public speakers opposed to the Berkeley Density Bonus.
Mayor Ishii placed herself first (which is unusual) to comment on the February 10 city council draft agenda stating that the Berkeley Density Bonus should go to the Land Use Committee. Councilmember Taplin supported the move. While councilmember Humbert did vote to support the decision of Ishii and Taplin, he stated his stand that the density bonus should stay on the agenda for February 10.
Using the state density bonus is how the recently approved project with two versions (one as student housing and one as family housing) at 2029 University grew to 256 feet tall plus a 5 foot parapet in a zone that limits building height to 75 feet with a 5 foot parapet.
The developer achieved a 100% bonus by designating 15% of the units for very low-income households and 15% moderate income households.
The state density bonus comes with other sweeteners like concessions and waivers. Concessions relieve the developer of design standards or development regulations to reduce the cost of the project, standards and regulations that would potentially make a project financially infeasible.
The SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) gives a more in depth general easy to read overview on density bonuses, concessions and waivers. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/density_bonus_law_-_what_are_incentives_concessions_and_waivers.pdf
The three concessions used by 2029 University were exemption from participating in apprenticeship standards and healthcare (paying for healthcare coverage of workers) as required by the Berkeley City Hard Hat Ordinance and exemption from the Bird Safe Ordinance.
There are differing opinions on the methods and benefits of how to add affordable housing in a community.
One stand is that paying the in-lieu fee into the Housing Trust Fund and combining that with grants to build the 100% low income housing projects brings a greater quantity of affordable housing to the community.
This is the method in which Kesarwani firmly stands as she has stated through her repeated comments as a councilmember including as a member of the council Budget and Finance Committee.
The other stand is the certainty of inclusionary affordable housing (including affordable housing units within the market rate buildings) being available “now” with the completion of the project instead of years or decades into the future waiting for Housing Trust Funds to accumulate and grants to become available. Inclusionary BMR units are required to be the same standard as market rate units. And, integrating affordable housing with market rate housing carries significant social benefits.
This just published (January 29, 2026) article in The Atlantic, “What Tearing Down Housing Projects Did for Kids: Bringing rich and poor together has major benefits” by Idrees Kahloon is exactly why inclusionary housing where affordable housing is mixed with market rate housing is such a wise choice. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/gentrification-benefit-social-mobility/685792/?gift=n3Hd5dc6xUpKX3HDjUiIzQTt3pMYpVqrF9ZVCDdWYhA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
The study of the Hope VI Program in Atlanta is just one approach and it was controversial at the time, but the results are the same as in older studies that integrating rich and poor together in housing projects brings societal benefits especially for lifting children out of poverty.
If the Berkeley Density Bonus receives the stamp of approval from the council as a referral to the City Manager, it will land in the Planning Department and the Planning Commission as a directive.