City councilmembers feel empowered to denigrate and demean residents in public meetings. Rather than listening to and considering the comments of residents who request reasonable modifications of council proposals or oppose them, some councilmembers are comfortable impugning the motives of commenters so they don’t have to address the concerns.
Details
Listen to Councilmember Humbert’s lecture on July 8, 2025, where he talks about the Middle Housing Ordinance, telling us that if we try to provide community input into establishing reasonable height limits, density limits, and lot coverage for Middle Housing, we are both anti-immigrant and against giving people the opportunity for a better life — before he even listens to any public comment!
“I also—you know—want to take this opportunity to express how disappointed I am that there are some folks, who are so resistant to welcoming new homes and people into Berkeley, that they are going to these lengths to try and stop it. Berkeley is supposed to be a tolerant place where we believe in shared responsibility for the greater good, making immigrants feel welcome, and giving people opportunities to build a better life.”
Listen to the entire 6 minutes of Councilmember Kesarwani July 8, 2025 talk about the Middle Housing Ordinance, where she deceptively asserts:
— that she listens to the public. Yet she ignores and fails to even acknowledge that over 1200 Berkeley residents signed a petition asking for more input into the process;
— that the changes she introduced with only 24 hours notice further increasing density were because she was listening to members of the public “who understand that the status quo isn’t working for our middle-class workers including our teachers, nurses, and first responders.” She ignores those people who understand the status quo isn’t working, but who believe that her amendments to increase the density will not help those middle class workers, or improve the livability of Berkeley. She admits that she only listens to people who agree with her.
— that the density bonus apparently does not exist or does not apply to the Middle Housing Ordinance: “ I don’t know where people are getting 52 feet from. The ordinance that we passed said 35 feet with 3 more feet for a pitched roof, 5 feet for a rooftop access so we can have the sunlight that people are asking for”. As was made clear during the public comment, the 52 feet came from the height increase that would result from the implementation of the density bonus. And isn’t it amazing that people had to actually ask for sunshine, and that the council takes pride in considering the request?
Or listen just to the last minute or so, where Councilmember Kesarwani harangues the audience at a fever pitch, telling us that disagreeing with her on anything to do with the Middle Housing Ordinance makes us unwelcoming of immigrants and the LGBTIQ community:
“Why can’t we make space for more people? And be the progressive community and be that-that sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, and LGBTIQ folks? That is what we tell ourselves that we are.”
We have made available full transcripts and audio of the July 8 comments from Councilmembers Humbert and Kesarwani. The transcripts have been annotated to point out statements which we feel are important to respond to and put in proper context.
November 19th, 2025
To: Adena Ishii, Rashi Kesarwani, Ben Bartlett, Terry Taplin, Cecilia Lunaparra, Igor Tregub, Shoshana O’Keefe, Brent Blackaby, Mark Humbert, Paul Buddenhagen
Re: Special Meeting on the Corridors, November 6th, 2025
I titled this letter "As some point you have to stand up for what's true".
On November 6th, around 11:30 p.m. after I asked the Mayor to postpone the discussion of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan because of the later hour, three residents of D1, including myself, were targeted by Council Member Rashi Kesarwani with her words spoken in her comment You are against housing.
No, we are not against housing. In fact, we are for “beautiful” housing, housing that will support and create a vibrant new community on San Pablo Avenue while keeping businesses and an historical perspective. We are against much of the deregulation that has occurred in the city regarding housing development and the false narrative that it is necessary to provide developers with the largest income take-aways, rather than using careful regulations (for example, some objective design standards, height limits as the state has a density bonus that can benefit SPA, with INCLUSIVE housing, setbacks, careful planning of commercial first floor real estate initiatives, etc., as well as planned parking to allow SPA to continue to be a destination area AND a walkable gateway to the city).
Regulation could allow residents, old and new, to have solar unimpeded, and to enjoy walking to amenities on San Pablo Avenue as well as living in an urban environment. Without people on the streets, vibrancy is constricted.
Finally, the City Council not only disrespected D1 residents (aka voters), CM Kesarwani’s district, that has worked mightily with Mr. Rivera on the SPA plan, but even more so, in its actions, the Council was terrifically insensitive in its actions and disrespectful to Mr. Rivera, who put in countless time and energy working on an inclusive plan based on the local reality of SPA and its inhabitants. I am guessing not a one of you has taking a planning or architecture course, but I have, and I can recognize the desire on the part of Mr. Rivera to really see the topology and history of SPA, as well as the resident community, as he works toward more housing in the area.
By dismissing the discussion as unnecessary at the 11:00 p.m. hour, the city has also dismissed its own Planning Department, and the money used to work on the plan.
Indeed, Council’s actions are contradictory to democratic participation.
We urge you to please look again at the plan and listen to various viewpoints, not just groups like YIMBY which are partisan, ideological, and money-driven.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
D1 Resident
Then CM Kesarwani, in one of her rare personal replies, shown below, contends that she attacked the resident because she was “booed” by her and “the others in her group” during her comments. CM Kesarwani made this up. As the resident replied, it was not true, and “It is time to stop making false statements which muddy the reality of what actually happened at the meeting and what is really happening regarding Council / city decisions on the rapid urbanization in the city”
Listen to it yourself above. There is no “booing”.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:02 PM Kesarwani, Rashi <RKesarwani@berkeleyca.gov> wrote:
[Redacted] has neglected to mention that she and the others in her group booed as I was attempting to make my remarks on the dais. If you don't want to be called out, then please don't interrupt my remarks in the future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember Kesarwani continuously denigrates her constituents. At the November 6, 2025, City Council meeting she tells everyone that if you disapprove of the design of a building, you do not support new housing and are against all development. The reality is, she really doesn’t care what you think. Listen for yourself.
“…it’s typically the people who have a problem with the design of new buildings, honestly, are against all development in my experience. So I haven't met people. who have -- who have said I support housing who, you know, just have a problem with the design. So I just, and I'm sorry if that has offended people, but that's the reality.”
The statement, by Councilmember Kesarwani about being against all development if you do not support a building design, led to an email exchange between the councilmember and a Berkeley resident targeted by her.
First, we have the resident, reporting that in response to her asking for a postponement of the discussion of the San Pablo Avenue Specific plan because of the late hour (11pm), CM Kesarwani accuses her of being against housing. The resident points out they are not against housing, but for “housing that will support and create a vibrant new community on San Pablo Ave”, and proceeds to explain what that means:
Resident’s Reply:
Date: November 19, 2025 at 5:08:27 PM PST
To: "Kesarwani, Rashi" <rkesarwani@berkeleyca.gov>
Subject: Re: “At some point you have to stand up for what’s true.”
CM Kesarwani and Council:
Councilmember Kesarwani erroneously states that I “neglected to mention that I and others in her group booed…” I neglected no such thing, because it simply did not happen. It is time to stop making false statements which muddy the reality of what actually happened at the meeting and what is really happening regarding Council / city decisions on the rapid urbanization in the city. Indeed, if the heights and FAR that CMs want are adopted, SPA will have close to 20,000 people living there, far exceeding RHNA goals. I stand by my comment that Council purposefully dismissed the neighborhood voices in the discussion of the SPASP on November 6th, cutting off a true democratic discussion that could inform city housing decisions.
Listen for yourselves.
The councilmember begins speaking at 6:01:50 and her comments about the design of buildings start at 6:03:21. The reaction from the small crowd is heard at 6:03:44.
There is no audible booing because we did not boo. CM Kesarwani said “the people who have a problem with the design of new buildings are against all development in my experience” and with the small audience, CM Kesarwani looks at the tiny group of three women, and smiles and chuckles. The audio bears out that there was a perfectly acceptable response from the audience (“oh come on now”, “that’s not true”) at the outrageously false narrative that CM Kesarwani is comfortable spinning which is that all community members who care about how Berkeley develops are against housing. Of course that is false. Is it ok for the CM to provoke the audience with a false narrative and expect no reaction at 11:30 p.m. at night? When was the last time CM Kesarwani answered an email from her constituents or even met with them?
Indeed there was booing much earlier, during the CZU portion of the meeting, and perhaps CM Kesarwani confused and exhausted, conflated the two at 11:30 p.m. The booing was from a younger man in the back of the room, which none of us knew or recognized, and whom some believe was a provocateur perhaps planted to make opponents of the CZU look bad. We don't know.
"At some point you need to stand up for what is true"