The Ten Commandments if Moses had been an infill developer.

Many cities, planners, and politicians express a desire for denser, richer, mixed-use development – especially
with affordable housing – but are at a loss to actually make it possible. After more than a decade building
dense, infill projects in Berkeley, CA, I am familiar with the obstacles to such development presented by the
zoning ordinances, planning codes, land-use boards, and other regulatory mechanisms in most cities.

They are close to insurmountable, and require an Old Testament solution.

Moses was, of course, one of the first figures in the Old Testament to grapple with planning and development
issues. In the face of overwhelming difficulties he sought help from the Divine. The following is a list of Ten
Commandments that the Almighty might provide Moses, were he an infill developer today, leading a tribe of
New Urbanists into the Promised Land.

1. Increase allowable density.

2. Reduce parking requirements.
3. Reduce open space requirements.
4. Reduce setback requirements.
5. Encourage mixed-use projects, and allow them in areas zoned for commercial-use
only.
6. Get enabling legislation from the state legislature to allow modification of local
zoning ordinances, i.e. to do all of the above. (E.g. Ca. Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5)
7. To avoid unnecessary controversy, begin by designating only one or two areas for
high-density housing and locate it close to mass transit, in whatever form that may
be.
8. Identify the existing successes in the designated area – a landmark, institution, or
local hot spot – and build around that.
9. Encourage a multitude of smaller projects, different & finely grained, rather than
one mega project.
10. Do whatever it takes to get one project built; make sure it is a good one.

1
In Berkeley, CA where I develop, these would have to be restated as “The Ten Suggestions,” in deference to the moral relativism of
the area.

2116 ALLSTON WAY SUITE ONE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704

510.883.1000 FAX 510.883.9000 WWW.PANORAMICINTERESTS.COM
 1. Increase allowable density.

“Men, thinly scattered make a shift, but a bad shift, without many things. It being concentration that produces convenience.”
– Samuel Johnson

Dramatically increasing the number of people conducting purposeful activity – work, study, shopping,
recreation, and socializing – in any given area is, in my experience, the easiest way to revive a downtown,
improve transit, and encourage development of more affordable housing. This means densities of at least 100
units per acre, which can be achieved with 4- and 5-story buildings – a height most communities find acceptable
in their downtowns. The multi-story buildings we have built in and around downtown Berkeley have densities
ranging from 150 to 230 units per acre, which on paper may look shockingly high, but which in person are
benign. They look like San Francisco’s North Beach, or Boston’s North End: pleasant neighborhoods, and
tourist attractions to boot (and both with densities over 175 units per acre). What is important is what is
perceived.

I have found that residents who are quite happy with 5-story European-scale façades are shocked to learn that
these correlate with densities north of 100 to 200 units per acre. (These numbers themselves are misleading,
however, for it is rare to ever actually build at the highest level of density over an entire acre.)

Thus, I think cities that want infill development should abandon strict density limits, and set the maximum
allowable heights. Berkeley follows such a code, and is one of the few cities in California that is meeting its
state requirement for affordable housing, and doing it without city subsidies.

Before, Berkeley, CA, September 1993 Shattuck Lofts, Berkeley, CA, September 1995 (170 units/acre)
Bistro Liaison

1
 2. Reduce parking requirements.
“Cities exist not for the passage of cars, but for the care and culture of human beings.”
– Lewis Mumford

Nothing kills an infill project faster than an artificially high parking requirement. By an “artificial”
requirement, I mean one that is more than necessary to serve the needs of the infill project’s intended residents.
Many of the residents, for example, in my downtown Berkeley projects do not drive, cannot drive, or cannot
afford to drive. A high parking requirement is unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive. Here in urban California
it is very hard to build moderately priced infill housing with a parking requirement of 1 space per unit. It is
impossible to do so with a requirement of 2 spaces per unit. It is impossible to build low-income infill housing
with a parking requirement of either 1 space per unit or 2 spaces per unit.2

Happily, the City of Berkeley’s zoning allows great flexibility in its parking requirements, depending on the
project’s unit types, proximity to transit, etc. It has approved projects with as few as .25 spaces per unit, and is
even considering car-free housing projects in its downtown. The net result is a downtown with many more
pedestrians and no increase in cars – the planners’ dream.

The city also allows great flexibility in providing the parking it does require, and is the first city in the United
States to allow a stacked parking system, with independent, owner-operated access.3 The city is also one of the
first to allow in-house car-sharing, another innovative solution to the nagging problem of parking and car
ownership.4

Step 1: Parked car is in lift, below ground. Step 2: Owner raises lift, with car, to ground level. Step 3: Car is now accessible at ground level.

Triple-stack car-lift at the Berkeleyan, Berkeley, CA Electric car & City Care Share’s Honda Civic at the Gaia Building
Berkeley, CA

2
This assumes privately financed projects without city subsidies. “Low-income” presumes 50-80% AMI.
3
See Parklift.com
4
See CityCarShare.com

2
 3. Reduce open space requirements.
“In orthodox city planning, neighborhood open spaces are venerated in an amazingly uncritical fashion, much as savages
venerate magical fetishes.”
– Jane Jacobs

Another killer of infill development is the requirement for open spaces. In tight, infill locations, excessive open
space requirements limit density, warp design, and drive up costs, very often with no tangible benefit to the city
or to the inhabitants. Innocuous sounding open space requirements of 100 to 200 s.f. per unit, make infill
projects extremely expensive, and if they do not kill projects outright, often result in empty and costly expanses
of wasted space.

Mind you, some open space is needed. But nowhere near as much as most codes require, and not where many
cities demand it – on the street. We always put it in semi-private areas like second floor courtyards, or on
rooftop areas, and have built spaces ranging from 1,500 s.f. to 11,000 s.f.

The most successful open spaces in the dense infill projects I have built are between 1,500 s.f. and 2,500 s.f.,
irrespective of the size of the development. An intimate, well-tended small space is better – and more
frequently used – than a massive empty one.

Recently, a Design Review staff member of the City of Berkeley surveyed open spaces and rooftop gardens in
downtown San Francisco. She found that the most popular spaces by far were almost always areas of less than
2,000 s.f., even in large high-rises.

Roof Garden at the ARTech Building, Berkeley, CA (1,450 s.f.) Roof Garden at the ARTech Building, Berkeley, CA (1,450 s.f.)

The atrium’s chessboard at the Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA (1,200 s.f.)

3
 4. Reduce setback requirements.
In purely residential single-family neighborhoods, having front, back, and sideyard setbacks is a good idea.
In tight, downtown sites they are not, for the simple reason that they serve no useful purpose when most of the
older, existing building were built right up to the property line. A brick wall on a property line does not care
whether its new neighbor is right next to it or 5 to 10 feet away. In urban settings, the setbacks usually become
areas for loitering, trash disposal, or worse. Rare is one that renders any valuable service or aesthetic to the city
imposing it.

Robin’s Sandwiches at MLK, Jr Way, Berkeley, CA Apartment on Channing Way, Berkeley, CA

Apartment at Shattuck Avenue & Virginia Street, Berkeley, CA

4
 5. Encourage mixed-use projects, and allow them in areas zoned for commercial-use
only.
“…Why undertake such [mixed-use] projects?

Because they intensify the richness of living, enhance people’s range of experience, and create easy access to a nearly
inexhaustible variety of activities.

Mixed use developments are designed at a human scale, and represent a positive attempt by the development community to
achieve the public object of keeping central cities alive and making cities a living organism…”

– Edmund Bacon, Philadelphia Planning Dept. Dir. (ret.)

The virtues of mixed-use development are well documented. By a happy coincidence, downtown locations are
best served by mixed-use projects. Very few residents in urban settings want to live on the ground floors, and
very few retail establishments want to be anyplace but the ground floor. Cities are better off when they
accommodate the wishes of both.

They also get more tax revenue by developing their land more intensively. The property tax and business
license tax revenue generated by one 7-story, 91-unit apartment building I recently finished in downtown
Berkeley (on a 14,850 s.f. lot) would equal the city’s share of the sales tax revenue of a store that sells
$20,000,000 annually, or $1,346 per s.f.

CTP’s old building, Berkeley, CA, July 1998 The ARTech Building, Berkeley, CA, May 2003 (163 units/acre)
Bohemian Café, non-profit Computer Technologies Program
(If the 2nd floor was apartments instead, 217 units/acre)

The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA, 2001 (267 units/acre)

If a retail space were to generate as much tax revenue as this building,
it would have to generate sales of $1,346 per s.f. annually.

5
 6. Get enabling legislation from the state legislature to allow modification of local
zoning ordinances, i.e. to do all of the above. ( E.g. Ca. Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5)

“I could never be a Socialist. They have far too many night meetings.”
– Oscar Wilde

Mr. Wilde could never have been a planner, developer, or zoning officer either, for anything related to zoning
controversy invariably involves countless hearings, reports, findings, and appeals. Modifying a city’s zoning
ordinance to allow the changes mentioned above is equally controversial and time consuming – something most
politicians would just as soon avoid.

An easier, simpler, and largely painless route for local authorities is to invoke the authority of a state law, which
allows them to modify any zoning restriction on a case-by-case basis for a project meeting specific
requirements established by the state’s legislature. California, for example, has one such law that allows
modifications to a city’s zoning ordinance when a project provides a certain level of low-income units.5 Infill
projects in Berkeley with low-income units routinely get reductions in parking, in open space and setback
requirements, in addition to increases in density level – all on account of this law.

Project approval and controversy is, to a large measure, removed from the local political process, and local
politicians are immunized from criticism, since they are obliged to follow state law.

Comic by Brian Kelly illustrating a typical Berkeley City Council or Zoning Board meeting.

5
Ca. Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/65580%2D65589.8.html

6
 7. To avoid unnecessary controversy, begin by designating only one or two areas for
high-density housing and locate it close to mass transit, in whatever form that may be.
In order to avoid the controversy inherent in proposing a significant departure from the city’s usual
development patterns, planners and politicians would do well to limit the area affected by such change, e.g. put
it next to the transit centers, or along the transit corridor. Knowing that high-density housing is going only into
one area of the city allays concerns that arise from the lack of understanding what high-density housing means.
Thus, it makes citizens and voters more willing to experiment.

Berkeley’s success in fostering high-density housing is, in my opinion, largely the result of its directing such
developments into its downtown core and along its busy transit corridors – away from the single-family
residential neighborhoods in the city. After several years of seeing high-density developments ranging from 4
to 7 stories rejuvenating its underachieving sections of the city, the citizens have seen the benefits of such
development and embrace the idea. One example: recently, Berkeley voters overwhelming rejected a
downzoning initiative that would have reduced building heights throughout the city.

Downtown Berkeley BART station, with the Gaia Building (267 units/acre) in the background
The Gaia Building has 237 residents. Only 33 have cars and park in the building;
on-street parking is only available at metered spaces.

7
 8. Identify the existing successes in the designated area – a landmark, institution, or
local hot spot – and build around that.
Infill development plans have more chance of success if they start small, and build, concentrically, around
existing successes. Larger, grander plans often frighten voters, and dilute the impact of city resources and
attention. A smaller, successful development also has the virtue of becoming self-sustaining.

15 years ago, the 2000 block of Berkeley’s Addison Street largely consisted of derelict warehouses and auto
repair shops. Much like an urban commando, the Berkeley Repertory Theatre built a new theater there. In
1994, to the amusement of many and the derision of some, Mayor Shirley Dean designated the area as
Berkeley’s new “Arts District”. Today, there are two more theaters, the new Jazz School, one dance school,
one new bar and restaurant, two new cafés, and one new high-density mixed-use project – all development
undertaken and supported by private entities.

The adjacent blocks are now in turn being renovated, and the success of the “Arts District” is spreading out to
the rest of the downtown.

Berkeley Arts District Flag The Kress Building, Berkeley, CA, renovated 2001 The Shattuck Building
Berkeley, CA, renovated 2001
Downtown Restaurant

The Jazz School, Berkeley, CA, 2002 The Berkeley Repertory Theatre, Berkeley, CA, 1999 The ARTech Building, Berkeley, CA
August 2002

8
 9. Encourage a multitude of smaller projects, different & finely grained, rather than
one mega project.
“The genius of American urbanism is that it can accommodate variety without endangering its wholeness.”
– Rem Koolhaas

A plan that incorporates the energies and resources of many smaller developers, builders, and businesses is
probably more interesting, and has a better chance of success, than a plan that accommodates the energies and
resources of just one. The “Small-Unit” solution works better than the “Big-Unit” solution for infill
development for several reasons. First, it spreads the risks and rewards of such development, bringing more
creative resources and more supporters to the undertaking. Second, it reduces the likelihood of making colossal
mistakes – since the scope of each project is smaller – and allows for more experimentation, since the stakes for
each individual project is not as high. Third, it allows the city and the developers to learn incrementally from
each project, tweaking designs and regulations as they go. Finally, it makes for more interesting design to have
many architects working in an area, rather than just one or two.

Old house & flower shop at 2004 University Avenue, August 2002 The Touriel Building, Berkeley, CA, August 2004 (218 units/acre)
Darling Flower Shop

Gas station, vacant since 1968, at 2700 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley, CA Mixed-Use Development at 2700 San Pablo, Berkeley, CA, 2005 (122 units/acre)
Nathan’s Market, 3,500 s.f. office/retail space

9
 10. Do whatever it takes to get one project built; make sure it is a good one.
“Americans can always be expected to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
– Winston Churchill

The greatest threat to infill development is the hyperactive imagination of the people who oppose it. If the cities
can get something built, and they make sure it is something good, at least something decent, then 90% of the
resistance to such development will dissipate. The career obstructionists will remain, if Berkeley is any
example, but the rest of the citizens will be able to discount their claims, and politicians will be comfortable
supporting such development. In November 2002, “neighborhood activists” in Berkeley – upset about half a
dozen dense infill projects that had been built downtown and along the main streets – put an initiative on the
ballot that would have downzoned almost all of the city to a de facto height limit of 2 stories (28’). It would
have all but wiped out infill development, and ended affordable housing of any sort. Every elected official in
the city came out against the initiative.

Happily, Berkeley voters agreed, and defeated the initiative by a 4 to 1 margin, the most lopsided victory in
recent history. The histrionic claims of the sponsors of the downzoning initiative failed to persuade the voters,
because the voters knew firsthand the kinds of projects targeted by the initiative, and were comfortable with
them.6

Obviously, it is a lot easier to persuade someone of the virtues of dense development if they have a concrete
idea what it is. Just make sure that the first time through, you get it right, or close to right.

Former Chevron gas station, 1996 The Berkeleyan, Berkeley, CA, 1998 (227 units/acre)
Yali’s Café, 3,000 s.f. retail/office space
This is the first new housing project by a private developer in
downtown since WWII.

6
The continuing story “Development Wars” is a staple of the local press.

10
 HENRY
COURT
(1990)

Location
1509 Henry Street
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
10,000 sf

Units
6 Townhouses

May 1990

Density
26 units / acre

Parking
6 spaces

Awards
Golden Nugget Award,
Best Small House Design under
12,000 sf

www.panoramicinterests.com May 1989

11
 WESTSIDE
PLACE
(1993)

Location
2714 Ninth Street
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
6,000 sf

Units
7 Live/Work Lofts

Density
51 units / acre

Parking
8 spaces

Commercial Space 1993

12,000 sf

Awards
Award of Excellence for
Live/Work Housing,
Berkeley Design Advocates

www.panoramicinterests.com 1991

12
 SHATTUCK
LOFTS
(1995)

Location
1849 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
6,160 sf

Units
24 Condomiums

Density
170 units / acre

Parking
14 spaces September 2002

Commercial Space
2,000 sf
Bistro Liaison

Amenities
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

Awards
Ahwahnee Community Design
Award of Merit

www.panoramicinterests.com September 1993

13
 UNIVERSITY
LOFTS
(1997)

Location
1801 University Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
12,000 sf

Units
29 Condominiums

Density
105 units / acre

Parking
29 spaces
1997

Commercial Space
4,500 sf
Anna’s Café
Talaveras Ceramics
Youth Radio

Amenities
Interior courtyard
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com 1995

14
BERKELEYAN
APARTMENTS
(1998)

Location
1910 Oxford Street
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
10,700 sf

Units
56 Apartments
(14 low-income)

Density
227 units / acre

Parking
39 spaces 1998

Commercial Space
4,500 sf
Yali’s Café
Computer Training Program

Amenities
Interior courtyard
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

Awards
Excellence in Design,
Downtown Berkeley Association

www.panoramicinterests.com 1996

15
 GAIA
BUILDING
(2001)

Location
2116 Allston Way
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
14,850 sf

Units
91 Apartments
(19 low-income)

Density
267 units / acre

Parking
42 spaces August 2001

Commercial Space
12,000 sf
No leases signed yet

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Interior courtyard
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

Awards
Excellence in Design,
Downtown Berkeley Association

www.panoramicinterests.com June 2000

16
 ARTECH
BUILDING
(2002)

Location
2002 Addison Street
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
5,600 sf

Units
21 Apartments
(4 very low-income)

Density
163 units / acre

Parking
17 spaces August 2002

Commercial Space
6,000 sf
Bohemian Café
Psychology Office
CTP (a non-profit partner
and educational entity)

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

Awards
Excellence in Design,
Downtown Berkeley Association

www.panoramicinterests.com July 1998

17
 ACTON
COURTYARDS
(2003)

Location
1392 University Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
22,000 sf

Units
71 Apartments
(20 low-income)

Density
141 units / acre
May 2003

Parking
56 spaces

Commercial Space
8,000 sf
Jubilee Restoration
Restaurant
Offices/Retail

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Interior courtyard
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com February 2001

18
BACHENHEIMER
BUILDING
(2004)

Location
2119 University Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
12,400 sf

Units
44 Apartments
(7 low-income)

Density August 2004

155 units / acre

Parking
30 spaces

Commercial Space
3,000 sf
Office/Retail

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com October 2002

19
 FINE ARTS
BUILDING
(2004)

Location
2471 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
26,000 sf

Units
100 Apartments
(20 low-income)

Density
168 units / acre

August 2004
Parking
55 spaces

Commercial Space
12,000 sf
Fine Arts Theater
Retail
Café

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Interior courtyard
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com January 1972

20
 TOURIEL
BUILDING
(2004)

Location
2004 Universtiy Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
7,000 sf

Units
35 Apartments

Density August 2004

218 units / acre

Parking
8 spaces

Commercial Space
2,400 sf
Darling Florists

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com January 2003

21
 JUBILEE
COURTYARD
(proposed in 2002)

Location
2700 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
16,000 sf

Units
45 Apartments
(9 low-income)

2005
Density
122 units / acre

Parking
35 spaces

Commercial Space
3,500 sf
Nathan’s Market
Office/Retail

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com 2003

22
 NEW
CALIFORNIAN
APARTMENTS
(2005)

Location
1950 Martin Luther King, Jr Way
Berkeley, California

Lot Size
43,000 sf

Units
175 Apartments
(35 low-income)

August 2005
Density
177 units / acre

Parking
40 spaces

Commercial Space
15,000 sf
No leases signed yet

Amenities
High-speed internet access
Interior courtyard
Rooftop gardens
Stacked hydraulic parking lifts

www.panoramicinterests.com January 2003

23