The City maintains that the sweet spot for developers to build housing in Berkeley is 7 stories. Current zoning requires that buildings of 7 stories include on-site affordable units. Are you in favor of changing the existing zoning in the North Shattuck, Solano, San Pablo and College corridors to allow market rate 7-story buildings so they would not have to include any on-site affordable housing.

No. I support more homes on Berkeley's commercial corridors, including added height through density bonuses tied to affordable homes, and I support keeping on-site affordable units as part of that. The measure of a housing policy is who can live in the homes it produces. Affordability requirements should be set from a current, public feasibility analysis so mixed-income buildings actually get built, and reviewed on a published schedule. That is different from removing the requirement. Berkeley's already-dense neighborhoods, including mine, have absorbed most of the city's new homes. The corridors in higher-resource neighborhoods should share that responsibility, and the homes they add should include homes people with ordinary incomes can afford.

City staff, along with paid consultants, spent several years formulating the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP), engaging with community members and encouraging them to offer their vision for the transformation of San Pablo Avenue. The resulting ideas and recommendations were entirely ignored by the city council. Would you support revisiting the community’s recommendations and incorporating these into whatever final SPASP the council proposes?

Public process has to shape outcomes before decisions are locked in, or it is not a process. If I am on the Council when the final San Pablo Avenue plan comes back, I will read the community recommendations against the draft and ask staff to show, item by item, which were adopted, which were changed, and why any were set aside. That accounting should be public before the vote, not after. I support a denser San Pablo Avenue with more homes, and I support the people who live beside it being able to see their input in the plan: the sidewalks, lighting, transit stops, trees, and public space that make added density livable.

We have already rezoned to allow a doubling of the city population. Is it necessary to rezone commercial streets specifically for high-density housing to meet our housing goals? What is the maximum number of stories, including the density bonus, you believe preserves the sense of community and human interactions that currently exists in the North Shattuck, Solano, San Pablo, and College corridors?

Berkeley has to plan and zone for its share of the region's housing need. That is state law, and it limits what the City can decide on its own. But the law does not build homes; developers do, and zoned capacity on paper is not the same as homes built. I do not support another blanket upzoning of the commercial corridors. I want the neighborhood businesses that make these streets work to stay, and I support the goals of Save Berkeley Shops. Where added height makes sense, it should come through density bonuses tied to affordable homes. On maximum height, I agree most with your coalition's approach: keep a two- to three-story base and allow affordability-linked bonuses up to roughly seven or eight stories, rather than making seven stories the starting point.

Council members assert that building market rate housing invariably will lower rents. Yet, as reported this April by the Emeryville Tattler, despite a massive building boom between 2020 and 2024, Emeryville has had a 16.3% year-over-year increase in one-bedroom rents, the largest in the Bay Area. Despite building a substantial amount of market rate housing, Berkeley’s rents are still far from affordable. How do you propose that Berkeley actually build affordable housing for truly low-income (non-student) residents?

A bed is not affordable merely because it exists. Market-rate homes ease pressure on existing homes, but they do not house people on low incomes, and I have never claimed they do. That takes public money, public land, and ownership that cannot be sold to the highest bidder. In my first 100 days I would refer a Berkeley Social Housing Partnership and a recurring acquisition and preservation process for community land trusts, limited-equity cooperatives, public agencies, and mission-driven nonprofits. I would protect the Small Sites program, seek a recurring local preservation contribution, and coordinate local funds with County Measure A1 and state and federal sources. And I would publish, every year, homes completed and preserved by income level, so residents can see what was promised and what was delivered.

Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?

On-site first. Mixed-income buildings are how a neighborhood stays mixed, and I want the affordable homes in the same building, on the same street, with the same amenities. An in-lieu fee should be the exception, allowed only where a current public feasibility analysis shows the fee will produce more permanently affordable homes than the on-site units would, and only if the City reports every year where that money went and how many homes it built. If the fee is set low enough that paying it is always the cheaper choice, it is not a housing program. It is a discount.

In July 2025, the City Council passed a version of middle housing that went far beyond the state requirements and could potentially double the population of Berkeley, which is already one of the densest cities in California. Do you favor or oppose what the City Council has passed? Should the council continue to pass bills far in excess of what the state requires?

I favor it. The ordinance keeps the three-story, 35-foot height limit in the flats, allows small apartment buildings on lots that were limited to one house, and leaves the hillside fire zones out. That is the missing middle: the duplexes, fourplexes, and courtyard buildings that most of Berkeley's older neighborhoods were built with before they were zoned out. I support it because the neighborhoods that were closed to renters for decades should share the work of housing people, not because the state told Berkeley to. Where Berkeley's own need justifies going beyond a state floor, it should, with the conditions I apply everywhere: occupied rent-controlled homes preserved, and sidewalks, transit, and services planned alongside the growth.

The City Council has limited the ability of Berkeley residents to protect and landmark buildings for their historical, artistic and architectural heritage. Do you favor or oppose the changes that were made by the council?

I oppose the April changes, and I would have voted no. Raising the number of signatures residents need to start a landmark nomination from 50 to 200 moves heritage decisions further from the people who live with them. Landmarking should be evidence-based: documented criteria, a public record, and a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. It should not be used to stop homes, and it should not be put out of residents' reach either. Civilian oversight matters, and people should have a real say in protecting what makes their neighborhoods worth being proud of. Berkeley can preserve real history and still add homes. The project at 2274 Shattuck, which adds homes while keeping the UA Theater's facade and lobby, shows how.

Will you support a measure to rescind the July 2026 Council vote on Hopkins until a full complete street study, as required by the Bicycle Plan, is concluded? By necessity, it would fully consider budget costs, the possibility of paving with pedestrian improvements only, accessibility issues for all ages and abilities, alternative cycle routes such as Rose and Ada Streets, and include community input meetings.

Yes, I would support reconsidering it. The vote did not reach consensus, and I would not have voted for it. Before the City commits about $20 million to one design, it should look seriously at other safe options, including different bike-lane designs and parallel routes like Rose and Ada Streets, weigh the cost and accessibility for all ages and abilities, plan for loading and emergency access, and hold real community meetings. I apply the same standard on Telegraph: publish the plan for access, deliveries, and safety before permanent construction, and measure the results after.

The biggest safety hazard on Hopkins is its poor pavement condition. Will you support repaving Hopkins now, as originally proposed, with only the pedestrian and other safety improvements, since moving quickly would help avoid further deterioration and the higher costs that come with delay?

Yes. Repave Hopkins now. The pavement is a real hazard, and every delay makes the repair more expensive. Pedestrian safety improvements should go in with the repaving, and the City should use that time to study alternative bike-lane designs rather than lock in a single plan. Basic repairs should not wait on the bigger design. I have said the same about Telegraph.

Critics of current developments have suggested that the City Council consider the concept of a “livable city” as one that honors the environment, human scale buildings, personal relationships centered around community gathering places, safety, and embraces all ages. What is your concept of a livable city?

A livable city is one where people can afford to stay. Everything else follows from that. It has sidewalks a wheelchair can use, lighting that works, a bus that comes, and a 72-hour repair window when a streetlight or a curb ramp fails. It has public land kept for public life: parks, plazas, and more chess tables, places to sit and gather without spending money. It has homes at every income, in every neighborhood, and it protects the rent-controlled homes people already live in. It is safe because people know their neighbors and the City answers when called, not because of cameras. And it tells residents plainly what is working, what is delayed, and who is responsible. Southside is my home. That is the city I am asking to build with you.