The new ordinances will be modest in scope and reasonable. We can still build high density housing while not diminishing the quality of light and privacy enjoyed by the existing residents of Berkeley. The developers always cry that any restrictions will be financially insurmountable for them; yet there are always many ways they can circumvent height and setback requirements. Reasonable setbacks, height limits and viable first floor retail spaces will preserve natural light and keep new buildings more in scale with their neighbors; and may very well make Berkeley more livable 25, 50 and yes even 100 years from now.

How many more ugly building do we have to see rise in Berkeley. Other towns do such good jobs keeping beauty intact.

Unfortunately the question evades the real issue, which is that many of the new developments are not ecomically feasible without special concessions from the City, including exemptions from permitting requirements and fees, and from property taxes. Yet these are the burdens imposed on all of the rest of us. Essentially, the density bonus laws, as applied by Berkeley, give a competitive advantage to new devopers at the expense of existing businesses and of homeowners who must put up with a degraded environment and with ever increasing taxes. the brower Center (Berkeley's Iraq) is the most flagrant example: the City's taxpayers, under the guise of promoting "green architecture" have been asked to assume the ecomic risk of a project which the developers would never undertake if it were their own money.

I love the new mixed-use buildings that have been been built in our town. They add a vibrant new commons which has improved quality of life in Berkeley.

It's now time, however, to stop building them before their architectural uniformity becomes overpowering.

As well, a moratorium of several years might allow time to assess impacts on traffic and other use patterns that might be hard to predict.

More density means more housing, fewer cars, and an infusion of customers for *local* Berkeley businesses.

It is pretty clear that Berkeley has become a favorable spot for development. The urge is to support the city as "the next big thing arrives". That probably means that, without any restrictions, much development will happen very quickly and the city will be given large developments that generate taxes and provide a quick fix to the tax base and new residents of what is now a popular place to move to.

Hard to complain about that, except who knows if the current trend will continue indefinitely? If it doesn't, which is likely, then in a few decades Berkeley will be a condo-box city with architecture that looks dated. We'll walk around and point to buildings and say "that is straight out of the 00's, isn't it?"

As another "yes" voter points out, Berkeley already has apartments built quickly during an earlier development craze and they hardly complement what tries to be a distinguished university town.

We need fewer restrictions, not more. Berkeley is already the hardest place to do business in the Bay Area, and that is saying something.

New York City is the soul of the United States. It is a densly populated city with the transportation, commerce, and jobs that support that population. Berkeley will one day have to give up the ideology of a small town with big city aspirations. We need a more dense population, a greater tax base, abundant rental housing, and more small merchants that can serve that population.

I don't think the restrictions in the Nov. resolution should be implemented, but issues regarding how density bonuses are applied to mixed-use development should be examined.

This is very complicated issue, and it probably needs more study and review. As much as I am not a big fan of developers, it seems that these restrictions are a bit too binding. Maybe some more compromises?

We need more local enterprise and employment.

Congestion can be handled with better public transit and by tolls during congested times.

Berkeley is a city, not a small town or a suburb. If you want to live in a suburb, move to Antioch. Even the suburbs are now building high density near BART stations and other major transit corridors. In 2007 we can't go back to the 1960s. The Bay Area is growing; it has to grow smartly.

Is there really a need for more new big housing/commercial projects? Or is it fashionable? In my neighborhood there are MANY for rent signs--houses and apartments stay vacant for months. Quite a few of these not beautiful nor charming apartments were built in the late 50's early 60's and most are now classified as "soft stories." Deep lots with 2 houses on them were demolished without demolition permits nor informing the neighbors and 8 or more apartment units were built. Now, they have posted signs that tell us to "get away from this building...if there is a serious earthquake". In talking with these tenants, most are new to Berkeley and haven't a clue about how dangerous it is to live in soft story buildings. Couldn't we find it in our hearts to legislate a policy priority to assist with financial incentives the soft story apartment owners to bring these homes up to SAFETY STANDARDS? Couldn't it be done so the folks under rent control would not have the upgrades to safety standards of their homes passed on to them? Couldn't housing trust funds be applied or mitigations from the present projects that are realizing gain? New restrictions on new projects that require mitigations for the benefit of our most vulnerable residents in soft stories would be smart, prudent, and in a small way fulfill the mission statement of the City.

I can't read the text of what I'm saying Yes to, but I will say Yes on the hope that it will prevent any further shenanigans like hijacking ZAB at the last moment (Wozniak) to force a Yes vote on 1885 University, that would have been deadlocked; the restrictions should put teeth into refusing projects that can't Really justify themselves.

i think that the process that we have now is good enough to check against interests.

Berkeley needs more density, especially vertical density around transit corridors to become a sustainable city. A vote for more density in Berkeley and other urban core areas is a vote AGAINST sprawl development in other places. It is a myth to suggest that sprawl elsewhere does not impact Berkeley. Sprawl is simply congestion that we can't control...all those people living in Exurbia will be driving their cars to and through Berkeley, instead of taking advantage of our improving transit system and opportunities to walk and bike if you live in a dense urban core.

Density defines cities - Berkeley is a city - which needs new resources and new residents to grow and change and provide the kinds of services our residents deserve and demand.

We need to allow for the greate density as originally planned along the main cooridors of Berkeley including San Pablo and University. It makes no sense to go back to lower density.

The need for more affordable housing and walk-in retail will only help reduce our dependence on the automobile and keep us focused on the benefits of Smart Growth -- using less resources in buiding more efficient communities.

The ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) report on housing needs says that in the next 20 years we will add ovr 200,000 jobs in the Bay Area. This means we either add the housing units within our existing cities or we use up more of the valuable agricultural land and have folks commute on congested highways, long miles, contributing to further air polution, using up irreplaceable open space and increasing our dependency on cars and fossil fuels.

Steven Donaldson

Current zoning has finaly resulted in some much needed new development along our transportation corridors such as University and San Pablo Ave. Let's let some projects come to fruition and then evaluate the impact. If we restrict development now, we'll never really know if the current zoning is working.

Decidedly yes!

Have read many of the Yes/No comments to this, and agree with others that the "suggested" future benefits from relaxing such restrictions on development are rather tenuous and are instead "handwaving".

IMHO, good realistic principles will usually override misleading statistics any day.
The clear doubt is whether eliminating more and more restrictions will enable all the benefits mentioned by those antagonistic to this proposal. The certainty is that the problems mentioned by those supporting these new restrictions (e.g., more traffic, parking limitations, crime) will actually come to pass, and perhaps even be exacerbated by future pro-development decisions.

I vote to enact such restrictions.
I go

Vote no on this!!

This vote was prompted out of fear of Prop 90 (which failed). The City Council put this temporary measure into place in case it passed. This legislation was rushed and is not a good policy.

Undoubtedly, there is a need to require developers to make better, more meaningful transitions in height when their developments interface with a single family neighborhood on one side. This can be done in a MUCH better way than laid out by the current legislation. This legislation should sunset as proposed and the City Council should come up with a simple policy that focuses on setbacks, and leaves everything else alone.

The current legislation dramatically curtails the amount of development that can occur versus what was allowed prior to the legislation, and then requires you to obtain several additional use permits to allow you to develop what you used to be able to develop before. The proponents of the legislation say "don't worry about it, you just need more permits, it's not a big deal."

I say it IS a big deal - Berkeley is already a very difficult place to develop, and the result is a shortage of affordable housing options for both low and middle-income individuals and families. A developer has to put about $200,000 at risk before he/she knows if he/she will get a permit to build. If you had $200k to put into a real estate development, would you rather invest it in a City that requires one use permit, or one opportunity to say "no," or in Berkeley, which under this new legislation that would require 4-5 use permits to get your project built, or 4-5 opportunities for the ZAB or City Council to say "no?" My guess is you'd prefer to put your money in a City that is less risky.

It has serious implications - the more hurdles, cost and risk you layer upon development in Berkeley, the more expensive it will become for the homebuyer. Either that, or the development won't happen at all.