I say yes

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.

I say yes

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

I say yes

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 say yes

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.

I say yes

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.

I say yes

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 say yes

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 say yes

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

I say yes

There is zero need for more condo boxes. The two condo projects recently completed in Berkeley appear to be in trouble finding buyers. What will become of big projects which will open long after the condo market has crashed?

Building unneeded projects does not bring population into a city. If anything it drives it away. In 1950, Berkeley’s population was approximately 113,800. Around 1958, the demolition of older housing stock for soft-story apartment buildings began (so-called “infill” housing). Preliminary census figures of 1960 showed a drop of approximately 5,300 persons, so city leaders ordered a search for the “missing persons”.

Here is a quote from City Manager John D. Phillips, as reported in the Berkeley Daily Gazette of July 13, 1960, “…paradoxically the only areas that gained [population] generally were single family residential areas, while losses were noted in areas where there had been apartment house construction.“

Our population is considerably smaller than it was in 1950 and we have way more apartment units. Building more high density developments at a time when the condo market is tanking and the newest apartment house to open is a ghost town (Library Gardens) makes no sense at all.

I say yes

The development in these corridors just exacerbates the traffic problems that already exist.
There needs to be grocery stores in walking distance or at least close by to prevent further congestion.
How about realistic access to schools if these new residential units are to be 'affordable'? Surely we don't need more office spaces or small shops. There is already so much vacant. Look at the San Pablo/University intersection. It is a mess there in every way. There is such limited parking that it is a struggle to think about shopping.

I say yes

I attended quite a number of the mayoral debates before the election. What became apparent to me is that there is no proof that greater density gets people out of cars. The proposal to increase density is being pursued based upon assumptions without proof. And, in pursuit of density, there's no thought of the quality of life required for people such as open space, access to solar light, quiet, freedom from excess noise, freedom from excessive night light. I like Berkeley because these quality of life are important. Every day I appreciate the fact that we paid to underground BART. A livable Berkeley is very important.

I say yes

I live 2 short blocks from the San Pablo corridor. There are currently FOUR buildings of 5 stories within a 2 block area that have been "noticed" and have started down the Berkeley building pipeline or are in the process of being built. All the developers are going for 5 floors because they say it is economically unfeasible to do otherwise. This is too much density in one small area. We are not within walking distance of any BART Station nor do we have adequate bus service to same. There are no grocery stores or any other services of that sort in the area. We do have good freeway access and if you want your car fixed, it can be done here!

There is an argument for more density in this area but not that much. We are talking about probably 100 new units within 2 blocks, that adds at least 200 people to this small neighborhood. Yikes! The interesting thing is that several of the firms that want to build here are interested in green design. That sounds like a vote in their favor except for the fact that it is much more expensive to build a green building than not, so then they have to either charge more per unit or build more units to make it "financially feasible". This also cuts down on the parking spaces they are able to provide as they have to build as many residences as they can on the lot.

Parking is a big issue here because, yes we do use our cars. Most of the people in this area are middle-low income and yes we do drive to the "big box" retailers as they are much less expensive than anything in Berkeley. If Berkeley wants to have more middle and low income families they are just going to have to accept the fact that price does matter. Target and any number of stores in Emeryville and El Cerrito just give more bang for the buck than any of the smaller non franchise stores that Berkeley seems to favor. (except the dollar stores).

I am all in favor of some of these developments, most of the people designing these buildings have their hearts in the right place and are truly passionate and believe that they are doing a great service for people, and individually I think that they are correct, but putting all this stuff in one small area with no services is asking for an overcrowded, traffic clogged parking nightmare zone. And then wait until the storm sewers get blocked or collapsed and overflow and flood like they did last year during the rains.

I personally believe that if you can't afford to build something nice (700-1500 sq ft per unit) with a proper perspective toward the neighborhood, adequate parking, sensitivity to other development in the area and green space, I don't think it should be done. I like all the protections that the restrictions bring. I think it allows for growth at a more sustainable rate. End vertical sprawl!

I say yes

There is an urgent need to restore planning and planned growth. Without it, commercial will intrude more and m ore, and residential areas will be under increased pressure to increase density. The concern for cars and traffic is a valid one, but the arguments for a No ignore the fact of the huge number of UC connected cars with daily crushes of traffic in the commute-all of these cars need to be addressed as a separfate issue, without adding a so called transportation corridor.

I say yes

Every development proposal denied by city staff is appeal-able, first to the Planning Commission or the Zoning Adjustments Board, eventually to the City Council and the courts. The system is deliberately and carefully skewed to allow development that exceeds the statutory limits. This proposal simply sets minimal limits. Any developer (currently seeking commercial rents in excess of $42 a square foot or for-sale-housing prices in excess of $275 a square foot -- which is far in excess of expenses) will simply hire the appropriate litigator or negotiator to get a better deal. The public, on the other hand, must rely on local politicians and their appointees to protect the public's interest, hardly a fair game. I say these restrictions are simply appropriate. The developers can easily afford the additional expense and the community can ill afford the additional burden.

I say yes

Higher density developments must be subject to City control; those without adequate parking for both, retail/commercial occupants and residents, contribute to traffic chaos. That is the case not just for retail customers searching for a parking space in resonable proximity to their destination, but also for the neighborhoods whose street parking would be occupppied by overflow parking demands from high density, mixed use projects.
To argue that people should use public transportation or ride their bicycle ignores reality.
Case in point the battle the proposed "very large" mixed use project at M.L. King and University (Trade Joe's). Projects of this type will adversely affect the quality of life within a several block perimeter.

I say yes

I say yes

I say yes

I say yes

I say yes