While this is a relatively complex issue (especially for the average citizen that isn't involved with real estate development issues), the draft article is a bit long, and I wonder if it's length will discourage people for reading it or participating in the KD forum and vote. Can some less important content be trimmed? Also, the article reads nicely, but a pro and con format might have worked better.

Frankly, I'm not sure why the City is even discussing this before Prop 90 goes before the voters.

The following clause is ambiguous:
"However, many developers, both for-profit and non-profit, have unequivocally stated that because investors do not include the need for expanded use permits in their analyses"...
Why don't they start putting this into their analaysis?

I suspect that the response will be: If you live adjacent to (behind) a corrider, then you want the new restrictions; but if you don't, then you don't want the new restrictions.

One developed quipped, 'when these people bought their houses adjacent to the corridor, then they should have expected commercial developments next to their back yards -- that's why their houses are less expenses than comparable houses that don't back-up to the corridor!'

I think the format and quality is great. I'm not sure exactly what we would be voting on, but then the question isn't posed here, so I guess that will clear it up. There actually isn't much there summarizing the new regulations, it's all history. I like the background, but we may need either more info on the actual regulations under consideration or point to something specifically that summarizes them. On that note, I like that there are a lot of references, but actually there may be _too_ many. Research shows that giving people more choices generally reduces their likelyhood of taking action. For instance, if we are going to use other documents as key references to learning details of the issue, we should consider breaking the links to those documents out into their own section indicating that these are the most important ones, and there should only be two or maybe three of them so as not to confuse the reader. Another thought: don't eliminate the background history, but do clearly set it off as such so that people who just want to know the basics don't feel intimidated by having to wade through the background.

These points I brought up are more about formatting properly for the reader then they are the actual written text; Over all I think this is very well written and should work well to bring the reader into the topic. Great job!

I still don't get it...

One key issue completely missing in the analysis (although it is implied) is public health. As a physician currently in a doctorate program in Public Health at UC Berkeley, I am studying the effects of residential density and mixed use in urban developments. It is clear from most studies that the health benefits of increased density far outweigh the- mostly perceived- disadvantages. Chronic diseases including heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and depression are rapidly increasing in the face of a more sedentary lifestyle which is to a great extent attributable to urban sprawl. Californians weigh more as physical activity has decreased due to longer commutes and caloric intake has increased. This has resulted in not only adult obesity but also in an obesity epidemic in children who now have one of the highest increasing rates of diabetes. The possibilities of walking are seriously limited by the traditional “single home” sprawl model that is often preferred by developers and homeowners. Places that provide sidewalks, destinations to walk to such as shops, parks, restaurants, coffee shops, etc have populations that are healthier. These places have higher residential densities, mixed uses, and access to public transportation. They encourage use because they also feel safer (“eyes on the street”). Examples are seen in traditional down-towns, European cities, New-Urbanism planned communities, and other compact communities where people live, shop and entertain.

It is a myth that Berkeley already has a very high density in the appropriate locations. It does have a high density of residential areas, but what is necessary is not a horizontal density but rather a more vertical density along selected transportation corridors. San Pablo, Telegraph Avenue, the Ashby Bart Station, University Avenue are examples of possible locations for the kind of density that would encourage less driving , more physical activity, better access to healthy food and safer environments. If in addition schools were within walking distance this would be of enormous benefit for children. Assuring a mixed socio-economic status of the population (through low income units subsidies and set asides) would also result in great health benefits for underserved populations.

High density is good for the environment because people drive less, good for the economy because smaller businesses can flourish where there are concentrations of people, and most importantly: it is good for peoples’ health. If we are going to be successful in our fight of the current and future epidemic of chronic diseases, higher residential density will be one of our most important weapons. We can either keep pouring money to treat diseases or we can try to prevent them by creating communities that foster better health.

A few readings…I have many more that are more academic.

Important study of health effects: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/report/HealthSprawl8.03.pdf


The author, Dr Jackson, of this paper is a world renowned expert and is now at UCB. He would be a great resource on the subject. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Creating%20A%20Healthy%20Environment.pdf


On walkability and urban form: http://www.walkable.org/article5.htm

There is a huge amount of material here to digest, especially for those like me with little background in development issues. I like having all the information and references available, and it was easy to follow the chronology of how the issue developed. However, because I was following some of the references and links as I read, I lost the pros/cons of the new measures by the time I came to the end of the article. Some signposting might be helpful, and would allow skimming for those who want a less in-depth presentation.

In the current layout, the pros and cons of the new regulations appear early in the article, followed by the background and the rationale for getting something in place before Prop 90 goes to a vote. It might be helpful to highlight the pros/cons more, perhaps by moving the Proposition 90 paragraph up above New Regulations. Pargraphs 2 - 4 might then be titled Pros and Cons and moved down the article, so that they appear before "It is worth noting."

To avoid turning the discussion of the city regulations into a discussion of Prop 90, it might focus discussion to build the KD topic question into the last paragraph.

Thank you for the great work teasing out a complex story.

I am in favor or more density because affordable housing for seniors is impossible without it.

Berkeley and any city would have the greatest social well being if it did not restrict development. The negative effects of development should be handled privately by easements and neighborhood associations, and also publicly by the proper pricing of congestion and pollution. There should be pollution charges on all vehicles with excessive pollution, as measured on the street, not in some artificial test. There should be tolls placed on all streets that have congestion, and also flexible electronic parking meters that can vary the parking meter charge by the hour. Neighbors concerned with the appearance and size of nearby potential developments should have the opportunity to buy easements, and also to form neighborhood associations which would have covenants regulating development.

Such decentralized and contractual methods, along with charges for congestion and pollution, would allow development to privide goods and jobs that benefit us, while also avoiding much of the negative side effects from development.

Fred Foldvary
Berkeley resident

Anything that restricts development growth is a good idea, especially for large scale projects. Why? Well, do you remember the "eminent domain" ruling by the Supreme Court? That ruling makes it extremely attractive for city governments to join with developers to dramatically increase population density. Replacement of a couple single family homes with a six story, high density building creates huge developer profits and substantially increases tax revenues. Larger buildings and higher densities are inherently more attractive to developers. And communities are already discovering this new source of revenue, and they are quietly, house by house, condemning viable property. Money is the real driving force of politics. (Did you really think the driving force was pursuit of the best interests of the people? How quaint.) While I'm not in favor of no-growth policies, the alternative corruption by eminent domain use is worse. I don't see how the current climate of rulings, State laws, and Federal regulations/policies allow intelligent urban planning to even be implemented anymore. I recommending erring on the restrictive side until the eminent domain issue has been limited by new legislation.

Overall, good job. But it doesn’t clearly explain (1) the regulations
prior to the recent decision, (2) the key changes made by the decision.

In para. 3, would be good to also mention what the City allows as a
bonus. And note that the next section explains the density bonus in more detail.

Would be good to explain the net effect of the change in 2005 – does it
tend to allow a larger bonus? (I understand it’s quite complex)

There should be a separate section “The New Regulations” – break text
into 2 paragraphs, and explain more what was actually adopted

2^nd to last para: I don’t agree with these statements; first, the new
ordinance allows for much increase in housing from the existing
situation (developers claim it won’t happen, but who knows?); 2^nd ,
Measure P was mainly focused on the downtown.
Better to delete this para.