The CZU is a citywide planning effort to update zoning along several of Berkeley's commercial corridors, including Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue in the Elmwood. The goal is to plan for additional housing capacity in areas that are well served by transit, jobs, and neighborhood-serving retail. The CZU responds to the State's Housing Element's requirements to affirmatively further fair housing by planning for homes in high-resource areas that have historically contributed very little new housing.

Under California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, Berkeley has been assigned a target of 8,934 new housing units for the 2023–2031 planning period. This represents roughly three times the previous cycle's target. The city's adopted Housing Element identifies capacity for approximately 15,001 units (168% of the RHNA target), though not all will necessarily be built.

The city is required by state law to plan for this housing. Failure to do so can result in the loss of state grant funding, fines, and court-imposed penalties that could strip the city of its ability to control local zoning. This is not optional.

Additionally, under programs adopted as part of the Housing Element, Berkeley committed to policies that affirmatively further fair housing by planning for more homes in high-resource areas. District 8 and the Elmwood in particular have contributed very little to the city's recent housing production, raising geographic equity concerns that the Housing Element was designed to address.

On March 4, 2026, Berkeley's Planning Commission aligned itself with the tailored zoning approach that I first proposed at the November 2025 City Council worksession. By broad consensus (without a formal vote), the Planning Commission asked City staff to further study the tailored zoning approach, create criteria for identifying opportunity sites, and explore the option of having maximum building heights scale with street width. Due to its narrow street width, College Avenue sees the smallest height increases among the commercial areas being studied.

Next steps include additional staff analysis and input from the Planning Commission, with a return anticipated for May 6, 2026. After that, the proposal will come before City Council at least once and possibly two to four more times. There are many meetings and public input opportunities still ahead.

The CZU encompasses Solano Avenue, North Shattuck, and College Avenue in the Elmwood. These corridors are not being treated identically. North Shattuck and Solano are wider streets with more and larger developable parcels. College Avenue is narrower, with smaller lots, and is being considered for the smallest density increase of all the corridors. The Planning Commission has asked staff to explore scaling maximum building heights to street width, which would further differentiate the approach by corridor.

Not if I have anything to say about it. Others have argued for a broader upzoning that would affect more commercial parcels, but this is not my position.

I have advocated for a tailored zoning approach that would limit any changes in the Elmwood to three specific opportunity sites that are not currently part of the pedestrian-oriented retail fabric:

1. The 7-Eleven strip mall at Russell and College
2. The parking lot behind the Wells Fargo on Ashby
3. The USPS Post Office at Webster (only in the event that the federal government alters or ceases operations at that site)

The vast majority of parcels and nearly all existing local businesses would be completely unaffected. The Elmwood's lots are small, and developers themselves have confirmed to us that most parcels along College are simply not feasible for mixed-use apartment buildings. The tailored approach aligns with both the market reality and the goal of protecting existing businesses.

Even in the event a majority of Council ended up supporting a broader rezoning, it is worth noting that this would not immediately result in the demolition of all existing buildings. Development is an incremental process that is affected by varied land ownership, site constraints, and macroeconomic factors. Even with the most permissible zoning scenario, Elmwood would not see dramatic change overnight.

This is one of the most common questions I receive, and there are several reasons the Elmwood cannot (and should not) be entirely exempted.

First, it is a matter of legal obligation. Berkeley's Housing Element commits the city to plan for housing in high-resource areas. The Elmwood is, by any measure, a high-resource neighborhood: walkable, transit-accessible, with high income, strong schools, and excellent amenities. District 8 has contributed almost none of Berkeley's recent housing growth. Concentrating all new housing in less affluent parts of the city while leaving wealthier neighborhoods unchanged would perpetuate the very segregation and inequality that fair housing law is designed to address.

Second, it is a matter of equity. Berkeley's median home price exceeds $1.5 million. Teachers, firefighters, nurses, young families, artists, and many immigrants cannot afford to live here. Many longtime residents have already been displaced by rising costs. Every neighborhood needs to contribute, and our highest-resource areas are precisely where more people should have a chance to live.

Third, it is a matter of climate. International bodies have found that increasing infill housing in already-developed areas with good jobs, shopping, and transit access is the single most impactful thing cities can do to reduce transportation emissions. Placing housing near existing commercial corridors means fewer car trips and more walking, biking, and transit use.

That said, I agree that the Elmwood's contribution should be proportionate and thoughtfully targeted, which is why I have advocated for the tailored approach described above.

The tailored approach is specifically designed to prevent that outcome. By focusing zoning changes on three parcels that currently feature parking lots, a strip mall, and the post office, development pressure is channeled away from the existing storefronts and small businesses that most define the Elmwood's character. Adding residents at these sites would actually bring more foot traffic and customers to support the very businesses that make the district thrive, without altering the beloved streetscape or displacing a large number of merchants.

I consider the Planning Commission's endorsement of the tailored approach a major victory for both housing and small businesses. Since the estimates of potential new homes in the Elmwood were based on the potential of the three opportunity sites, there is no significant difference in housing capacity between the broader approach originally proposed and the tailored approach. Taking the tailored approach to protect existing businesses is, in my view, a clear win-win.

PITCH stands for Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing. It is a separate proposal I have put forward to study increased housing capacity along Telegraph Avenue (from Woolsey at the Oakland border to Parker, where the Southside zoning district starts) and on the auto-oriented parcels of Upper Claremont Avenue (including the gas stations and auto repair at the Claremont-Ashby-Domingo intersection).

Telegraph is in real need of density so it can become a thriving mixed commercial and residential corridor. It is a wider street with more developable land, and it has been significantly underserving the community relative to its potential. The auto-oriented parcels on Upper Claremont represent sites that, as we transition to electric vehicles and alternative transportation, can eventually be redeveloped as housing in an area that has contributed virtually no housing for decades.

No. This is an important distinction. A zoning change does not force out any current use. The gas stations, repair shops, and any other existing businesses would be able to continue operating exactly as they do today. What a zoning change does is ensure that if and when those properties change hands or those uses wind down on their own, the parcels are better able be redeveloped as housing rather than simply replaced with another auto-oriented use.

At this stage, PITCH is a referral to direct staff to begin studying the proposal. It is not an approval of any specific project, and it is not a mandate to remove any existing business.

The good news is that renewable energy and electric vehicles are already the most economically competitive option in many contexts. Regardless of federal policy shifts, these technologies will continue to advance because the market incentives are strong. Planning for a long-term future is exactly what zoning is for, and beginning that study now is prudent precisely because these transitions take years to play out. It is not necessary to wait for the last gas-powered car to come off the road before thinking about what these parcels could eventually become.

That said, I recognize that the current federal environment has pushed back the timeline for a full transition away from internal combustion vehicles.

Concerns about traffic on College and Ashby are understandable, particularly during rush hour. However, it is worth noting that placing housing in a walkable, transit-served neighborhood actually reduces car trips compared to pushing that same housing to more auto-dependent locations. The Elmwood is directly served by multiple AC Transit bus lines (including one I worked with AC Transit to restore) and is within walking distance of Rockridge BART. Residents who live near shops and transit drive far less than those who live in car-dependent areas.

By contrast, pushing housing to locations further away and more auto-oriented would generate far more driving and traffic. Building housing near the Elmwood preserves the pedestrian character that residents value while reducing overall vehicle miles traveled.

Some neighbors have suggested requiring more parking for new buildings or requiring shuttle service. The former would actually make the congestion problems worse. State law (AB 2097) has eliminated parking mandates near transit for precisely these reasons.

And mandating parking or shuttle service for every unit would substantially increase per-unit construction costs, making the affordable housing that many residents are asking for even harder to deliver. Creating private shuttles is also contrary to our goals of improving our public transportation options and increasing their ridership.

Frustrations about basic maintenance are fair, and I take those complaints seriously. But the argument that we should stop planning for housing until every service issue is resolved would effectively mean never planning for any new homes, and that would be a disservice to our community and our own kids.

What's more, new housing contributes disproportionately to the City's tax base (because older buildings with longer ownership see their taxes held down by Prop 13), and the additional property tax, transfer tax, and sales tax revenue from new development helps fund the very services residents want to see improved.

This is not theoretical. We can see in the city's property tax data that despite making up a smaller proportion of Berkeley's structures, newer buildings overperform in terms of how much property tax revenue they generate.

Specific service issues, such as missing garbage cans or maintenance concerns on particular streets, should be reported through the city's 311 system (dial 311 from a landline, or 510-981-2489 from a cell phone) so they can be addressed directly.

These are legitimate practical concerns; however, they are arguments for planning well, not for refusing to plan at all. This is precisely what the city's Housing Element, General Plan, and their associated environmental analyses and infrastructure documentation are designed to address. Every growing city in the country faces these questions, and they are answerable through the normal course of development review, impact fees, and infrastructure investment.

And again, it is important to note that newer and higher density buildings actually contribute more to the support of these services than their older, lower-density counterparts. The cost of providing infrastructure and services scales not just with density, but with land area. By building more densely, we reduce the latter part of that equation. That means greater efficiency and more cost-effective use of tax dollars.

This is a central concern for me, and it is being addressed on multiple fronts.

First, the tailored zoning approach in the Elmwood channels development to sites that are not currently occupied by the unique local businesses that most define the district. This is the most direct form of protection: if the zoning does not change on a parcel, the development pressure does not increase.

Second, I am pushing for strong objective design standards for new buildings, particularly regarding how they meet the street. The Planning Commission is actively working on these standards, and they will apply to any new development.

Third, I am committed to developing business anti-displacement policies as an integral part of this process, to the extent feasible under state law. Admittedly, this is easier said than done.

The situation on Center Street in Downtown Berkeley is a cautionary tale that I take very seriously. It illustrates what can happen when development stalls with no plan in place for continuity of retail operation. Avoiding that outcome as much as feasible is a key motivator for the tailored approach.

Yes. Merchants and business owners have been invited to participate throughout this process, and many have. City planning staff have met directly with merchants and merchant groups. I have personally met with small business owners and their representatives, including the Save Berkeley Shops group, on multiple occasions.

The initial outreach for the corridors effort was commensurate with what was done for other recent rezoning efforts across the city. Since then, the level of engagement has gone well beyond that baseline. There have been multiple public workshops hosted by the Planning Department, a Council worksession, Planning Commission meetings, neighborhood meetings, and ongoing one-on-one conversations. There are also still many meetings ahead, including additional Planning Commission sessions and what will likely be several more City Council meetings. This process is far from over, and there remain ample opportunities for merchants and residents to participate.

Berkeley had approximately 46,875 housing units in 2000. By 2020, the California Department of Finance counted 51,523 units, a net increase of roughly 4,648 units (about 10%) over two decades. That works out to roughly 240 net new units per year on average. During this same period, Berkeley's population grew by about 20,000 people (from roughly 102,000 to about 124,000), meaning the city added far fewer homes than people.

It is worth noting that while Berkeley has recently been building at its fastest rate in 60 years, it spent the prior 50 years building virtually no new housing. The city effectively restricted new housing construction from the late 1970s through the 1990s. The recent building is a correction from decades of underproduction, not an excess.

Additionally, many approved housing units have not yet entered construction due to interest rates, materials costs, and other macroeconomic factors, putting the city at risk of falling behind on its current RHNA allocation.

This question was directly investigated by the City of Berkeley in 2024, when it began enforcing its voter-approved vacancy tax (Measure M). The results were clear: new apartment buildings in Berkeley are overwhelmingly occupied.

The city's Rent Stabilization Board compiled a database of vacant units for the tax. City staff did not identify a single unit in any of Berkeley's larger new apartment complexes that was empty for at least six months. The 866 long-term vacant units the city found represented just 1.6% of the city's nearly 54,000 housing units, well below the 6–8% that housing researchers consider a healthy vacancy rate. Two-thirds of those vacancies were in small, older buildings (properties with fewer than 10 units), often ones in need of repair or entangled in ownership disputes.

Stephanie Hawke of UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation reviewed the data and noted that there simply is not an abundance of excess supply sitting vacant. The notion that new buildings are full of empty speculative units is, in Berkeley's case, contradicted by the city's own data.

The evidence from Downtown Berkeley is encouraging and represents arguably the strongest real-world validation that housing production works to moderate costs.

After voters approved rezoning downtown for housing in 2010 and 2014, and State law limited cities' ability to block compliant new homes that follow all applicable objective development standards, construction surged. Since then, rents in Berkeley's stock of older, more affordable apartments have flattened and even declined in inflation-adjusted terms.

Data from the city's Rent Registry (a uniquely detailed dataset covering nearly all pre-1980 apartments) shows that median rents for new leases of one-bedroom rent-controlled apartments peaked in 2022 and have since fallen by over $300 from that peak. As of Q3 2024, rents stood at approximately $2,295, roughly in line with 2018 nominal levels. Since inflation grew over 25% in that period, rents have declined significantly adjusting for inflation.

This reflects what housing economists call the filtering effect: new apartments draw students and higher-income renters out of older rent-controlled buildings, reducing competition for those units and moderating asking rents. The very success of Downtown housing production has created a market correction where rents have dropped enough that some developers are delaying new projects because the economics have softened. This is supply and demand working exactly as intended. The fact that rents are still high relative to other cities and the more distant past shows we need to go even further in this approach.

The professional/academic consensus that increasing housing supply reduces or moderates housing costs is built on dozens of rigorous studies using varied methodologies across multiple countries and time periods. (Fair warning, I'm about to get very technical.)

The most comprehensive recent review is "Supply Skepticism Revisited" (2024) by Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Kathy O'Regan of the NYU Furman Center, published in Housing Policy Debate. After reviewing the full body of rigorous recent evidence, they concluded that increases in housing supply reduce rents or slow rent growth both regionally and in surrounding neighborhoods; that new construction has not been shown to heighten displacement of lower-income households; and that moving chains resulting from new supply free up units across the income spectrum.

Individual studies reinforce this. Research from the Upjohn Institute found that new market-rate buildings lower nearby rents by 5–7% and that building 100 new market-rate units opens the equivalent of 70 units in neighborhoods below the area's median income. A July 2025 Pew Charitable Trusts analysis found that new housing slows rent growth most for older, more affordable units. Studies from Germany, New York City, and 11 U.S. cities all support the same general finding.

Austin, Texas offers a particularly striking recent case study. Despite booming job growth (11.6% payroll growth from December 2021 to December 2024, leading the state), Austin's rents have been falling dramatically because the metro built aggressively: approximately 957 new apartments per 100,000 residents between 2021 and 2023, nearly three times the rate of other major Texas cities. Two-bedroom rents dropped from $1,726 in August 2022 to roughly $1,431 by April 2025, a decline of about 17%. The biggest rent declines were for older, lower-quality units, exactly the filtering mechanism the research predicts.

A small number of papers, most notably Louie, Mondragon, and Wieland (2025) and Buchholz, Kemeny, Randolph, and Storper (2026), have been cited as evidence that housing supply does not affect affordability. These papers have received serious and swift methodological criticism from other economists.

The Louie et al. paper used total income as a measure of housing demand, but total income is itself driven by population growth, which is co-determined with housing supply. In supply-constrained cities, fewer people move in because housing is expensive, so the paper's measure of demand already has the supply constraint baked in. Separate technical comments demonstrated that the paper's mathematical framework breaks down when supply elasticities vary across cities, which they obviously do. Importantly, even the authors of the paper have acknowledged in their own FAQ that their findings do not mean expanding housing supply doesn't work.

These papers are outliers in the field, much as occasional contrarian papers appear in climate science. They do not overturn a consensus built on dozens of well-identified empirical studies, natural experiments, and real-world policy outcomes, including Berkeley's own experience.

The desire for more affordable housing is one that I share deeply. But the framing of this question presents a false choice. Market-rate housing and affordable housing are complements, not substitutes.

Without market-rate construction, higher-income renters compete for the existing stock of older, less expensive apartments, bidding up rents and displacing lower-income tenants. Building new market-rate housing draws those higher-income renters into new units, reducing competition for the existing stock. This is the filtering mechanism documented across numerous studies and visible in Berkeley's own Rent Registry data.

Leveraging new development for both inclusionary units and in-lieu fees is an indispensable strategy for getting additional affordable units in Berkeley, especially given that taxpayers have not shown sufficient willingness to fund subsidized affordable housing on their own. Eliminating the ability for developers to pay in-lieu fees would mean fewer affordable units overall, not more, because those fees fund dedicated affordable projects that might not otherwise get built.

Subsidized affordable housing is essential, but it cannot be the sole strategy. It requires significant public funding that is limited, competitive, and difficult to assemble in a timely manner. If Berkeley were to halt all market-rate construction and wait only for fully subsidized projects, the practical result would be very few new homes of any kind.

The HOPE Center in Downtown Berkeley is an excellent example of the sort of deeply affordable housing with supportive services that would not be possible without the funds generated by the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee that is paid when developers elect not to include the required affordable housing units on site.

Meanwhile, higher-income renters would continue competing for the existing stock of older apartments, driving up rents and displacing the very families the policy is meant to help. The most effective approach combines market-rate construction (which relieves pressure on the existing stock) with inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees (which generate new affordable units).

The research record does not support this characterization. The NYU Furman Center's comprehensive 2023 review concluded that new housing supply reduces or slows rent growth both citywide and in nearby areas, and does not cause elevated rates of displacement. Research from the Upjohn Institute found that new market-rate buildings lower nearby rents and generate benefits for lower-income neighborhoods through moving chains.

Developers do, of course, earn returns on their projects. But the question is whether the housing they build benefits the broader community. The evidence, both national and local, says it does. To make an analogy: Would we say no to expanding solar power just because the people making the solar panels might make good money doing so?

The base heights contemplated for College Avenue by the original staff proposal are 2 to 3 stories, which could theoretically result in density-bonus projects of 4 to 6 stories. (California's density bonus law allows additional height in exchange for including affordable units.) The National Fire Protection Association reserves the term "high-rise" for buildings of 7 stories or more, so what is being discussed for the Elmwood would not be high-rise by any standard definition.

The notion of a 7-story base height (with the ability to go to 14 stories using the maximum density bonus) was not part of the original staff proposal and is not something I have supported. It came from what I believe to be a minority of my colleagues. Anything above 8 stories and below 16 is also unlikely from a market standpoint, because construction costs increase dramatically at those levels while the density is still not enough to make the economics work, particularly with the high affordability requirements that come with the 100% density bonus.

The Planning Commission has asked staff to explore scaling maximum building heights to street width, which would mean College Avenue (the narrowest of the corridors being studied) sees the smallest height increases.

This aspect of the proposal is still a moving target and likely will not be fully decided until the Council votes on the final zoning at a date TBD.

Concerns about design quality are legitimate and I share them. I have been pushing for strong objective design standards for new buildings, particularly regarding how they engage the street. The Planning Commission is actively working on these standards. Residents with opinions about what good urban design looks like are strongly encouraged to participate in the upcoming Planning Commission meetings to provide comments on draft standards.

No. Over the past 10 months, the City has held, and I and/or my chief of staff have attended, multiple public meetings addressing this proposal. These include multiple workshops hosted by the Planning Department, a Council worksession, Planning Commission meetings, and neighborhood/merchant meetings. City planning staff began preliminary work in mid-2025 and I have been tracking concerns about merchant impacts since at least late spring of that year.

Additionally, the City's Housing Element, which led to this process, was under consideration starting in 2021, had public participation noticed by staff and Berkeleyside in 2022, and was the subject of numerous noticed workshops, Planning Commission and Council meetings. The specific Housing Element program that led to the CZU effort was reaffirmed by Council in 2023, and was covered by a Berkeleyside story at the time.

Nothing about this has been secretive. I announced the first public workshops on this effort in my April 2025 newsletter; gave the project top billing in my August 2025 newsletter; and began to hone in on approaches to protect businesses in my September 2025 newsletter. As with any public policy process, a fuller understanding of a policy's implications and the public's feelings have come as the process proceeds and people become engaged. This led to my recent March 2026 newsletter where I spelled out the tailored zoning approach that I publicly floated at the November 2025 Council worksession.

Merchants and business owners have been invited to participate throughout, and many have. The initial outreach was commensurate with what was done for other recent rezoning efforts across the city, and the level of engagement has since gone well beyond that baseline.

There are still many meetings left in this process, including additional Planning Commission sessions (the next is anticipated for May 6th) and what will likely be at least two to four more City Council meetings. Residents and business owners are encouraged to attend and share their views.

A full suspension of the CZU would put the city at legal risk. The effort stems from commitments Berkeley made in its State-required Housing Element to plan for housing in high-resource areas. These commitments are not optional, and failure to follow through can result in loss of state funding, fines, and court-imposed penalties that could strip the city of local zoning control. We can't know whether the State would take such extreme measures given our other progress on housing, but we also want to do the right thing for equity and follow through on our commitments as much as possible.

The tailored approach that I have championed, and that the Planning Commission has endorsed, is the path that allows the city to meet its legal and moral obligations while protecting the businesses and neighborhood character that residents value. It achieves the protective goals of a pause without the legal risks.

SB 9 and Berkeley's Middle Housing ordinance are valuable reforms, and I helped champion the Middle Housing ordinance (which was initiated and shepherded by my predecessor Councilmember Droste). But these are incremental tools that should be part of a larger approach, not a substitute for other tools. SB 9 has produced modest results statewide (by some estimates less than 350), and Middle Housing has limited applicability and, thus far, limited uptake. Neither has yet delivered the volume or type of housing that transit-adjacent commercial corridors are uniquely suited to support.

Areas with BART access, bus service, and walkable retail are precisely where density makes the most sense from both an environmental and an equity standpoint. It is also worth noting that missing-middle housing does not have the same capacity to provide on-site affordable units as larger, mixed-use projects.

This is a common claim, but it is simply not true. Berkeley's newer buildings and housing stock are disproportionate contributors to the city's tax base, in large part because older buildings with longer ownership see their taxes held down by Prop 13. The city has also seen significant transfer tax revenue as a result of newer buildings changing hands. More residents also means more patronage for local businesses, and therefore additional sales tax revenue.

At a time when Berkeley faces potential across-the-board budget cuts of 10 to 12.5% for all departments, new development is one of the few sources of meaningful revenue growth available to the city—aside from increased taxes.

Berkeley's city budget is in very difficult shape. The city is facing the potential for across-the-board cuts of 10 to 12.5% for all departments, which will likely result in layoffs and lower levels of city service. The city has run out of one-time solutions to paper over structural deficits and will need to make cuts until the budget is balanced or revenues improve.

This context makes it all the more important to pursue policies that grow the city's tax base, including thoughtful new development.

Berkeley is only 10 square miles. It cannot meet its housing needs by building only in a few areas while exempting every part of the city that would prefer not to change. As a matter of basic fairness, every neighborhood must contribute.

Historically, single-family zoning has been used in Berkeley and elsewhere as a tool to enforce and perpetuate racial and economic segregation. The same individuals who promoted racial covenants in Berkeley were also proponents of single-family zoning. While no one today is being accused of conscious racism, understanding this history is important to understanding how exclusionary zoning still has exclusionary effects.

Berkeley's true character has never been about frozen architecture or exclusivity. It has been about opportunity, diversity, and welcoming people from all backgrounds. Planning for housing in high-resource neighborhoods serves those values.

It is true that the residential streets surrounding the Elmwood commercial district include a variety of housing types, including apartments, multi-unit conversions, and ADUs. This is positive, and I strongly support ADUs and middle housing as important contributors to housing availability in D8.

However, the commercial corridor itself has contributed very little housing. The CZU is specifically about the commercial parcels, and the tailored approach focuses on three sites where housing can be added without displacing the existing residential or retail fabric. These efforts are complementary, not redundant.

There are several ways to stay engaged. The next anticipated Planning Commission session on the CZU is May 6, 2026, though that date may shift. After Planning Commission deliberations (possibly at multiple additional meetings), the proposal will come before City Council at least once and likely several more times. All of these meetings are open to the public and include opportunities for public comment.

You can also write to my office at any time at mhumbert@berkeleyca.gov — please also include my Chief of Staff, Eric Panzer, at erpanzer@berkeleyca.gov. The office has been receiving a very high volume of communications on this issue and is working to respond to all of them. If you have sent something and think a reply may have gotten lost, please feel free to reach out again.

For specific city service concerns (such as street maintenance, garbage, etc.), please use the 311 system: dial 311 from a landline, call 510-981-2489 from a cell phone, or use the online 311 reporting tool.

The Planning Commission meeting materials, including the staff report and consultant presentations, are publicly available on the City of Berkeley's website at berkeleyca.gov. I also send periodic newsletters with updates on this and other District 8 issues. If you are not already subscribed, please consider joining the mailing list for my newsletter.