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. Do not trade away on-site affordability for height. If a developer wants seven stories, they should build seven stories of housing that working people can afford. I support density when it is paired with mandatory on-site affordable units, not when the affordability requirement is stripped out.

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. When the city spends years doing community engagement and then ignores the results, that is a betrayal of the process. I would support revisiting the community recommendations and incorporating them into any final plan. Community input should shape policy, not decorate it.

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 can meet its housing goals without turning every commercial corridor into a wall of towers. I would look at each corridor individually. On North Shattuck, Solano and College, I would want to see height limits that match the surrounding scale, with any taller buildings requiring deeper affordability and real community benefits. On San Pablo, there may be more room for density because the corridor is wider and already has larger buildings. I would not support a one-size-fits-all number.

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?

Market-rate housing alone has not made Berkeley affordable. Emeryville is proof. What works is social housing, community land trusts, deep affordability requirements, and public investment funded by a vacancy tax, a corporate head tax, a UC Berkeley PILOT payment and in-lieu fees that are actually high enough to matter. I want a Berkeley Social Housing Authority, modeled on what Seattle and New York are doing, that builds and owns housing permanently removed from the speculative market.

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

No. I do not support letting developers buy their way out. In-lieu fees should be scaled up until they actually hurt, or they should be eliminated entirely and replaced with a mandate to build on-site affordable units. The in-lieu fee is a privilege, not a right. If it is not high enough to produce real affordable housing, it is a subsidy for luxury development.

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 expanding housing options, but not by going far beyond what the state requires. Berkeley is already one of the densest cities in California. The Council should be meeting the state mandate, not racing past it. I would want to revisit the ordinance to make sure it is paired with strong affordability requirements, tenant protections and design standards that fit the neighborhoods affected.

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 changes that make it harder for residents to protect historic, artistic and architectural heritage. Landmarking is a community tool, not a developer obstacle. I would support restoring and strengthening the ability of residents to nominate and protect buildings that matter to them.

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. The Hopkins decision was rushed, ignored the community process and is now the subject of a lawsuit. I would support rescinding the July 2026 vote and requiring a full complete street study, as the Bicycle Plan already calls for. That study should include cost, accessibility for all ages and abilities, alternative routes like Rose and Ada, and real community input. That is what should have happened in the first place.

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. The pavement is the biggest safety problem on Hopkins. Repaving should not be held hostage to a bike lane fight. I would support repaving now with pedestrian and safety improvements, and then doing the complete street study before any further redesign. Fix the street first. Argue about the rest later.

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. Where seniors can walk to a bench, a bus stop and a pharmacy. Where small businesses survive and neighborhoods have places to gather. Where housing is built for the people who live here, not for investors. Where the streets are safe for everyone, including people with disabilities, and where the city listens to residents before it makes decisions that shape their lives. Livable means affordable, walkable, and rooted in community. Not just dense, and not just pretty. Both.