I say no

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

I say no

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

I say no

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 say no

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?

I say no

We need more local enterprise and employment.

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

I say no

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.

I say no

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

I say no

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.

I say no

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

I say no

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.

I say no

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.

I say no

It is obvious that the current tax base in the City is not adequate to maintain the streets, the storm drains, and so on. Thus, it is imperative that this base be expanded. The obvious way to expand this base is to add property value in the City.

Commercial, mixed-use development is clearly the most effective means of expanding this base. This is the development that makes economic sense.

Our existing zoning regulations, before the new restrictions, were carefully crafted, based on input from the entire community. They recognized the need for "smart growth" in Berkeley, as part of a long range "green" strategy for the entire Bay Area.

Those clamoring for greater restrictions have the illusion that they are preserving some Berkeley with which they are familiar. In fact, Berkeley is--and should be!--constantly changing. If we want Berkeley to change in a way that is economically viable, we should not impose greater restrictions on our zoning code.

I say no

I am strongly against the downzoning of our major transit corridors as Berkeley sorely needs additional housing, especially in transit intensive areas. I respect the concerns of local residents who fear parking problems, increased traffic, and taller buildings that may reduce their personal property. I believe the ZAB have been sensitive to addressing much of local citizens concerns regarding massing and privacy. I also believe that additional traffic and parking impacts should not be a concern in local planning decisions because facilitating the use of the private automobile runs contrary to our overall goal of reducing greenhouse gases and meeting Berkeley's commitment to the Kyoto agreement.

I would hope that local citizens would understand the importance of locating housing nears jobs, reducing trips, and taking our fair share of housing need. The Bay Area is expected to grow by 1.2 million people over the next 20 years. Local decisions about land use will play in an important role in our regional environment. Will this growth by added to Tracy, Vacaville, and Fairfield on greenfields with long commutes into employment rich cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco? Or will we allow for more people to live closer to their work along transit corridors that provide alternatives to the automobile? Let's do our part.

I say no

The new restrictions were put in place without proper study, out of concern that Prop 90 might pass. Prop 90 has now failed, so, if nothing else, the new regulations should be subjected to much more study before they are made permanent.

But, more importantly, no new restrictions are needed. The City is just now seeing exciting new mixed use projects on corridors like University Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. It is great that these projects are moving forward, bringing new life to these areas, and creating additional housing and retail opportunities for the community. If anything, the City should consider how to make these great projects more possible...there definitely should not be more restrictions placed on them.

I say no

The proposed restrictions include "down-zoning" the commercial corridors and are an attempt to further stifle development of mixed-use projects on the commercial corridors. They represent an abuse of legitimate concerns of residential districts abutting the commercial zones in height and set backs.
Unfortunately, the process for developing these guidelines was highjacked by mostly Pro measure P people. This measure lost by 80% in 2002.

I say no

We need more homes in Berkeley that are affordable to people who work here. There is more and more commute traffic as people are forced to live far away. In addition to the environmental benefits of less commuting and saving the farms and open spaces from development by growing in all aready urbanized places, the quality of life for all of us would be enhanced with more people living Downtown and along our major streets. New people will support new services, better retail, more arts and entertainment and make the streeets safer.

I say no

The city council passed its interim ordinance explicitly as a defense against the potential passage of Prop 90 -- which was thankfully defeated. To do anything more in the short term than let the sunset clause operate would be a betrayal of the public trust.

The issue of zoning restrictions can now return to the public process which has been ongoing for some time. Decisions can wait till we've digested the alternatives more thoroughly.

I say no

Prop 90 did not pass. A more carefully thought out and less draconian measure should be drafted.

I say no

Berkeley isn't be a bucolic little neighborhood - it is a major university town and one of the most important downtowns in the Bay Area. All cities need to mature if they are to remain alive. We need to encourage greater density along our transit corridors, and this is a step in the opposite direction.

I say no

Vibrant economic zones, the sort which most of us would prefer to live in, need to maintain a balance of density and transit. If Berkeley downzones density without an increase in transit (i.e. traffic and parking) we'll stifle local economic activity when it needs our help the most. With the rise of on-line and big-box shopping, the retail and service industries need all the help they can get right now.