July 8 Council Meeting Transcripts and Audio
The full Audio File (MP3) of this meeting is available for download from the City of Berkeley; the downloadable video MP4 is essentially useless. We have made available below transcripts and audio 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.
Councilmember Humbert remarks (start at 45:08 in full length)
I do have some comments, and the first comment is about the Middle Housing item that’s on consent for second reading. And I want to thank the city attorney for her review of the process for her confirmation that indeed, the special meeting and submission and receipt of council supplemental. While it all happened with both city rules and Brown act requirements, -- the meeting—the special meeting--was set up some number of weeks in advance--so there was really active notice of the date of the special meeting—as well.
Advance notification regarding the date of the special meeting was never in question, but as CM Humbert readily admits, the public was only given 24 hours notice of the changes being called for in the Supplemental. We were unaware that the rules of notice were different for Special Sessions as opposed to regular sessions of council . What is left unsaid is why a Supplemental package was even necessary. There were no conditions that had changed that would have necessitated a last-minute increase in the height and density proposed in the ordinance. However, the City of Berkeley General Plan “mandates maximum citizen involvement in all public planning”. What appears to be a deliberate attempt to give the public as little notice as possible of significant changes violates the General Plan’s stated purpose to “Improve Citizen Participation.”
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.
CM Humbert's lecture tells 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.
The level of vitriol and anger that we have seen over this proposal in a lot of emails, [inaudible] a lot of emails in support but a lot of really angry emails in opposition- it’s a betrayal of those values, I think.
We have reviewed almost 500 of the emails sent in by residents contained in the agenda packet and supplemental packets 1 and 2 for the June 26 first reading of the ordinance, and they can hardly be classified as full of vitriol. (Click here for the breakdown of pro and con submissions.) They express a lot of concern about the lack of a proper process for people to know about the proposed changes and see the pros and cons debated. They express overwhelming support for finding a path to create affordable housing, not the market rate housing enabled by this proposal, and show concern for the effect the upzoning will have on the environment, biodiversity, the creation of heat deserts, lack of green space, and myriad other issues that affect the livability of the city. CM Humbert seems to be saying that disagreeing with him is simply unacceptable behavior.
I know that some folks think there has not been enough process, or the process was somehow unfair, but this proposal has been the subject of many council meetings, planning commission meetings, public workshops and other outreach events over the past six years.
If you look at what CM Humbert is calling public outreach, you’ll see that it has been almost entirely one-way conversations. Members of the public get one minute to make a statement or ask a question, but the commissioners or councilmembers, who get as much time as they want to pontificate, do not answer the questions or comment on the public's statements. We see it time and time again. The public is afforded none of the give and take that goes on with staff and with consultants. The city decides what it wants to do and instructs staff to write it up. Anyone who argues against it is disrespected by Councilmembers such as Humbert.
And I’ll remind folks the planning commission deliberated and actually passed a version of middle housing that went much further than what we approved here at council. There were no density limits in the planning commission version that passed some time ago.
Because the Council essentially voted against allowing the functional equivalent of dormatories and single room occupancy hotels in residential zones, we should all be grateful. Left unsaid was that in 2022, City staff recommended a much more restrained version of Development Standards for Middle Housing with proposed density standards of 3-6 units, a maximum coverage of 50-55% for most lots, a building front with a minimum of 20% “visual interest” such as entries and windows (to prevent the blank-wall look), and a 28 foot maximum average height, paired with a 35 foot maximum height to the ridge, rather than the recently passed 35-foot big box concept or 38-foot big box with a peaked roof.
Why do councilmembers continue to talk about how their recommendations were less severe than those of the planning commision, while failing to tell us that a decision was made to not follow the recommendations in 2022, which were made by staff after getting feedback from the City Council, Planning Commision, and Planning Commission Zoning Ordinance Revision Project (ZORP) subcommittee?
It is time for us to move forward, and I hope that the people who are so passionately opposed to this can find it in their hearts to do some self-reflection and think of the message they’re sending to immigrants, the rest of the country, and next generations.
We have self-reflected and have determined that we aren’t sending any message to immigrants, the rest of the country, and next generations. To suggest that this ordinance is about them is pathetic. We are, however, sending a message to the city council that we are a vital part of the community, that our participation should be welcomed and applauded, and that the level of disrespect this shows the public is quite unbecoming in a city the caliber of Berkeley.
Councilmember Kesarwani remarks (start at 1:37:00 in full length)
As the author of the supplemental amendments, I want to explain that the reason why myself and three others on this dais proposed amendments to the middle housing ordinance is because this is an iterative process. We are listening to the public. For example, the height standard proposed by our planning department staff was developed after they received community concerns about solar access impediments, overall bulk, and other impacts that could result from larger buildings, as was noted on June 26. An exhaustive solar access study was conducted.
After the solar access study was performed, a City Council Worksession report was issued in September, 2022, which included feedback from City Council, Planning commission, and Planning Commission Zoning Ordinance Revision Project (ZORP) subcommittee. In the report, City staff recommended Development Standards that would have resulted in a much more restrained version of Middle Housing with proposed density standards of 3-6 units, a maximum coverage of 50-55% for most lots, a building front with a minimum of 20% “visual interest” such as entries and windows (to prevent the blank-wall look), and a 28 foot maximum average height, paired with a 35 foot maximum height to the ridge. The City Council decided to jettison these suggestions, which did address the community concerns mentioned above, and pass a Middle Housing Ordinance that promotes the 35-foot big box concept, or a 38-foot-foot big box with peaked roof.
The city received 31 original and 88 form letters (77 of which were submitted twice) requesting the allowable density in the proposed Middle Housing Ordinance be increased. A total of 371 letters (147 original and 224 form) were submitted protesting the huge density increase, and another 1200+ signatures on our petition expressed concern about the density already allowed in the ordinance. And yet CM Kasarwani continues the fiction that she listens to the community. Joined by the mayor and all the other councilmembers, none of them have ever mentioned those residents who signed the petition on this website.
The touted model solar study, which predicted a 10% decrease in solar output over the course of a day, was done with the assumption of a 35-foot height limit. The effect of the added 3 feet for a peaked roof, or the added 5 feet providing for rooftop access was never mentioned (at least publicly) before the new ordinance was passed. And if your unique situation would result in a 50% decrease in solar output? Tough luck.
The ordinance that was before the council on June 26 was based on direction passed last July by the prior council under different mayor.
What difference does that make? CM Kesarwani was a member of that council.
Over that time in the last year, we have continued to listen to the public. Speaking for myself, I proposed amendments because I 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.
So there it is: the admission that she only listens to the people who agree with her. She is ignoring of course, those people who understand the status quo isn’t working, but who believe that her amendments to increase the density will not help them.
CM Kesarwani’s last-minute amendments, introduced only 24 hrs before the public hearing, increased the allowed density to 70 dwelling units/acre. For comparison, a duplex on a typical lot is about 15 units/acre, and a triplex is about 25 units/acre. Before amendment, the densities ranged from 40 to 60 units/acre, or 5-7 units/lot, depending on zone. After amendment, 8 units/ typical lot are allowed across all zones. How does this help our middle class workers? By demolishing some of the more affordable starter homes in the city and replacing them with smaller units that will not be appropriate for families? By causing housing prices to drop because trickle-down economics will cause owners to sell their properties at a discount after they buy new high-end market rate housing?
Does CM Kesarwani honestly believe that teachers, nurses, and first responders want to make permanent homes and raise their families in Berkeley in 800 sf apartments and bungalows, with no yards, no trees, and none of the normal amenities of home ownership, all while paying the high market rate our city commands?
It’s not working for the students and young people who spoke in support of the ordinance on June 26. We received numerous emails asking the council to equalize the density standard, to promote greater equity and fairness across all residential zones. We heard from subject matter experts, including planners and architects who suggested adding flexibility by increasing the density standard, although not as far as the planning commission had proposed and adding an option for a pitched roof. On the issue of affordability, I want to clarify that there is deed restricted below market rate affordable housing that is funded by public funds in the city. That is not the middle housing ordinance. We are trying to do as much affordable housing as we can. But guess what? It takes public resources.
But guess what? CM Kesarwani (along with members Taplin, Bartlett, Blackaby and Humbert) on June 24, 2025, voted to cut $1.4 million of funding for Berkeley’s “Small Sites” program, which helps nonprofits convert apartment buildings into permanently affordable homes. This funding came from measure U-1, passed by Berkeley voters in 2016, and widely pitched as a way to “increase affordable housing and protect Berkeley residents from homelessness” The City was inundated with campaign signs claiming U1 was “The only real affordable housing measure on the Berkeley Ballot”.
The number of emails asking the council to equalize the density standard was dwarfed in comparison to the number of emails sent opposing the massive upzoning. And the council also received emails from subject matter experts, planners, and architects who opposed the plan, outlining many negative effects and how it would actually be counter-productive. This selective picking and choosing, with no acknowledgement of legitimate opposing views, isn’t leadership; it’s dictatorship, and it has no place in Berkeley.
The voters of Berkeley actually rejected measure L in 2022 that would have provided more funding for affordable housing. So, we are trying to do the best we can with the limited resources that we have. The Middle Housing Ordinance is subject to the same affordability requirements as all housing in this city, including the requirement to provide 20% of units for low income households or pay an inclusionary housing fee that can be used to fund 100% below market rate deed-restricted affordable housing elsewhere. So—I just need to emphasize that. We asked the voters to do more affordable housing and they said no, so we’re doing the best we can with this.
Measure L was a more than one-half billion-dollar bond measure (more than $1 billion dollars with interest), of which 30% was promised would go to affordable housing. It was supported by ~59% of voters, but required two thirds to pass. One of the many reasons why measure L failed was the sizable tax hike that new and existing homeowners would have to pay and the fact that people opposed taking out a bond to pay for street repairs, which normally would be considered part of the City’s general fund obligations or financed by a pay-as-you-go parcel tax. A bond for street repair meant that we would still be paying off the street repair bonds long after the streets had worn out and had to be repaired again. But another reason was that not enough Berkeley residents trusted the City Council to spend the money in the way that was promised. This was a more than justified concern, as was shown by the recent fund diversion from measure U-1 and the Small Sites program. CM Kesarwani continues to be a leader in this lack of transparency and accountability.
I do want to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with this, and that is the nature of change. Ultimately there is no way to make everybody happy. It is our job to plan for a future city, and I believe that this change it is not is not a sledge hammer; 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.
Isn’t it amazing that people had to actually ask for sunshine, and that the council takes pride in considering the request? Especially given that the old average height limit of 28 feet (which could include a higher peaked roof) already took care of the problem! And 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, which allows for additional height and density in exchange for providing a single small low-income unit. And don’t forget; if the 40-foot building (or 52 feet with the density bonus) will block your solar panels, shade your backyard garden, and is designed to be an eyesore, there is no recourse. So don’t worry: It is not a sledge hammer; it is just your Council planning for a future city.
This is an incremental change- that you are going to see a trickle of projects on opportunity sites. If your neighbor has a built-out parcel on both sides, guess what--they are not doing middle housing. So the idea that this is going to happen on both sides of your house, and you are going to be blocked in and shaded in, that’s not accurate.
This is a preposterous statement. If you own a single story home with a back yard for your kids and your dog, your neighbors on both sides can decide to sell to a developer who tears down whatever exists and builds out to the extent this ordinance and density bonus allow (5 stories high, with up to 12 units or more with ADUs, and total lot coverage except for minimally required setbacks). You will be blocked in and shaded in, despite CM Kesarwani’s assurances. There is absolutely nothing in the Middle Housing Ordinance that prevents this exact scenario from occurring.
The Council member is telling us not to worry about all this stuff in the Middle Housing Ordinance—it will never happen. But then why is it even necessary to have such extreme provisions in the ordinance? I’m sorry, Councilmember Kesarwani, you can’t have it both ways.
People are spreading misinformation about this ordinance, to gin up opposition, and you can’t believe everything you read on Next Door.
None of this was read on Next Door. It was based on City documents and CM Kesarwani’s own words.
Okay- there’s a reason why 9 elected officials have unanimously supported this. Because we all want our city- we are fighting for our city-for the people in our city-for the teachers. The after-school workers-okay- the janitors, the custodians, the people who take care of your yard. They bike in from Richmond. Why can’t they have a chance to live here? Why can’t they live here, too? The way you got to live here when you bought your house 30 years ago. This is for the next generation. For my kid-and your kid and the grandkids who are going to Ohlone park. Why is that a bad thing? Why can’t we make space for more people?
Remember, CM Kesarwani is making this impassioned plea in support of after-school workers, janitors, custodians and gardeners, for a plan that has absolutely no requirements for affordable housing; that will allow for the by right demolition of what one would normally consider as the most affordable starter homes in the city; that is supposed to correct the effects of past discrimination in housing by making the areas of town with the greatest concentration of people of color ripe for gentrification by developers.
And be the progressive community and be that-that sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, for LGBTIQ folks? That is what we tell ourselves that we are. Well, this is the chance to actually prove it. And vote for this. And I know I haven’t changed anyone’s mind, but I hope you can start to think about why it is that 9 council members and a mayor voted for this.
Thank you very much.
Only CM Kesarwani can explain why she felt the need to disrespect and harangue the audience at such a fever pitch (listen to the end of the councilmember's speech at the link below), telling us that disagreeing with her on the Middle Housing Ordinance makes us unwelcoming of immigrants and the LGBTIQ community.