District 1
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.
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
No, I am not in favor of removing the on-site affordable housing requirement. Berkeley is woefully behind in meeting its State requirements (RHNA) for affordable housing, much more so than it is in meeting its market rate (read: luxury) housing requirements. Regardless of these artificially set and overly broad RHNA goals, if our city’s development of luxury housing continues to dramatically outpace that of affordable housing at the unprecedented levels we are seeing, we will have a lopsided community with plummeting income diversity. We will fail to support the people that serve the city’s needs. We need to find ways of increasing the proportion of affordable housing to other types of housing, both for the health of our city, and to create a downward pressure on overall housing prices.
City and State policies focus almost exclusively on limited housing supply as the root cause of our current housing affordability crisis. I was a renter for roughly fifteen years and I never paid more than $1000 a month for rent, whether in New York City, San Francisco, Washington D.C. or Oakland (Lake Merritt). Back then, “market rate” meant housing that was affordable for low-to-middle income renters like me. And this was true for decades before my entry into the rental market.
What changed in the past 15 years? Why is it that young folks today look around and see housing that is out of reach for most? Why do young folks face prohibitive rents that are barriers to independence and employment opportunities? Most cities did need to build more housing. And in Berkeley and beyond, we have done that. What our city and State fail to recognize are two key factors in the explosion of housing prices: (1) federal, state, and local laws that limited the stock of affordable housing, for example, the Faircloth Amendment that capped public housing at 1990 levels and (2) real estate market speculation and increased financialization of the housing market.
An effective housing policy will need to address these two challenges. That includes ensuring that affordable housing is incorporated into new zoning updates.
Steve Kromer
On Solano, College, and North Shattuck outside the state's BART zone, I would vote against the added heights. On San Pablo I support seven stories, which is what the plan before Council proposes.
Raising the base height does not by itself exempt a building from affordable housing. Berkeley's 20% requirement still applies, and a developer can meet it on site or by paying the in-lieu fee. What changes is this: a builder who can reach seven stories without the state density bonus no longer has to put the bonus's affordable units on site. The City's own San Pablo appendix says so. Before any vote, the City should publish how many on-site affordable units that trade costs on each corridor.
Daria Wrubel
I am in favor of the seven story limitation.
I am not in favor of lowering the on-site affordable housing requirements.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
Yes, I would support acknowledging and incorporating the community input that City staff gathered into the final version of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. It is unclear why the City Council ignored their Staff’s recommendations, as led by Robert Rivera. These recommendations were based on extensive community engagement. This is a troubling trend.
Steve Kromer
Yes. Council has not voted yet; the public hearing is September 29. I support the plan and its seven stories. The community's recommendations for wider sidewalks, street trees, lighting, crossings and side-street plazas are in the plan, but as incentives with no cost estimate and no one named to pay. I would keep the 16-foot sidewalk the Planning Commission added in June, attach a dollar figure and a funding source to the street work before adoption, vote separately on repealing the West Berkeley Plan and the 2004 San Pablo improvements plan, and require the annual reports to count plazas, sidewalk and trees against targets set in advance.
Daria Wrubel
Yes, I could support revisiting the community-generated recommendations.
It is the responsibility of the city to take the input from those constituents most effected with seriousness and respect. When the Council chooses not to follow a community recommendation, it should publicly explain why.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
The maximum number of stories, including density bonuses would depend on the site. In locations that are adjacent to residential areas or single story businesses, I would not recommend more than five-to-six stories. If zoned higher, I recommend pairing that with requirements to develop public spaces that facilitate community connection and expand green space. The Jones Street apartments and new BUSD housing are two examples of five-to-six story buildings that contribute to meeting our City’s housing needs in meaningful ways.
It is also important to acknowledge and study the demographics of those interested in moving or staying in Berkeley. My experience canvassing across our District and observing trends on housing search sites has made it clear to me that – unlike demand for housing in San Francisco and Oakland - the bulk of the demand in our City is from people wanting to start a family or elders who want to continue to afford and remain in our community. A tenth-story luxury apartment does not meet this type of demand.
Steve Kromer
On San Pablo, yes. State law (AB 2011) already allows housing by right there, and a local plan is how Berkeley keeps its own design standards attached. On Solano, College and North Shattuck outside the BART zone, no. Berkeley has permitted about 2,117 of the 8,934 homes the state assigns it for 2023–2031, so zoned capacity is not the thing holding housing back.
On a maximum that includes the density bonus: no council member can honestly promise one. State law requires the City to waive any height limit that would block a qualifying bonus project. In 2025 the City approved 2029 University at 23 stories on a 75-foot base. What Council controls is the base height and the design standards, and the standards count only if they are adopted before applications arrive. My base heights are seven stories on San Pablo and the current limits on the other three.
Daria Wrubel
There is a big difference between zoned capacity and actual construction for population. Changing zoning doesn't automatically double population. And yes, I do believe that rezoning commercial streets, especially along transit corridors, is necessary to meet both our housing and our climate goals. If we build more housing where people live and work, we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which is essential to combatting climate change.
I believe each commercial corridor requires a capacity analysis - there is no one size fits all solution. Street width, setbacks, sunlight, surrounding trees, sidewalks, public spaces, building articulation, and ground-floor uses can matter as much as the raw story count. That being said, in my initial analysis of the San Pablo plan, four to five stories (before the state density bonus) makes sense to me.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
Here’s the good news. Berkeley residents have demonstrated a commitment to expanding affordable housing, as expressed in a number of measures that we have passed over the last several years. We voted for Measure O, Measure P, Measure W, and Measure U1, each contributing to funding affordable housing in different ways. Berkeley has used these funds and developer in-lieu housing fees to build several projects across our City.
Proposition 1 on the November ballot is another vehicle for affordable housing expansion, particularly for multifamily housing, and also for low-income home ownership. I would like Berkeley to continue to leverage available funds and work with land trusts and affordable housing non-profits to continue to preserve and develop truly low-income housing.
However, if we are to make significant strides in affordability, we will need to explore new and sustained sources of funding. We have the resources right here in our city to meet affordability goals – we simply need better tools to access such resources. If elected, I would like to work with other local governments to create State legislation that would create a long-term wealth tax that can be used for the purpose of affordable housing preservation and development.
Steve Kromer
The research supports a modest claim. When new buildings open, nearby rents tend to drift down, 1–2% in San Francisco and 5–7% across eleven cities. That is real and far too small to make Berkeley affordable for a low-income household. Housing at those incomes gets built only with public subsidy.
So I would put the money where it buys the most homes at the lowest incomes, and measure it. For every affordable project the City funds (Housing Trust Fund, Measure O bond, fee revenue), publish the cost per unit, the income levels served, and the time from funding to move-in, then fund what delivers. Tax-credit housing already restricts households made up entirely of full-time students, so prioritizing those projects serves families, seniors and workers directly.
Daria Wrubel
I do not believe that the market can solve our housing crisis on its own. We must create policies that protect our most vulnerable residents. We must require deeply affordable units in market-rate developments. We must continue to use our Housing Trust Fund to finance 100% affordable development. We need to aggressively pursue state and federal subsidies, tax credits and nonprofit financing to use toward affordable housing projects like our Small Sites Program, and work with our state and federal partners to expand those opportunities.
We can do even more to encourage land trusts, nonprofits and the Small Sites Program to purchase existing rental buildings and permanently remove them from the speculative market. That can preserve lower-cost housing without waiting years for new construction.
We can do more to get large institutional investors out of the housing market. Housing is a human right, and there should be no room for corporate landlords in Berkeley.
Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
I would prefer affordable units to be built on-site, for many reasons, and in part, because the in-lieu “buy out” fees are a fraction of the value of on-site affordable units.
Steve Kromer
Berkeley already allows it (BMC 23.328). Whether to keep it depends on numbers the City should publish: how many units the fee money has built, at what incomes, and how fast, compared with on-site units. Fee money combined with tax credits often buys more homes at deeper affordability. On-site units arrive with the building and keep blocks mixed-income.
Daria Wrubel
I would much prefer if every housing development included on-site affordable units, but I also recognize that in-lieu fees (what you are describing here) are the main source of funding for our Housing Trust Fund, and the city has done wonderful things with those funds. I want to make sure that in-lieu fees are reviewed regularly so that they are set at the highest rate that still encourages housing development, while maximizing the benefit to our Housing Trust Fund.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
No, it should not. City staff at that City Council meeting communicated that there is no expected affordability benefit from the middle housing proposal. While middle housing may increase housing supply in a slow trickle, what it also does is invite developer interest in our communities. This comes with its own set of challenges.
In my neighborhood, the houses that were sold to developers and flipped were double the price of houses that were sold to families. Developers tend to raze entire properties of trees and vegetation - some of which have been here for half a century or more - to make way for development. There is a higher degree of respect and consideration for neighbors among neighbors than there is from people who see housing, not as a home, but as an investment.
I am not opposed to the population of Berkeley growing. The City also has an obligation to provide necessary infrastructure upgrades and expansion of public green spaces to offset the climate changing heat island effect of such density.
Steve Kromer
I favor it. Scarcity is what pushes people out of Berkeley, and the small-lot subdivision path lets people buy homes on lots that already exist.
My objection is to how it is being checked. Council ordered a count of middle housing applications and units by April 1, 2026. An off-agenda staff memo moved it to 2027 and dropped one of the four fields, with no council vote. Going past state law is reasonable when it comes with a target and a report. The Housing Element review assumed about 770 more homes from middle housing in the single-family districts; publish the count against that number every year. I could not verify the claim that the ordinance could double Berkeley's population.
Daria Wrubel
The state of California has suppressed the construction of new housing for decades, and Berkeley in particular has set exclusionary zoning laws that have not only suppressed housing development, but advanced unjust and racist conditions. I believe the middle housing ordinance is a major step towards correcting these failed policies.
However, we should revisit the policy regularly to see if it is having its intended effect, and to make course corrections in the case of negative unintended consequences.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
I recall these changes and the debates leading up to it. I understand the value of historic preservation. Nevertheless, I humbly share that this is not my area of expertise. I am committed to understanding this better.
Steve Kromer
In April 2026 Council raised the citizen-petition threshold from 50 to 200 signatures and added timing rules so that a landmark application filed after a housing application does not stop it; state law (SB 330) already requires much of the second part. I would not reverse either change. Two hundred signatures is a modest bar in a city of 120,000. What I would ask for is the record: every landmark petition since 2015, its outcome, and whether a housing project was pending on the site. That tells us how often the process protected real heritage and how often it was used to delay housing.
Daria Wrubel
I support the designation of historic landmarks, but not historic districts. It is deeply important to support preservation of significant sites -- landmarks with real architectural, cultural, Indigenous, civil-rights, labor, or artistic significance.
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.Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
Yes. The Hopkins Street plan is about accessibility, safety and sustainability. The City has an obligation to conduct a basic study to evaluate the needs of those accessing Hopkins Street and solutions that would meet these needs (for accessibility, safety, and sustainability). In an information vacuum, our community has become divided over competing assumptions and scattered facts. This is tragic, especially for a city as educated and well-resourced as ours. There is no excuse for not having an accurate study after eight years of planning. I am committed to Councilmember Blackaby’s plan to repave Hopkins now, regardless of the outcome of that study.
Steve Kromer
I would have voted no on the Hopkins bike lanes and yes to comparing Ada and Rose first. The July 28 action was a referral to design. Funding and the construction contract are separate council votes still ahead. I would support bringing back the Ada/Rose comparison, a firm cost range, an accessibility review for all ages and abilities, and community meetings before either of those votes. Whether that takes a rescission or a condition on the funding vote is a procedural question; the result I want is the comparison first.
Daria Wrubel
I appreciate that the Hopkins Street bike lanes have become a very contentious issue, and a stand-in for many existing tensions between different groups in Berkeley. My understanding is that the city has already studied the needs and alternatives to Class IV cycle tracks, and that is why the council voted 7-2 to advance that plan. I wish the city had done a better job of communicating the results of those studies, and done more to address the concerns of opponents. The city has an obligation to educate the public about decisions like this.
However, given the fact that the city approved this plan, the role of a new councilmember is to make sure the final engineering plan keeps the promises included in the referral approved on July 28th. As an elected official, I would be looking for the following imperatives: First, is ADA access increased? Currently the only ADA parking is within the Monterey Market parking lot. Has parking been preserved along one side of the street between California and The Alameda, for access to businesses and recreation sites? Thirdly, will the request from local businesses for extra loading zone space be honored? In other words, is the plan being put forward a good faith effort to meet the needs of the community? Only then would I approve the final plan.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
Yes.
Steve Kromer
Yes to repaving as soon as it can be funded. My preference is repaving with the pedestrian improvements, painted bike lanes and funded traffic enforcement: cheaper, deliverable sooner, and the curb stays available.
Daria Wrubel
Hopkins is slated for repaving in the 2027-2028 fiscal year, and I fully support working to prevent any further delays. The most efficient path to repaving would be to include all the pedestrian, ADA, bike safety, transit access, and traffic-calming improvements at one time. I think that goal is achievable.
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?
Laura Babitt
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.
Ross Bernet
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Moni Gangopadhyay
I am agreement with this vision of a livable city. There is no greater contributor to environmental sustainability, democracy, and personal well-being than a strong community and a real community is multi-generational.
Steve Kromer
A kid can walk (or bike) to school and a senior can walk to the store on sidewalks in good repair. The parks are kept up, the corner shops survive, and people of every age and income can afford to stay. And the City says what it will deliver, by when, and then reports whether it did. I have volunteered at James Kenney Park for years. Whether a place is somewhere people gather or somewhere they avoid comes down mostly to upkeep that someone committed to and kept doing.
Daria Wrubel
I believe a livable city should meet the needs of human beings, not corporations.
I believe in human scale where buildings, streets, sidewalks, and public spaces are designed around people's experience at ground level. Human scale does not necessarily mean low-rise. Height is one factor, alongside street width, setbacks, sunlight, and trees.
Human scale also includes community and social connection. A livable city provides places where relationships can form -- at cafés, parks, libraries, neighborhood businesses, schools, plazas, community centers, theaters, farmers' markets, music venues, etc.
A livable city is also a city with housing people can afford.
That includes market-rate housing but also permanently affordable housing for people whose incomes cannot afford market rents, as well as housing for families, seniors, people with disabilities, and people living alone.
And this is an issue that gets talked about less and less, a livable city is also an environmentally conscious city. Trees, parks, biodiversity, clean air, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, access to nature, energy-efficient buildings, protection from excessive heat, and responsible use of land and water all contribute to livability.
A city for the entire lifespan, for our children to our seniors, with a bustling local economic life, democratic participation, and continuity.
I made a video on aspects of a livable city here:
District 4
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.
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
I have a long and deep track record of supporting affordable housing, have work for over two decades to ensure that we have robust inclusionary affordable housing requirements, and have, through a variety of ballot measures and policy interventions, have helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars towards the Affordable Housing Fund. I will support proposals that require the greatest number of affordable housing units possible.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
I always engaged with community members on important topics, and this plan is not an exception. I ask questions of staff and whenever possible we incorporate a variety of views from community members. I look forward to doing so again ahead of the San Pablo Area Specific Plan vote.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
I have stated my broad position and continued commitment to meet with and listen to constituent perspectives on the Corridor Zoning Update and San Pablo Area Specific Plan in Questions 1 and 2 above, respectively. I will reaffirm that my north star is to try to provide the most amount of affordable housing opportunities possible so that, consistent to Berkeley’s state-mandated obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, Berkeley can be a place that we can all call home.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
From helping craft, campaigning for, and chairing the oversight bodies of Berkeley housing measures like U1 (2016), the Large Landlords Windfall Profits Tax, O (2018), a transformative $135 Affordable Housing Bond, Measure BB (2024) and, now, Measure X to strengthen the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, to fighting in the FY2026 and FY2027 budgets to preserve funding for Small Sites from being raided for other purposes (the latter effort was successful), to being the deciding vote in support of one of the strongest Demolition Ordinances in the nation (at my very first meeting after being sworn in), I have relentlessly and effectively protected current renters and preserved naturally-occurring affordable housing. I will continue to do more of that if reelected to a full term on the Berkeley City Council.
I am proud to be endorsed by a supermajority of the Berkeley Rent Board, the chair of the Berkeley Tenants Union, and the California Democratic Renters Council.
Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
I strongly support on-site affordable housing and my record speaks for itself. I will always strive to maximize the amount of on-site affordable housing that could be made available for our current and future neighbors.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
We need to maximize the number of affordable housing options that our community members can access. I always consider options carefully, take community input seriously and suggest options to maximize affordability while respecting neighborhood context.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
I did not vote for those changes.
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.
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
The study approved by the Council is intended to assess the budgetary and operational feasibility of the types of safety and accessibility features contemplated in the referral approved in July 2026. I voted for and continue to support the study of alternative cycle routes.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
While I voted for Councilmember Blackaby’s supplemental item to study a full range of alternatives for safe bicycle access to the Hopkins Corridor and would have preferred that it passed the Council, the remaining vote on the table was to pursue a more limited study that included the paving of Hopkins. I voted for that because Hopkins urgently needs to be paved for all of the reasons mentioned in this question.
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?
Madji Gaith
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.
Igor Tregub
My concept of a livable city is one that everyone can call a home and that facilitates human interaction and gathering. I was born in Ukraine and traveled extensively throughout the world early on in my life. What I came away with is that, while the built environment certainly is an important factor in helping facilitate human interaction, Berkeley’s culture is one of a kind when it comes to neighbors looking out for one another – which is why I’ve been grateful to make Berkeley my home for my entire adult life and why I work so hard to ensure that it is and continues to be a place that we can all call home.
District 7
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.
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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-incme (non-student) residents?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out ofthe requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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.
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
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?
Aidan Hill
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.
Syrak Micael
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
District 8
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.
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
No
Michael Wallman
I stand against broad upzoning throughout these commercial corridors. Preserving the seven-story threshold exclusively for inclusionary projects ensures the delivery of mixed-income housing. Conversely, allowing developers to opt out of building affordable units by paying in-lieu fees undercuts the argument that new market-rate construction helps stabilize housing costs. While specific site dimensions or unique project types may justify tailored exemptions, our chief priority should be developing innovative financial tools to advance genuinely inclusionary housing.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Yes. Community ideas and recommendations are consistently ignored by city staff, as well as a majority of the city council, which is why there is an active movement in the community to “flip” the council. Revisiting the community’s recommendations and incorporating them into the final SPASP is a must.
Michael Wallman
To start, municipal leaders must establish a clear framework that tracks plan revisions against public input. Lacking such transparency, residents cannot assess whether their voices truly shape policy outcomes. I fully support revisiting the SPASP recommendations; nevertheless, revitalizing San Pablo Avenue through robust commercial investment remains vital. Consequently, we ought to expedite this evaluation to advance meaningful development without unnecessary delay.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
It is not necessary to rezone commercial streets specifically for high-density housing to meet “our housing goals.” In fact, we should be taking immediate action to reverse the goals imposed on us by the state through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The process engaged in by ABAG to determine the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) was politically strategized through industry lobbying groups and politically-motivated relationships rather than through an analysis of actual housing needs and geographically-responsible growth.
At the very least, this analysis should not be based on a one-size-fits-all approach that bypasses a process with community engagement. That is a violation of the rights of our community to have a voice. It’s a 21st-century version of colonialism.
Michael Wallman
I do not believe it is necessary to rezone commercial streets specifically for high-density housing to meet our municipal housing goals. In alignment with numerous traditional San Francisco neighborhoods, three to four stories represents an ideal height limit. Mandatory active ground-floor retail is essential throughout primary commercial hubs, whereas ground-level residential uses should remain permissible elsewhere.
Unlocking single-family lots offers a compelling path toward expanding housing capacity, whether by fostering co-living / co-op spaces, converting structures into duplexes, adapting basements and attics, or constructing accessory dwelling units. Achieving this vision requires a comprehensive modernization of our municipal permitting and building frameworks to eliminate regulatory friction.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Building market-rate housing does not necessarily lower rents. The reference to Emeryville’s report and the reality of Berkeley’s rents are proof of this. This faulty argument, used as a tool to justify massive building and upzoning of neighborhoods, is similar to convincing the community to believe in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” And, while surrounding rents are not decreasing, market-rate rents cannot decrease either, due in part to loan agreements and maximization of profit margins.
Organizing around the principle that “Housing is a Human Right” calls into question the commodification of housing developed by for-profit developers. We must address core issues and values overlooked by predatory capitalistic “norms” in which affordability is set up to fail.
Thus, the analysis for determining how to actually build affordable housing for truly low-income, non-student residents, and everyone in between, has yet to be fully explored. And it is obviously complicated by the structures that define the way the industry works, but as Einstein once said: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Michael Wallman
Regarding major construction projects, macroeconomic pressures—specifically heightened borrowing costs and climbing supply prices—prevent market dynamics from supplying these outcomes independently. Consequently, local governments must aggressively pioneer novel public funding strategies and collaborative development alliances to guarantee project viability.
Do you support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units in their developments?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
No, I do not support proposals allowing developers to buy their way out of the requirement to build on-site affordable units. For one, they are given a sizable density bonus to capture an increase in assets while not actually providing any units of affordable housing. Additionally, the in-lieu fee doesn’t capture the value of the units not being built. The difference needed to make up that value gap relies on scarce and highly-coveted subsidies, which only pass the cost, whose value was given to the market-rate developer, onto the already structurally-constrained affordable housing industry.
Michael Wallman
I remain firmly opposed to such exemptions; nevertheless, we must establish a dedicated municipal task force to systematically address the administrative and operational hurdles hampering the construction and ongoing management of these inclusionary properties.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
No, our city council should never pass bills in excess of state requirements and, in fact, should be pushing back against the state for potential violations of geographic public safety issues and unreasonable infrastructure burdens, not doubling down on industry-driven policies parading as moral obligations to the needs of our community.
Michael Wallman
Municipal development across Berkeley has long encountered severe resistance and persistent delays. The newly passed middle housing measure appears to function as an overcorrection that imposes overly broad mandates. Community consultation remains vital when altering residential scale; nevertheless, legacy review procedures proved excessively restrictive and convoluted. Enacting such dramatic density targets puts the cart before the horse, particularly given our municipal infrastructure limitations. Although incremental policy refinements were certainly warranted, this current legislative framework represents an unwarranted overreach.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Limiting the ability of residents to protect any historically meaningful landmarks is of vital importance. Preserving them, along with recovering the rich heritage of this area’s Indigenous peoples, which is often forgotten, is an obligation that we not only owe to them and ourselves, but also to future generations.
This is particularly true in light of the historical landmarks that have already been destroyed in South and West Berkeley, which spoke to the ingenuity, resilience and adaptability of the city’s long-marginalized nonwhite residents. It is a stark example of historical erasure, symbolic of colonization.
The current limitations imposed seem to be fueled by the same profit-driven mania that is used to justify “development,” accommodating investors to capture and extract wealth and assets for themselves, until they crash out the market and move on to something else. Time-worn tactics are repeating themselves. If we want to see change, we have to be the authors of change, but we will remain trapped as long as we continue to allow the systems that are in place to be the defining structures that we operate from.
Michael Wallman
Architectural legacy encapsulates the distinct cultural identity of our broader community. My own residence serves as a contributing asset within the Panoramic Hill historic district on the National Register. Living here instills a profound sense of stewardship rather than simple ownership, as the property actively reflects our local heritage to every passerby. Consequently, I strongly advocate for expanded municipal protections to safeguard and continuously enhance Berkeley's rich artistic, historic, and architectural fabric.
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.
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Yes. This process is non-negotiable because it is an accountability and moral-requirement minimum to facilitate a responsible and ethical process.
Michael Wallman
I fully support this measure; in fact, we ought to go further by mandating a comprehensive reevaluation of the full Berkeley 2026 Bicycle Plan. Specifically, we should incorporate a dedicated section for commercial corridors that establishes thorough analytical standards and mitigation criteria tailored to small business hubs. Additionally, this assessment must examine past expenditures from Measure FF to evaluate its cumulative outcomes, ensuring future infrastructure investments are deployed with maximum fiscal responsibility and strategic precision. Furthermore, we must address the inefficient pattern wherein costly new bicycle and bus infrastructure is installed only to be torn up or destroyed by major development projects shortly thereafter, resulting in severe resource waste and repeated disruption to public space.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Yes.
Michael Wallman
Deteriorated road surfaces pose acute safety hazards while compounding broader environmental harms, including accelerated tire degradation, diminished vehicular fuel efficiency, and heightened resource consumption. I strongly advocate for immediately repaving both primary commercial corridors and designated bicycle boulevards, ensuring these thoroughfares meet the highest civic standards without incurring the elevated expenses driven by further delay.
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?
Mark Humbert
Did not respond after two requests from Build a Better Berkeley.
Mari Mendonca
Over the past decade, I have worked in and with my community making similar, but more culturally-inclusive, recommendations directly to the heads of the planning and economic development departments, as well as to the city manager and city council members. I have been advocating and modeling the inclusion of these values in my service on the Housing Advisory Commission and the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board.
Additionally, we included reparations for dispossessed black and brown Berkeleyans, a right to return for those who have been displaced and the right to stay for those who are under threat. The city council should not only consider this concept of a livable city, it also should be at the forefront of their work, representing ethical decision-making.
A livable city is an all-encompassing responsibility to account for every factor that affects our existence and quality of our lives. The current culture challenging us is out of balance with these values. I witness every day the ways in which it entraps us, whether through economic inequality, injustice, privilege, conflicting perceptions, complacent resignation, soul-sapping hopelessness, confusion and ignorance.
We have been given a challenging paradigm to overcome. My diverse life experiences, including union and community organizing, elected leadership, the multifaceted responsibilities of motherhood and family and senior advocacy, allow me to bring powerful, important perspectives and accountable agency for drastically-needed change to our city council and our beloved Berkeley.
Michael Wallman
A truly livable municipality contrasts sharply with modern urban trends. Genuine livability synthesizes inspiring architectural design, rich cultural expression, accessible green spaces, and vibrant commercial hubs that foster authentic human connection. In downtown, we want to see a thriving central core dedicated to employment, civic life, live performance, arts, and commerce. Surrounding residential areas should maintain a human-scaled footprint—ideally capped at three to four stories, a height where someone on an upper floor can easily call out or talk to people on the street. Integrating single-family residences with gentle infill like duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units preserves essential setbacks and generous canopy coverage.
Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian boulevards, should connect residential neighborhoods directly to academic institutions and local merchant districts, while specialized recreational corridors through the hills enhance regional transit appeals. Crucially, we should seek creative solutions to get cars off the street—such as constructing dedicated parking structures in commercial hubs and providing perks for developments that incorporate off-street parking—thereby enabling local businesses to expand their footprints into the public domain.
Furthermore, civic health demands dignified, compassionate solutions for unhoused populations that maintain public order, robust educational systems that uplift every student, and proactive equity initiatives to safeguard socioeconomic diversity against displacement. Fostering a collaborative partnership with the university alongside meticulous public maintenance instills widespread community pride. By upholding our historical legacy of activism and stewardship, we ensure that Berkeley remains an exemplary, compassionate, and enduring civic home.