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.

I support building more housing in Berkeley. I would not support changing our zoning to eliminate affordable-housing obligations. Policy should drive the outcomes we are aiming to produce. Currently, market rate housing has multiple students and working professionals rooming in small apartments with living rooms converted into bedrooms.

For North Shattuck, Solano, San Pablo, and College, I would evaluate zoning changes based on what they actually produce: How much housing? At what affordability levels? What happens to existing residents and businesses? What infrastructure is required? What does the change mean for the character and function of the neighborhood?

Growth should be thoughtful, inclusive of existing residents, and truly affordable housing should remain the essential part of the equation.

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?

Yes. Community engagement means more than giving people an opportunity to speak. I believe residents and businesses should have a meaningful role in shaping how their neighborhood grows. Thoughtful development creates housing and supports vibrancy along San Pablo Avenue and its surrounding neighborhoods. Community members should be able to understand which recommendations were accepted, which were not, and why.

When I joined the Berkeley School Board, the educator housing project was well underway. Upon hearing from the neighbors that their considerations were excluded, I immediately slowed the project to ensure thoughtful community engagement occurred, personally met with neighborhood groups, and ensured final proposals presented to the public included how community concerns were included in the plan, and why some alternative proposals were not.

This is how I would continue to govern and what I believe has been missing from the city council of late.

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 is not a “one-size fits all” city. I support creating additional housing opportunities that will maximize affordability for young adults, working families, and retirees. I would look at appropriate height and density in the context of what will truly drive affordability, not just mass production.

My goal would be enough capacity to meaningfully address our housing shortage while maintaining commercial districts that work at street level and remain places where people want to spend time. That is consistent with my broader approach: housing growth should occur alongside the infrastructure, transportation, public services, and neighborhood investments needed to support it.

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?

Building more housing is necessary, and increasing housing capacity alone does not answer the affordability question. I want Berkeley to measure affordable-housing results by income level, not simply announce a total number of new units. We should know how many homes we are producing for households at 30%, 50%, 60%, and 80% of Area Median Income and whether those homes are reaching the people they are intended to serve.

That requires multiple approaches: 100% affordable projects; inclusionary affordable units in private developments; effective use of in-lieu fees; preservation of existing lower-cost housing; anti-displacement measures; and aggressive pursuit of county, state, and federal funding. We need to use local dollars strategically to leverage these resources.

My focus would be on outcomes: how many affordable homes are built and occupied by young adults, working families, and retirees.

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

Berkeley's existing program allows developers to provide below-market-rate units, pay an in-lieu fee, or combine the two. The fees are designed to help Berkeley support affordability in other developments/or means. The question is, do the fines actually generate enough subsidy to improve the availability of affordable housing?

I would want Berkeley to transparently compare the alternatives: How many affordable homes do the in-lieu fees support? If we collect affordable-housing fees, residents should be able to follow those dollars to more socio-economically diverse neighborhoods.

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 support the objective of creating more housing choices, including smaller multi-unit housing, while protecting existing residents from displacement and maintaining reasonable development standards.

I would judge the policy by its results. Is it producing additional affordable housing? Are existing renters adequately protected? Are there significant unintended effects on trees, open space, accessibility, infrastructure, or neighboring properties?

Berkeley should not automatically go beyond state law, nor should state laws become our ceiling. The Council should be able to adopt local policies when there is a demonstrated need and a clear community benefit. My standard would be evidence and results which align with our shared goals.

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?

Landmark designation should protect resources with historic, architectural, or cultural importance. As a generational resident, I value Berkeley's historic preservation.

I would support clear, objective criteria for determining historical significance, and a transparent process that gives residents meaningful opportunities to participate.

When preservation and another public objective conflict, I would aim to reconcile them through adaptive reuse, preservation of significant features, or other mitigation.

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.

Our City has designated Hopkins as a high injury corridor, creating an important policy question: how do we improve safety for all?

As a former School Board Director, we received frequent reports about children being hurt on their way to and from school. The current project, which many proponents believe will increase safety, would actually force cyclists, in close proximity, to cross more than 90 driveways and cross-streets, creating frequent points where bicycles, vehicles, and pedestrians must interact. This risk only increases during rush hour traffic.

In addition, the community offered hours of testimony to council on the impact of losing 145 parking spaces. It would mean substantially less space for customers, residents, deliveries, caregivers, service providers, garbage and recycling collection, and other essential services; including first responders.

I support safe streets, bicycle/pedestrian safety, and Berkeley’s climate goals. Our responsibility as we advance these priorities should not ignore the impact on resident’s lives and business sustainability. Therefore, I would not have supported the original referral, and will push for a complete street study.

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. Voters passed and are currently paying taxes to pave our streets and fix sidewalks. The last measure FF, specifically excluded class IV bike lanes on Hopkins.

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 Berkeley is a city where people at every stage of life belong. It is a city where young people can imagine building a future, families can find housing they can afford, seniors can age in their communities, people with disabilities can move around safely, and residents are not forced out simply because their income has not kept pace with the cost of living. It has thriving neighborhood businesses and gathering places. Its streets, sidewalks, parks, and public spaces are safe, clean, accessible, and well maintained. It builds housing while protecting people from displacement and makes sure infrastructure and public services keep pace with growth.

Livability also requires effective government. Residents should know where their tax dollars are going, what results City programs are producing, and whether projects are being delivered responsibly.

A livable city listens. People will not always agree, and elected officials ultimately have to make decisions. But residents should have a meaningful opportunity to participate before those decisions are made and deserve an explanation of how and why the City reached its conclusion.

For me, that is what Listen. Connect. Deliver. means: understand the problem, bring people together around workable solutions, and then measure whether we actually delivered the result we promised.