Question List

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.

   1. More info:
      Before September 29, 2026, when this question was asked, zoning for North Shattuck, Solano, San Pablo, and College were 2-3 stories. This allowed developers to build to 7 stories if, and only if, they included on-site affordable housing as specified by the State Density Bonus laws. If the zoning is changed to 7 stories, developers can build market rate 7-story buildings that do not include any on-site affordable units.

      On September 29, 2026, the city council voted to do exactly that on San Pablo Avenue, and changed the zoning to 7-stories, with no on-site affordable housing.
      
      

2. 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?

   1. More info:
      City staff and consultants met with stakeholders over several years, engaging with community members and encouraging them to offer their vision for the transformation of San Pablo Avenue. Staff took the ideas to heart and incorporated many of them into the first draft plan. Unfortunately, councilmembers showed little regard for the suggestions in this plan, as well as little regard for the public: City Council started discussion of the plan at 11 p.m. at its meeting on November 6, 2025. By that hour, most of the community members, both in person and on Zoom, had abandoned the meeting, yet the Council refused multiple requests to postpone the public comment due to the late hour. The result was minimal input from concerned residents and small business owners. The council members recommended that the plan be stripped of most of the community input that the staff had included.

      On September 29, 2026, the city council voted to do exactly that, and voted for the plan stripped of community input.
      
      

3. 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?

   1. More info:
      The Middle Housing Ordinance rezoning allows for a dramatic increase in the density of housing on small lots. Three story, 8-unit buildings can now be built on most lots. There is no need to destroy our commercial areas in order to build more market rate housing. Zoning for 7 stories along the commercial corridors could create buildings of about 14 stories if a small amount of “affordable” housing is included by using the state density bonus.
      
      

4. 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?

   1. More info:
      Despite evidence to the contrary, and academic studies that show otherwise, our ideology-driven city council, along with their YIMBY supporters, continue to insist that our housing affordability crisis can be solved by building our way out of it. Yes, we can certainly build more housing, but a deregulated, market-based approach will just result in more gentrification and displacement, rather than affordability. The housing affordability crisis is largely a result of growing economic inequality.
      
      

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

   1. More info:
      Currently, in Berkeley, there is a 20% “inclusionary” housing requirement. Developers must provide 20% on-site affordable housing, or they can pay an in-lieu fee to the Housing Trust Fund and provide fewer or no affordable units. The in-lieu fee only pays a fraction of the cost required to actually build new units. The Housing Trust Fund, which gets most of its funding through Measure O bond sales and not the inclusionary housing fee, is used to build affordable housing somewhere, sometime in the distant future. The housing is not inclusionary on-site housing as part of a mixed-income development, but is in separate, 100% affordable buildings.

      A proposal by Councilmember Kesarwani has been put forth to allow condominium developers to effectively obtain all the benefits of the State density bonus, for example, waiving height limits, city workforce standards, and requirements for bird safe glass, without including the on-site affordable housing the State density bonus law requires. Instead, they would pay the same in-lieu fee they already pay under the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance for not providing on-site affordable housing!
      
      

6. 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?

   1. More info:
      The kind of housing that would help aspiring homeowners to enter the market would be duplexes, triplexes, and smaller homes built on a lot, which is exactly what the original vision of middle housing was proposed to provide. In Berkeley, existing zoning and allowances for accessory dwelling units (ADU) provided for this sort of middle housing already. Statewide law already allowed for up to 4 units per lot when Berkeley’s Middle Housing Ordinance was passed.

      The Middle Housing Ordinance passed by the City Council allows for a dramatic increase in the density of housing on small lots. Your neighbor can now sell their home to a developer who can demolish the existing structure and build in its place a three-story 8-unit apartment building (or 5-story 12-unit with the density bonus) within as little as 5 feet for a front or rear setback, with coverage of up to 60% of the lot. You are required to receive a notice 10 days before such action, but there is nothing you can do about it; there will be no previous hearing or review of the project nor any right for appeal. This entire process will be handled administratively without any input from neighboring properties.
      
      

7. 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?

   1. More info:
      Berkeley city council has increased by four times, from 50 to 200, the number of signatures required in order to start the landmark process. The Landmarks Preservation Commission argued that the mark should be set at 100, and that the change to 200 is “onerous and would effectively eliminate the public’s ability to participate in the landmarking process. Such a significant increase is contrary to Berkeley’s long tradition of active, participatory democracy.”

      Under state law, when a developer applies to build housing, the city must decide whether the site is historic based on its status at that time, such as whether it is on a historic register or was identified as significant in a past survey. This finding affects only that project, including its environmental review, demolition, and eligibility for fast-track approval. A landmark is almost always found historic, but a finding that a site is historic does not make it a landmark or give it the lasting protections a landmark has. The finding holds for as long as the project is moving forward. Once a developer files a preliminary application, the rules are locked in, so a landmark designation made after that point can’t be used to block or change the project.

      Berkeley has gone much further. Once a developer files a preliminary application, no one except the property owner can even start the process to landmark the property for five years. That includes the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Council. The five years count from the date of the preliminary application, so even if the developer drops the project, the property can’t be considered for landmark status until the five years are up. If the project does move forward, the pause can last longer.
      
      

8. 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.

   1. More info:
      The 2026 bicycle plan actually specifies that Hopkins Street is not a top priority street for bicycle improvements, but has been designated a 2nd tier project priority—as a Complete Street Study Corridor.

      From the bicycle plan:

      “As defined by the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy, “Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including:

      • Pedestrians        • Bicycles (analog, cargo, electric)        • Scooters and skateboards

      • Wheelchairs/powerchairs        • Private vehicles        • Transit        •Delivery trucks

      • Postal trucks        • Fire trucks and ambulances        • Police cars

      Providing a complete network does not require dedicated facilities for all transportation modes on every street. Instead, it means creating convenient, safe, and connected routes for all modes throughout the city. For bikeway planning, Berkeley considers both major and collector streets and parallel streets as part of a Complete Streets Corridor. Potential bikeways on either type should be evaluated within a Complete Streets Corridor Study. Most major and collector streets with recommendations for separated bikeways (Class IV) require further study to evaluate their suitability, impacts on other transportation modes, and support of community safety. They currently serve multiple transportation modes, emergency response traffic, and provide on-street parking, necessitating broader consideration beyond bicycle travel alone.”

      Simply put, the City has not done these things, and in the case of considering “collector streets and parallel streets”, has formally directed the staff to not consider these alternatives.
      
      

9. 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?

   1. More info:
      The original proposal of February 10, 2026, with councilmembers O’Keefe and Kesarwani as co-authors, and with Mayor Ishii and councilmember Humbert as co-sponsors, called for repaving Hopkins with pedestrian improvements only, and no new bike lanes. Unsurprisingly, the support of Kesarwani, Humbert and Ishii proved to be illusory. They all switched their positions completely around when it came to the actual vote on July 28. The justification given was that the fire department had confirmed the acceptability of their latest plan— proposing one-way cycle tracks on both sides of the street. The fire department had done no such thing.

      According to the latest Paving Plan, the section from Gilman to Sacramento is the 6th worst street in Berkeley, with a Pavement Condition Index of 19 (FAILED). All of the sections east of Sacramento have a condition of POOR, virtually ensuring that the expense will be even greater if the plan is delayed. With a projected shortfall of $30 million dollars for 2027-28, and the cycle track costing at least $5 million, the city cannot afford this.
      
      

10. 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?

    1. More info:
       Much of the criticism of the current City Council stems from its efforts to increase the density and height of market-rate housing without adequately considering the effects on people who already live in Berkeley. The council disregards community input, and refuses to address points that are brought up at council meetings during public comment. Most of these residents are not opposed to new housing; they just want to maintain a livable city while expanding genuinely affordable housing opportunities.