Some Comments from Petition Signers

I'm horrified by the possible outcomes of this ordinance and deeply disappointed that our city government is more interested in handing our real estate over to developers than hearing what we, the residents, would like to see happen here.

 Particularly concerned with parking issues because many of the people in these big buildings leave their cars on the street, even if they use bikes or public transit and we have been grappling with not enough parking for 30-plus years already. 

Outrageous insult to our architecture, our history, and our once-shared sense of community.

The public needs to be informed AND be able to respond to this radical, city-wide rezoning change in forums where they are respected and a democratic process is recognized by those that they elected to follow their wishes and who were not elected to govern them behind their backs.

The residents of Berkeley are tired of our elected officials working on behalf of lobby groups and not for the public whom they are supposed to represent. This "Middle Housing" proposal is a gift to the real estate lobby at the expense of Berkeley residents and taxpayers, and the lack of transparency and efforts on the part of City Council to minimize and exclude public input is a clear indication that they know they are working on behalf of developers and not the public.

I understand the need for more housing, but this isn't the way!
This is clearly not a solution to the need for affordable housing.
The petition says it all!

I have carefully read and completely agree with this petition. As a retired city planner I am appalled that Berkeley is pursuing such a crass, unsophisticated approach to increasing the housing supply, when nuanced, evidence based solutions grounded in an understanding and appreciation of the built form of Berkeley is completely doable.
As one example out of so many, the single page (p.25) dealing with solar access to rooftop solar panels is inaccurate and misleading, looking only at impacts during spring and fall (!) when of course midwinter and summer, especially winter, is the critical period for using solar power, then concluding based on this false premise that impacts of a 35 ft height vs 28 ft. would be minimal. If a 10% reduction is to be considered acceptable, then the legitimate course is to require solar access studies for any existing rooftop solar installations on neighboring properties to determine the YEAR ROUND reduction in power generated, and require design modifications if it exceeds 10%. An alternative would be to compensate the neighboring property for the economic costs of this loss of solar system and power. A ballpark figure might be $25K for the cost of the solar system and an equal amount for the value of the lost power over the life of the system. Precise figures could be obtained from PG&E. What is NOT acceptable is to rob this significant environmental and economic value from the neighboring property owner, with no requirement to reduce or mitigate that loss.
We have calculated the impact of 28 ft vs. 35 ft on our rooftop solar system (installed at a cost of several tens of thousands of dollars converting the property to 100% solar) and found that 35 ft on the parcel south of our house would ELIMINATE access to our solar panels for the four winter months, while the impact of 28 ft would be for one month. Beyond this grievous loss of my winter heat source, the inside of my house will no longer be the sunny place it was carefully designed to be for the past 100 years.
These old houses ARE THE TRUE MIDDLE HOUSING! Every one of them on my block is owned and occupied by families that can only afford to be here because in the past Berkeley protected its old housing stock. Not a single one of us could afford new construction.
This very mediocre planning is especially embarrassing given the world class College of Environmental Design located just up the hill. The responsible thing to do is to reach out to them for assistance. A one year joint effort would be hugely beneficial to the whole city and university community. Show some imagination and leadership! Berkeley deserves the best, and this current course unequivocally is not it!

Go back to the drawing board

Parks make life better, yes. Love Berkeley for that. More democracy is messy but less democracy is worse. Come on, Berkeley City Council and Mayor. Why are  you considering less democracy regarding the Middle Housing Plan?

How about some input from the people who actually live in this city. 

My parents moved to Berkeley in 1961, when I was 11.  I attended Oxford, Garfield, Berkeley High West Campus (its first year!), Berkeley High, and UCB, from which I graduated in 1979.  I strongly support affordable housing, not "Middle Housing."  You don't want to know how I feel about housing developers and their supporters.

This proposal, if passed, will decimate the impacted neighborhoods. I agree with all of the points outlined in the petition and call on the Berkeley City Council to reject the current measure!

I don't think allowing increased density across the board in neighborhoods is appropriate.  We should have a long term plan that allows for density along corridors, and preserves less dense areas for families, sunlights, vegetation and birds.

This is not a solution for the housing crisis. This is Trojan horse for developers and corporations and construction that care nothing for the environment and care nothing about displacing middle or lower income people. 

When I purchased my Craftsman Bungalow in South Berkeley, it was already nestled between two six-unit apartment buildings–an unavoidable reality that came with a discounted price. Later, when I refinanced, the appraiser further reduced my home’s value due to this "sandwich location."
Now, proposed zoning changes threaten to impose this same predicament on long-standing homeowners, forcing them into similar situations where their property values will diminish–only this time, the encroaching developments could exceed the scale of my two-story neighbors. Beyond the financial impact, the sheer influx of new residents would create gridlock, with each adult contributing at least one more vehicle to the already congested streets. This isn't just about parking headaches; in an emergency evacuation, the consequences could be far more dire.
These zoning decisions must account for the unintended burdens placed on homeowners and the broader infrastructure challenges they create. Thoughtful, balanced planning is essential to preserve both property values and the safety of our communities.

Please don't destroy what really makes Berkeley livable and sustainable.

I implore the city council to hold citywide open hearings to get adequate citizen input BEFORE passing zoning changes.
Council and mayor are supposed to work for the betterment of current homeowners and tenants , not Developers!
We pay the taxes and we will live with the consequences of your actions long after you leave office!

The City needs to better evaluate the existing housing that has been built and ask why 10% goes vacant and why one high rise is defaulting to the bank and another demolished building and cherished small businesses dug a hole and abandoned the project.
And most important the City infrastructure cannot accommodate that increase in population. Where are the children supposed to go to school when they are already full and no land to build. If the city increases the population Berkeley will be a miserable place to live and then people will move. I love Berkeley and the City hiding what they are doing and not listening to its residents has got to stop. 

More housing is essential, but turning Berkeley into a high rise development with no planning is a disaster and a scam to give big developers the opportunity to make money on all of us. Hold real public hearings now!

Please take a deep, reflective breath and resist the urge to turn over our City's future to developers.

Berkeley needs disclosure and a full debate on this drastically misguided and secretive zoning proposal, which has been hidden from Berkeley’s citizens.  As a native and lifelong Berkeleyan, I have witnessed the steep decline in quality of life and beloved institutions and businesses in Berkeley that have resulted from bad and inappropriate development, and this plan would have even more negative impact on the environment and Berkeley.

While I like much of the infill development in and around downtown Berkeley in the past decade or so, I think the city council's ignorant pursuit of development (and developer votes) at all cost should be slowed down and reassessed.

Any Council vote on radical changes to Zoning code must not occur until after dedicated Town Hall meetings have been held to determine the REAL wishes  of ALL of Berkeley's constituents.

Views, open space, greenery, sunlight add immeasurably to the quality of life. Most people in Berkeley agree and care. Give the people a say in what happens to our city.

While I support the intent of the plan, I'm concerned that residents don't have a sufficient understanding of the implications. The devil is in the details.  Therefore, I support a more considered and open process that finds a middle way so the character of Berkeley and its neighborhoods aren't impacted too greatly.

Please get your hands out of the developers' pockets!  the stench of graft is beginning to waft over this city.

The regional goal for new Berkeley housing units in the current decade is a little under 10,000 new units. Applications and proposals and permitted projects in Berkeley already total over 12,000 new units. That doesn't even count new dorm rooms added by UC Berkeley. Berkeley is already seeing, and will continue to see for the rest of the 2020s, new units and associated population growth in excess of other Bay Area cities. The silver lining to date is that the new growth has been focused in the most urbanized parts of the city. The Middle Housing plan would scrap 50 years of sensible zoning that has led to coherent neighborhoods, and replace it with a free-for-all in which neighborhoods throughout the city (except the Hills!) would be disrupted at the whims of developers. I've been to Austin and seen what unplanned growth looks like. Don't Austinize Berkeley!

There is a smokescreen here that this plan will correct past discriminatory red-lining. Nowhere does this plan address how housing will become "affordable", or how the plan will increase diversity in Berkeley.

It is crazy that this is being pushed through without   Community meetings.  I am concerned about design guidelines, height limits, and fire safety - lack of planning.  The current approach offers a field day for developers.

Don't destroy our city with thoughtless housing expansions. There should be careful planning and debate, and a decision based on what we know about the effects of unrestricted housing development.

"Urban planning" should not be just handing our city over to real estate developers & corporations. Oh please- just do the right thing here (and in case that is not clear- DO NOT endorse this "Middle Housing" plan)

I am appalled at the manner in which this is being pushed through without most of the residents in Berkeley having any idea of the magnitude of this proposal. I am for more housing and recognize the need for  more density! I am not for building 3-4 story units on one lot in central Berkeley.
We have hundreds of new apartments all over the city. What is the vacancy rate now? How many stores and small businesses have been shuttered to the side to make way for above market rate housing? The city planning dept. has done a terrible job of making sure that they respond to input from the people who will be most most impacted by  before proceeding.
It looks like a developer's dream come true to me! Not a holistic vision of what Berkeley could and should look like in 20 years!

This change in zoning will destroy the quality of life for those of us who have made Berkeley our permanent home. Please dont be bought by developers looking to make a quick buck. This is not about NIMBYism. This is about having a long term PLAN and not just opening up the doors to unchecked development. PLEASE HOLD REAL HEARINGS!!!

Notice sent about this was incredibly vague. My adjacent neighbors, for whom English is their second language (and btw they read, write and speak beautifully in English), were so confused that they called me over to make sense of it. When I told them that the zoning changes would make our neighborhood even more crowded, they shook their heads, displayed their sadness and said “we already don’t have enough parking on the street. What will this do? All of the Whole Foods employees park in our neighborhood. If this happens, there will really be no parking for our families.” I couldn’t agree more. What was once a charming Oceanview neighborhood is now destined to look like many Los Angeles neighborhoods? HELP.

For heavens sakes, please don’t pull another Hopkins fiasco on us --- planning drastic changes without asking for a wide variety of opinions from affected community members.
Thank you for SUPPORTING a sense of community in Berkeley, not undermining it.  We get enough of that from DC.

While I am agnostic on the zoning change, I hope all effected are adequately informed and given a chance to bring their points of view.

I have lived in District 2 for 35 years. My property is R2. I am fine with infill housing, not with 3 to 4 story apt complexes. Please slow down and consider the impact on all of us. This is the first I have heard of this meeting.

The City Council might consider that we live in a democracy--not a dictatorship--and that citizens need to be notified of proposed changes to laws that effect all of us in general and some of us in particular. Shame on the Council for their failure to notify the residents of R1 zoning districts that their zoning protections are in jeopardy.
Then there is the matter of the zoning changes. Responsible government needs to address Berkeley's housing shortage, but enlightened government needs to respect the quality of Berkeley's urban fabric. It is possible to achieve both, but only with a fine-grained, thoughtfully crafted set of land use regulations--not a lead-footed, across-the-board upzoning.
The citizens of Berkeley are supposed to be smarter than average. Show me.

Numerous insurance companies have non-renewed our Berkeley homeowners citing DENSITY. I got the lowdown from my agent yesterday -- they're pulling out. THIS WILL INCREASE DENSITY, INCREASE INABILITY TO INSURE HOMES AGAINST FIRE.
PLEASE -- NO.

This has nothing to do with "rectifying discrimination" and everything to do with our council acting as fluffers for the real estate and development community! We don't have the teachers, hospitals, grocery or dry goods stores, schools, fire or police for this ridiculous increase in population for one of the densest cities in America, ie Berkeley!!!! Find a bit of dignity! Stop rolling over for out of town real estate and development scammers! And Good God, bring back some teeth to design review... what's going up in Berkeley is an offense to our historic design sensibility!!

Give the citizens of Berkeley a real opportunity to understand and have input on how the city evolves.

I oppose the Middle Housing Ordinance.

As a disabled senior, I'm alarmed and at risk of being forced to move out of the area because I've been denied a blue space I can reach by the Transportation Department.
(You may be interested that the City has been denying blue spaces in violation of Federal law including the ADA as decided by the Federal Court case Bassilios v. City of Torrance, CA (2015).  My lawyer's letter to Transportation has been sat upon "in the City Attorney's office" for 4 months now and I will not wait much longer to pursue my available recourse.)
The combination of increasing density and the city's policies which openly intend to make it a hardship to park in Berkeley (in order to discourage car ownership) are a huge problem for disabled and mobility impaired persons.  Plus I think it's foolish to think that making parking a great hardship meaningfully reduces car ownership.  I renew my repeated plea to require adequate parking for all new building projects in Berkeley.
Furthermore, the Middle Housing Ordinance's permanent changes to our neighborhoods won't, as I understand it, provide affordable housing. 
Additionally, as the Council has willfully failed to promulgate objective shadowing standards, and has thus chosen to allow building heights to be jacked up everywhere, sunlight for solar panels and living things, and privacy, will be denied.
As I understand it the Ordinance will not address past zoning inequities, but will instead force the immense burdens of higher density on the areas with the lowest housing costs.  Our downtown housing boom is the appropriate way to provide for more housing. Neighborhoods are already dense enough.
Everything about the ordinance and it's conduct has appalled me, the Council should be ashamed of itself. 

Please don’t do this. I know it’s not PC to object to more housing and difficult to fight Sacramento, but give a little thought ..just a little..to longtime residents and taxpayers who have helped give Berkeley the reputation it has for grace and beauty. 

Neighbors in our area are in the dark and are worried that such massive impacts are being planned without a great number of people knowing about it. The problems are real, the solutions need to be more creative and thoughtful. There is a middle way for middle housing and I hope we can  find it together as a working community.

Stop jamming this issue down our throats. Slow down and give Berkeley residents a chance to voice opinions.

Most resident are unaware how drastically out neighborhoods would change under this ordinance. They have no idea that their access to sun light could disappear without their ability to object. Much broader public education and input is necessary before this drastic change can be considered.

What up with all this sneaky stuff, folks?

I want town hall type debates to see the details and ramifications of the proposal.

Councilman Blackaby, we your constituents oppose this proposal. It is draconian. It ignores our need for some quiet, for drivable roads, for privacy in our homes and gardens, for the beautiful view out of my window which sustains me everyday as an 87 year old.  You can rezone to allow more development but what where and what about the neighborhood?

The thought of these towers over looking my little house is just horrendous.  Downtown is already ruined for me.  Have you noticed that most of the adult citizens now shop on Solano avenue instead of downtown. Don't forget we are the voters

There is nothing in this proposal that will create low income housing.  This is not going to solve the homeless problem.  The only people who will benefit will be the developers.  Berkeley is already one of the most dense cities in CA.  We are building housing for the rest of the  Bay Area.  Berkeley has already created more units in the larger buildings that have been built over the last few years than the state required to be built.  Let's let the changes to the ADU ordinance have a few years to work.  Please don't sell the city to the developers.  That is not what you were elected to do.

An outrageous plan with no community input.  Is this really Berkeley? 

New state laws already allow for up to 4 units on single family properties. Without giving these new laws time to take effect, this proposal seems to be instead allowing unilateral development rights without requirements for affordable housing. Could we instead focus on lowering the bottlenecks -- costs and timelines -- of residential development to allow current laws to be more impactful for missing middle housing?

I have not received any notification about the Council vote or information regarding the proposed changes.

Mayor Ishii has committed to having open transparency to BCC issues, deliberations and decisions. I personally view this issue of “middle housing” as an important test to that commitment. The proposed changes to zoning have the potential to dramatically impact all area of Berkeley. Please allow plenty of notice and opportunities for information sharing and discussion. 

Please defer any action on this significant up-zoning proposal.  I've been monitoring this for the past year and it clearly needs more input and consideration of the downstream ramifications.  Honestly this is so significant it seems appropriate to include in a General Plan type process or even put it to the voters.

Am in district 4. So many reasons this is unwise. More public feedback is needed. NO to this pending zoning proposal

Progressive values are not about big buildings swallowing up small buildings.  Even if this comment is simplistic, all Berkeley residents nevertheless need to be notified and allowed to vote on this issue.