Good to go. Yes, we are ready. All right. Very good. I'm going to call to order the
Berkeley City Council meeting. Today is Tuesday, January, excuse me, January 20th,
2026. And I'd like to start off with the role, please. Okay. Calling the role.
Council Member Kesterwani? Here. Tapplin? Present. Bartlett? Present. Tragob?
present O'Keeffe? Here. Blackaby? Here. Loonapara? Here. Humber? Present. And Mayor
Ishii? Here. Okay all present. Thank you very much. So it is the first meeting
backed after our winter council recess and we have been taking turns saying the
land acknowledgement statement so I'm beginning the year I'm going to start us
off. So the City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was
was built on the territory of Hu Choon, the ancestral and unceded lands of the Chochenyo-speaking
Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was, and continues to be, of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and
descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley,
the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound
and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have
and continue to benefit from the use and occupation
of this unseated stolen land
since the city of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the law regulating the city of Berkeley,
it is not only vital that we recognize
the history of this land,
but also recognize that the Ohlone people
are present members of Berkeley
and other East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships
with the Lishan tribe and to create meaningful actions
that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Now moving on to our ceremonial items.
So for our ceremonial items this evening,
we have the presentation of Berkeley's Poet Laureates.
So.
So tonight we recognize Aya De Leon,
Berkeley's 2024 to 2025 Poet Laureate
and thank her for her extraordinary service to the city, Ia's work has powerfully uplifted
poetry as a tool for justice, storytelling and community connection. I had the honor
of having her present a poem at my inauguration ceremony a little over a year ago. I thank
her for her leadership, generosity and vision which have strengthened Berkeley's literary
arts community in lasting ways and we are deeply grateful for her contributions to our
community. We are also honored to welcome Hanan Masri as Berkeley's next Poet Laureate.
Hanan is a long time Berkeley educator, poet and cultural worker whose practice centers
land, ancestry and intergenerational learning. Her work reflects a deep commitment to youth,
community and creative stewardship and we are excited for the voice and also the mentorship
that she will bring to the city in this role.
At this time, I'm pleased to invite Aya de Leon and Hanan Masri forward for the ceremonial
passing of the laurel.
I do want to acknowledge that we have Berkeley's first poet laureate in the house as well.
So this was supposed to be a ceremonial passing of the laurel, but because I'm always doing
too much, we have an actual laurel.
Hanan Masri, I'm overjoyed today to pass on the mantle of Berkeley's Poet Laureate to
you tonight.
As many of you know, I am no fan of royalty, as my multiple No Kings Line Dances will attest.
But I want to actually crown you tonight, not with gold or jewels, but with a garland
of olive branches.
planting olive trees which are so important to your people's homeland of Palestine and
as symbols of peace which is so desperately needed in these times.
I look forward to working with you during your term as cultural workers together in
the fight against authoritarianism and injustice everywhere to support and inspire our movements
for Democracy and Liberation, which are growing in our commitment and capacity to win.
Beware.
I'm not an experienced world maker.
Did you want to say anything?
Yeah, you've got, there we go.
Okay.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you, Berkeley, for this honor.
great before and ahead. But maybe it's not a line of succession. Maybe we're all standing
in a circle and facing one another from all our star points. Thank you Aya already for
your encouragement and blessings. You are one of my aspirants and to be relating as
as we are, is a dream in its rose stage.
Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, the city's first and a member
of my chosen family that I have just come to understand.
Thank you for your work, which reorients my heart when
it is lost.
I carry one of your poems with me this eve to give me courage.
There are so many people and places that are sacred to me,
many of them rooted in this city.
To Berkwood Hedge, the first racially integrated school
in Berkeley, the place of my teaching grounds
for nearly three decades, thank you, Jane Friedman, Betsy
Wilson, Marty Mogensen, DeAnn Burke, and Donna Mickelson
for taking a chance on a teacher in her embryonic stage
and giving her ample guidance and room to grow.
Laura Farha, Hibbenammer, Dunya Alwen,
Zappo Dickinson, Patricia West.
I am alive because of you and I mean that.
High Road Scholars, my dream camp,
let's keep packing up suitcases
and keep uncovering the resplendence of this world.
And to my moose, my beloved, my life, Valentine Samantha,
I am with you and I am for you.
Remember that.
This poem is called Green.
Oh, Berkeley, you gorgeous bohem.
With your Tibetan bling and your cracked pepper
fil fil fil fil, you know the center, crispy and green,
because I know you got that parsley from the Arab Spring.
Berkeley healed my heart.
It was here that I met her.
My heart leapt out of my chest like a Hawthorne tree
in winter.
We listened to Al Green, foraged for city sorrel,
stuffed that verdant tang in dough, and called it dinner.
Ample, make this bed.
I trace my finger across this map, past wars and gardens,
as zores and emeralds from Huqian to here,
a love note nestled between ancient humps of breaststone,
Bay Route City's green line.
There are no grenades.
Instead, sages, mint, thyme, marjoram,
the shepherds keep a pinch of zaata in their pockets,
steady the nerves, so mac brightens the blood,
and olives stain our DNA.
Five hours, and I'm not sure when
I'm going to leave this room.
All of us there, midnight's children.
How do you make your grass grow?
show us your W-2s.
Do you pledge allegiance to any flag with a band of green?
In between the minutes, I think of you, Berkeley,
your placard-filled windows, your justice unhushed.
California poppies blooming in your front yards
will never put you to sleep.
I think of something I wish my mother had said,
as Saturn's rings began to fade from around her neck.
We, tender rascals of women, electric wires of green,
red splashes, we will make our own incisions,
we will never beg for thread.
My daughter, find the loudest people in the room
and make friends with them.
Thank you.
Can we get a photo with the previous
and current, please, Fort Laurier?
Thank you so much, everyone, for that beautiful moment.
I'm guessing so many of you are here to support them.
So thank you all so much for coming as well
to see the ceremonial passing on
and physical passing of the of the Laurel.
So we are now moving on to the rest of our meeting.
Oh, one thing I wanna say is that we have a new vice mayor.
So vice mayor Lunepara is going to be the vice mayor
for this next, how many months is it?
I forget, but anyway, for the next few months,
quarter and next quarter.
Yeah, so welcome to your new role.
Thank you so much.
And so the next thing on our agenda
is our city manager comments.
City manager, do you have any comments?
I don't, thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
So now I will take public comment on non-agenda matters.
So.
Okay, we'll draw five cards for the in-person speakers
and then have one minute each
then go to the speakers on participating remotely. Okay there's five speakers for in-person public
comments. I'll read your names. You can come up in any order. We have Diana Vender, Luis Cunio,
Steve Tracy, Betsy Morris, and Willie Gee. So come up in any order. I know you're excited but I'm
going to ask that you continue your conversations outside, please. Thank you. Thank you so much,
especially to our young visitors. Okay. If you heard your name, please come on up to the front
and whoever's up first can go. Good evening, City Council members. My name is Betsy Morris.
I'm speaking here as a member of the East Bay Gray Panthers and a member of the statewide
affordable california coalition about 100 seemingly 100 but it might have been fewer
went up to sacramento last week and six eight gray panthers some of us hobbling like
very slowly uh testified in support of ab 1157 which was brought forward to the judicial
community committee. Four Democrats voted for it, three Republicans voted
against it, and four Democrats simply did not show up for this measure which
would have lowered the cap and lessened the risk of homelessness and
immiseration among our seniors and disabled members of our
California community. Thank you. Thanks Betsy. Thanks for being here.
this evening we broadcast every meeting happy new year Steve Tracy here we're
halfway through an old year the budget year I'm wondering how we're doing are
we on target for a balanced budget lots of fun programs like a poet laureate
But they got to be rooted in living within our means.
Last year, $27 million deficit,
has that been paid back to the pension fund
and the workers' compensation fund?
Paid back?
Not paid back.
Anybody know?
Are we still, we've still borrowed the 27 million,
and what's this year doing?
Hey, fewer employees,
The health department redundant Talameda County was 12 million last year.
Do we really need a 12 million health department? Thank you.
Look for ways. Thanks for your comments. Who's, who else is on?
Yes. Come on up. Um, we've represents this.
Go ahead and move the mic down so we can hear you. Okay.
Hello city council members. How are you?
my name is kelly and i have been a vendor
out on telegram
pardon me yet with diana
work together
diana and kelly
these are the other vendors
that are here
there was
that there's louis
that's diana
incantation
shy start over
okay yet going to start over so sera sorry just a clarified can you pause a
little bit so
so whose names were called the two people who are sitting yes
Okay, and they're giving both of their minutes to you.
It's all of us together, really.
All right, go ahead, thank you.
Hello.
Hello City Council members.
My name is Kelly, and I have been working out on Telegraph
for about 16 years, every weekend.
I am here representing not only the merchants,
but also the vendors.
I'm not sure if you're aware that they changed the coding
on the vendors to business licenses.
The problem is with that is the fact that
the business license that you guys are handing out,
now are competing with our merchants.
That has never happened.
We have rules out there that we all must abide by
to make it a smooth operation.
We have, and the reasons for this situations
for our merchants is the example I'm gonna give you.
We have Anastasia's closet, we have Dorothy's closet,
and we have all these clothing stores,
but when you guys changed the code,
you allowed all people to be able to vend.
That cannot happen because it competes the vendors
with the merchants.
So you take Anastasia's closet,
and here they are a used clothing store,
you give a business license to another person
who is a vendor to sell clothes,
which has always been unlawful to do,
because if you give them the business license,
you know, they set up in front of Anastasia closets.
One pays $8,000 in rent, the other one's paying 55.
This causes conflict.
I am here today to ask you to reinstate the code
that says you can only sell on Telegraph Avenue
with handmade goods.
And it's hard to negotiate out there,
as I have for the last seven years,
which is just asking people,
have you gotten their license yet?
And usually people will answer yes or no, and they go back.
The city of Berkeley has always defended us,
because, oh, am I done?
Yeah, thank you, but I do hope that you'll write us
and send us more information if you have.
Yeah, I'm not even sure if you guys know that they changed
the code.
Yeah, thank you, I'm sorry, your time's up,
but feel free to write us and give us more information.
Anyone?
Do we have any other names that?
Yeah, Willie G.
OK.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Andre Special, and Willie G. has given me his time.
One minute's kind of short, but I operate the Cannabis Buyers
Club at Berkeley, which is America's oldest dispensary.
We're about to celebrate 30 years of operations.
And I'm here to ask that the council consider bringing back
the Cannabis Commission, take away the city cannabis tax,
allow consumption, including smoking at the dispensaries,
and allow only licensed Berkeley cannabis entities
to deliver within the city of Berkeley.
We are currently surrounded by businesses
that don't charge tax for their cannabis sales,
such as psychedelic churches, smoke shops, hemp shops,
and businesses like a chain of CBD stores
whose ownership is based out of Florida
that sell many of the same products that we do,
but without the 30% tax.
Another example of this hardship
is that San Francisco recently did away
with its 5% tax.
They don't allow businesses from out of the city
of San Francisco to deliver there,
but they can come here and deliver in Berkeley
for 5% less than we can.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so now we'll go to non-agenda comments
from people participating remotely,
and we'll call on the first five hands.
So if you'd like to speak to non-agenda public comment,
and you're participating remotely,
now's the time to raise your hand.
The first speaker is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
So Berkeley City Council, that was the longest break.
Other councils in the area have returned already
within the last couple of weeks.
So happy new year, 2026, no more tricks, let's fix.
You should be ashamed.
Today is day number 832 of the freakin' genocide.
Olive trees, yes.
That represents Palestine.
But you don't give a flying flick of a flea about Palestine.
Or the babies that are freezing to death
and starving to death.
And it's just really shameful.
And please keep the tear gas ban in place.
That passed unanimously with my friendly amendment
when Jesse was trying to just ban it
for a short period of time.
It needs to stay in place and shame on you.
Thank you.
Next is Maria.
Maria.
Hi there, it's Mariah, sorry.
My name is Mariah Yates and I live in District One.
And I was relieved to see the proposal
by District 1 Council Member Kessarwani
to repeal Berkeley's ban on tear gas removed
from today's agenda, and I applaud whatever prompted
this course correction, and I hope that we have
a permanent and not temporary reprieve from the proposal.
Thank you, former Council Member Davila.
As former Mayor and current California Senator,
Arreguin said at the time, tear gas is banned in warfare
and should not be used in our streets or in our protests.
And I did note that my email expressing my objection
to the pro tear gas agenda item is missing
from the correspondence list in this agenda,
in addition to any email on that topic.
And I honestly, I don't understand which correspondences
make it into the agenda, but I was disappointed
to not receive a response from any member here
and not to see it noted there.
I guess I'm not sure how that works.
But again, I wish to express my gratitude
to whomever's responsible for getting this item removed
from our agenda.
I hope the council's attention can remain.
Thank you.
Thanks Mariah, thank you for your comment.
Next is a caller with a phone number ending in 211.
Hi, good evening.
So our business manager and the December today,
please read it carefully.
Second, we may settle for if the city could lease a place
for us anywhere in the city of Berkeley.
Not only think about it, think about it.
tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Berkeley and Bay Area residents need our business.
As far as the most thirsty in the White House, no way to describe it.
It is not.
This man is a Russian, a Russian horse.
We are losing our country in real time, and I never have expected fascism to talk about
this country, especially that quickly.
We have all to stand up.
Immigrants build this country.
During his administration, 1.2 million Americans died from COVID because he denied it.
Both Moderna and the other advisors, one was Greek-American, one was Lebanese-American.
This is the end, not only of America, end of civilization, because he has the bottom
of the nuclear war, and he will do it.
Thank you.
Thank you, and have a good evening.
Thanks for your comment.
Okay, last hand raise is Madeline Roberts-Rich.
Hello everybody, my name's Madeline.
Hello again, I should say, because you've heard from me before.
I'm calling once again about the urgency that I feel
about reviving the downtown Berkeley corridor
on Shraddick Avenue.
You heard me and many, many others fight
to preserve cinematic facilities on Sh
I
on Shotic Avenue has specified an
accounting point in downtown area
specific plan.
There are no operating
will be things on Shotic Avenue.
There's one remaining in Berkeley
that being the real time page.
I really encourage you to collaborate
with developers if you've got a way to
get some chips off the table on the
public's favor from the developers for
developers budget for this budget for
providing what is called pro-first and finale benefits,
and really try hard to support nightlife uses
and cinema again,
I'm trying to get a semi creative fashion.
Irindale, St. Berthiner,
Montvallier, is stepping their theater.
Montvallier who's benefited from
Montvallier St. Berthiner,
thank you for your time is up,
but thank you for your comment.
Okay.
That's all the speakers online.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you everyone for your public comment.
It is the first regular meeting of the month.
And so I wanna see if there's,
there are any employee unions
that would like to speak today.
Employee unions here or online?
There's no hands raised.
Okay.
I'm just wanna give them a little bit of time.
Nobody?
Okay.
All right, we will move on then to the consent calendar.
Can I start first with any council member comments, please?
Council Member Humbert.
Wow, I delayed a little bit in pushing the button.
I just have a few comments on the consent calendar.
With respect to consent item nine,
I want to say this is a really good thing.
We keep the restrictions against riding bikes on sidewalks,
except for kids.
but eliminate unnecessary and pass a bike permitting
registration and licensing requirements.
So all in favor of that.
And with respect to consent item number 17,
Comino's El Exito, $150 I'd like to contribute from our DA8
account for this very worthy program.
I read a little bit about it.
sounds like a really important program. With respect to consent item 19,
referral to the city manager to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible
accessory dwelling units. I want to thank councilmember Kessar Wani and her staff
for this creative and timely measure. Tiny homes on wheels are much easier to
put in place in ADUs on foundations and they can work very well for individuals
and very small families. This is just a referral and city staff will clearly work out all the
safety and logistical issues. With respect to item number 20, consent item number 20,
which is the City Council Employee Recognition Program, thank you to Councilmember Black
of the Co-sponsors for this very thoughtful item. We have such a wonderful group of city
employees and this will allow us to bestow our praise on them when it's
wanted which will be very often I think. Thank you that's all I have. Thank you
very much. Moving on to Vice Mayor Minnipara. Thank you. I am really excited
that item 8 to allow the retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue
Commercial District is becoming law after two readings with unanimous
support from council so and the Planning Commission. Thank you so much to Director
of Cline and his staff are making it a reality.
I'm also excited to donate $250 for my budget
to Camino's Alexito in the Multicultural Center.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, for allowing me to co-sponsor
and thanks to your staff, Jose,
for who worked on this item, thanks.
Yes, thank you very much.
Council Member Blackby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor, it's good to see everyone.
Happy New Year.
Just a couple of brief comments on item 17.
We'd also like to contribute $250
from our office holder account.
And on item 20, I appreciate the support of my colleagues,
in particular, Mayor Ishii, Council Member Luna Parr,
and Council Member Kester Wani for co-sponsoring it.
It was important to me, and I think during my time
on the Police Accountability Board,
when you're thinking about, you know,
often we are critical in thinking about, you know,
ways we can improve performance,
but it's also equally important to uplift examples
of where people are doing really good work.
We see that in our police department,
I think we see that in our city staff.
And I'd say especially in a time when we know
we're going into some challenging budget conditions,
the more that we can do to, again,
recognize the amazing work that our staff is doing,
and in many cases, we'll be doing more work
potentially with a little less as we tighten our belts.
Just felt like in a really important time to do that.
So again, I appreciate the support,
and I do think it's gonna be a nice way
to recognize one employee a month
and have us all participate in the process
doing that work so thanks to the city manager and HR team for their input as
well and I'm hopeful and looking forward to working with the mayor's office to
implement that in the months ahead thank you thank you very much can I just check
in really quick on our zoom situation okay I'm very sorry folks we are going
to take a break and restart our system and I am very hopeful that it will work
So we can come back and finish our meeting. Thank you
Okay mayor we can
continue
Okay, I think we're back on everyone yay
Yes, okay
Very happy. All right. We are on our consent calendar right now
And we just heard council member black of these comments. I believe and we're moving on to councilmember Tracob
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to express my enthusiasm in particular for item 6, which
will expand the throne lab portable toilet pilot program. My district has one of the
The two thrones, it is in Civic Center Park,
and it has gotten rave reviews and has been,
has been popular, and I really appreciate
the opportunity to host it in my district
for a few months longer.
I also would like to thank Mayor Ishii,
for the opportunity to co-sponsor item 17,
Camino's El Exito.
And I am excited to contribute $150
from my discretionary account.
And lastly, I wish to thank Councilmember Casarwani
for our item, the referral, item 19,
referral to the city manager to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible
access with dwelling units and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to
co-sponsor that item. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a blank number so
I'm gonna move on to councilmember Kazarwani please. Thank you very much
Madam Mayor, happy new year to everybody.
I also wanted to be recorded as donating $100
to Camino's Al Excito.
I hope I didn't butcher that too badly.
And then I just wanted to thank everyone
for speaking in support of the item 19
to allow tiny homes on wheels so that we are trying
to expand the opportunities to add.
accessory dwelling units, the permanent ones,
and even prefabricated ones can be very expensive.
So we know that tiny homes can be less expensive.
So we're trying to open up new opportunities.
And I did want to add council member Bartlett
as a co-sponsor of that item.
Thank you very much for your support.
Thank you very much.
I'm gonna go to council member Bartlett,
and then I'm gonna move on mine to council member Taplin,
and then back to council member O'Keefe here.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and it's great to be back after a nice vacation.
The number number 13 and the consent calendar I'm really excited about.
This is the city engaging with emerging nonprofit
for housing developers so we can help new people to access this industry
and get some new talent in here from, from diverse backgrounds. Really good.
Really happy about this. 17.
I'd like to give $200 to the Camino's Alexito.
Did I say that right?
Madam Vice Mayor?
Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
And again, thank you, Councillor Casaruana,
for continuing to join you on the ADU item,
the tiny homes on wheels.
Also, Mills on Wheels on the same agenda tonight.
And Mills on Wheels is from Berkeley.
Do people know that?
Yeah, it started here.
Very vital resource for seniors getting food.
And I'd like to also thank Councilman Blackaby
and his co-sponsors for your work to recognize employees.
But they do great work here and they should be held up.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Taplin.
Thank you.
Good evening, everyone.
On item 17, I would like to be recorded
as relinquishing 250 for my ID 13 account, $250.
On item 18, the referral to the commander
for the development of comprehensive
resolution design standards.
I want to thank you, Madam Mayor,
for your leadership and your sensitivity
and say that I am very happy to be included
as a co-sponsor.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Council Member O'Keeffe?
Oh, it said I was number four in line.
Thank you.
Just two quick comments.
I'd like to be recruited as donating $250 for item 17.
Sounds like a great program.
And a lot of compliments being thrown around.
I'll just do one.
I really appreciate item 18, Madam Mayor and co-sponsors.
I just am a big fan of clear, well thought out laws
as opposed to haphazard random laws,
which is kind of what we have now.
And there's no fault.
I mean, it's all good intentioned work
that's brought up to where we are today,
but this is a really logical next step.
And I just really wanna say how much I appreciate it.
that is all. Thank you very much. So sorry, the parliamentarian was out and
that's why it said you were four. So for number two I want to acknowledge that we
have contracted with Lake Partners. I'm really excited to move forward in the
poll so I really want to thank the city manager and your team for moving that
forward while we were on recess. I want to acknowledge that we got another grant
from Americans for the Arts. I think that's very exciting. Our city works
really hard to find other sources of funding, and I want folks to know about that, so thank
you very much.
For number nine, we are removing some nonsensical bicycle licensing requirements, so I think
that's always a good thing.
I wanted to call that out.
And number 17 is Comminos al Exito, which I am sponsoring.
I wanted to just highlight that it was written by our intern, Jose Martinez, and so I want
to give him a shout out, and thank you so much for your work.
It's a one-day conference held at Berkeley City College,
which is my alma mater, as well as Councilmember Tathlin.
I don't know if anyone else did.
And it's meant to demystify and provide resources
for students and parents for life outside of high school.
It's a bilingual event that has workshops, working groups,
and activities.
And it is organized with the collaborative efforts
of the Chicanx Latinx Student Development Center,
Rooks Live, Latino Unidos de Berkeley,
Berkeley Public Schools, Berkeley City College,
Multicultural Institute,
and the Office of Family Engagement and Equity.
So I wanna just thank everyone who worked on that event
and thank you so much to the council members
for also relinquishing some funds for that.
And then just for number 18,
the Comprehensive Transportation Design Standards,
which some folks had mentioned.
This is something that we had said at the last meeting
that we were gonna bring forward to this meeting.
So I just want folks to know we did it.
We said we were gonna work on it during the break.
I really wanna thank my staff
for pushing that forward as well
and working with the city manager staff as well.
So thank you very much.
I'm really looking forward to that work moving forward.
So we have some clarity.
And then also just thank you, also the ADU items.
So very exciting.
All right, now is there public comment on consent?
My name is Carol Wolfley
and I am here to express my appreciation
to the Landmark Commission for their unanimous vote
to make the KPFA building a historical landmark.
And I appreciate that they had such an in-depth
understanding of Berkeley history as well as knowledge
of how 16,000 people protested and rallied
in support of community media in 1999
to protect the KPFA building and KPFA
as the first Lister-sponsored media organization radio
in the United States.
So I appreciate your being here.
It was also recognized by the Nation Manage Magazine
in 2019, 2018.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Do we get two minutes if there's less than one?
Okay, thank you.
First, I wanted to speak in favor of item 13.
Hopefully this will address some of the racial
and gender disparities that were revealed
during the Mason Tillman report.
The second has to item 19.
It's always good to have alternative housing options when everything is so expensive in terms of housing.
But mainly I want to address the thrown bathrooms and
one of the issues or a issue with them is in trying it out.
This would have been really problematic if I, having been my,
taking care of my mother or bringing her everywhere for 19 years when she was blind and in a wheelchair
and multiply disabled. There is, you get a warning that says, I believe it's a 10 minute
warning where the music starts playing and it says you have to exit and that can be really
problematic for a person with disabilities. Thank you, Karen. Thank you. Hi, my name is
Candice Schott and I'm a Berkeley resident and the secretary of the KPFA Local Station
Board, and I am also here in support of the landmark commission's decision to approve
the landmark status of the KPFA building, and to note that it's the only broadcast radio
building in Berkeley proper, which I think makes it an important building in Berkeley.
And just to note that all the very famous people that have come through that building
been through those airwaves, and I really appreciate your consideration for approving
it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I love that you all are coordinated in your sweatshirts, too.
I didn't even think about it.
I wear it so much.
Hi.
I'm Colleen Mast.
Go ahead and move the mic up so we can hear you better.
Thank you.
I'm Astrid Mast and I'm a resident and also a new member of the KPFA Station Board.
And I'm here to speak in support of the Landmark Commission's decision to make the KPFA building
an historical landmark.
Also the KPFA building is a site of profound historical significance, not only for its
pioneering role in the evolution of the community radio, but also a historical archive of the
social and political movements that have shaped Berkeley and the wider world.
Since its inception, KPFA has been a steadfast platform for independent media, providing
coverage and in-depth analysis of some of the most significant events in modern history.
And just one example being the station played a critical role in covering the civil rights
movement, offering a voice to leaders and activists fighting for racial justice.
this at a time when mainstream media often marginalized their perspectives.
Thank you. Thanks so much. Hello everyone in the city of City Council of Berkeley.
Thank you for having me. My name is Antonio Ortiz. I'm the Interim General
Manager of KPFA radio and I want to thank the Landmark Historical
Commission to push forward the making KP face building into historical Landmark.
I also want to thank these ladies here for all the work that they've done to
make that happen. KPFA was founded in 1949 by a pacifist. Ever since then, our goal has
been to build understanding between peoples. And one of the main challenges, at least for
me as a general manager, or interim general manager, has been how do we start to, how
do we bridge the gap between people? And that's what I learned at KPFA. That's the education
that I got. And my hope is that we can continue doing that. The building, becoming a historical
landmark will be fabulous for us because it would show to our staff and the community
that we exist, we're here, and that we've been part of the fabric of Berkeley since
1949.
And thank you all for listening to me, and I hope you all have a good rest of your evening.
Thank you, thank you so much.
Good evening.
Thank you.
I'm Betsy Morris, and I'm wearing a third hat now as part of my consulting practice
planning for sustainable communities.
I've been advocating and mostly just educating
since 2014 on tiny homes.
And just thank you for bringing this up.
And I also very much appreciate that this is going
for further analysis because the details,
those guidelines and definitions are very important.
I also hope we'll come back and consider ways
that these can stay as at least moderate income,
if not affordable to lower income people
because in fact you can have a $300,000 tiny home.
People are selling very elaborate ones.
But I did wanna say just to reassure anyone
that most legal tiny homes in California are certified
either with manufactured home standards or RV.
Thank you.
I still haven't grown.
It's such a pleasure to see all of you.
Happy, happy New Year and I know it's gonna be
a super year because again, good mayor,
you've opened it up on this first meeting
with such a heart space.
And that's my bottom line and I'm starting to cry.
I can't thank you enough.
And secondly, KPFA, Voice of the Voiceless.
It's my university after university.
Thank you, KPFA.
All right, my primary interest is in the tiny homes.
I've built a bunch.
There's lots of people that need them.
And there's lots of people that actually have space
and would like to share it.
It is cost effective, simple, on wheels,
movable, alterable, flexible, almost immediately possible.
It's like, can't we simplify this, please?
All day long, I take pictures.
Oh, I have an extra minute.
I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you, from Taj.
Sorry, thank you.
Go ahead.
I'm constantly in the community.
And I take, I'm starting to cry again,
I take too many pictures of wasted resources
and infinite needs.
And again, there's a community of share,
because we care that's possible.
And it can be legal, and it can be safe.
And again, I love the wheels.
So, and I would just, I'd build them for free,
I'm telling ya.
All right, and also, in terms of this
comprehensive transportation thing,
I really have to work very hard not to run over
bicyclists with no lights, dressed in black at night,
and or on these electric things that come out of nowhere.
It's like what's happened?
I still have my motorcycle license.
These things are amazing.
We need to be comprehensive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
On item 19, I would like to express my support
for Tiny Homes.
However, you have this tendency to look problems
and solutions straight in the face and not see them.
Tiny homes can be built by people right here
in this community.
Unhoused folks have skills,
lots of skills that can be put to use.
And if they are disabled and can't do it physically,
they can teach, and we can set up right here in Berkeley
a little factory for putting out tiny homes,
producing them, putting them in place,
and get people a home.
Thank you.
Any other comments on the consent or information items online?
Yes, we have four hands raised
for comments on consent and information.
The first is phone number ending in 000.
Should be able to unmute.
Star six to unmute.
Now maybe we'll come back.
Next is Ben.
Good evening Council.
This is Ben Gerhardstein with Walkback Berkeley.
I wanted to express our support,
Walkback Berkeley support
for the transportation design standards item.
Thank you to the mayor and co-sponsors
and City Manager's Office for bringing this item forward.
It's an important step for the city to take.
It's gonna be a big project,
but I think it will yield dividends
if we keep our eyes on the North Star of safety
while meeting the operational needs of other road users,
all road users.
And I wanna draw your attention
to a couple of comments we made in our letter.
First, that as we work through these standards,
it's important that we field test what we're developing,
because that's where we can learn and refine,
especially when it comes to road users with bigger vehicles
and how they maneuver various road features.
And then secondly, I think it's important
that we maintain our commitment to delivering
on projects that are in the queue
and not take our eyes off of that
as we are developing these standards,
which will take time and be important.
Thank you, Ben. Thank you so much.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Dela Luna.
Yes, can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Okay, I'm speaking about item number 13,
and I'm here to say that more oversight is needed
for these emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers.
The city needs to first verify
that these developers follow through
and display competence before dishing out more funds to them.
Some of these developers treat the city relationship
as a creative writing assignment
and submit feel good proposals.
but the city is not doing their due diligence
to vet these organizations.
And the impact is that your vulnerable constituents
are placed in the hands of the less experienced
with no recourse.
City funds should be allocated to help constituents,
not prop up nonprofits.
And people will form nonprofits
just to get access to city funds.
Creative writing is not enough in proposals.
Fake it to your make it is harming your constituents.
Please provide oversight for these affordable housing
nonprofit developers that are emerging.
The recent lawsuit resulting from the unfortunate homicide
at the homeless shelter is an example of what happens
when there's-
Thanks for your comment.
Let's go back to phone number ending in zero, zero, zero.
Hi, good evening.
I am calling regarding the system number eight.
I don't like it at all.
As a college student, I was there for 14 years in physics and nuclear engineering department.
One time almost died.
A student sometimes going drinking binge.
Through a party we had, I had almost a full bottle of gin.
I almost died.
That please don't pass that.
We don't, we have bad enough problem with the pot shops all across the street on telegraph.
Now we need to add liquor as well.
You have to think about your kids. Think about your grandkids. Stop it. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have Cheryl Davila, former council member.
So, yeah. Black and when I was on council, I tried to get an item for tiny homes.
I tried to get them built, have the designs. I still have the designs.
So it's interesting that you're doing that now, but that's not the first time
Somebody has copied things that I had wanted to do
I'm not sure I haven't read the item and don't plan to but I just think it's interesting that now
You're putting this forward as you have done on
Other items that I put forward that you put forward all right
Yeah, that's all I gotta say free Palestine free Congo free Sudan for Yemen and free yourselves from all the hatred that y'all have
Towards other people in your city that you're supposed to represent
Next is Daniel Brownson
Hi
So I don't know if others saw the news but the city of Santa Cruz has
Terminated their contract with flock quote safety
and Berkeley should do the same.
Sorry, this is on consented information items, which-
Sorry, I thought it was public comment, sorry, nevermind.
Okay, thank you.
I'll speak at the end then.
Okay, that was it, that was the last speaker.
Okay, thank you very much.
Is there a motion to, excuse me,
to approve the consent calendar?
So moved.
Second.
Thank you, can we, yes, did you have a comment?
Yeah, if you can indulge me for a minute.
I just wanted to congratulate everyone
that has made the landmarking possible at KPFA.
Thank you so much.
While KPFA has preceded district elections,
I for sure am very proud to be able to say
that it is in my district,
and thank you for everything that you're doing.
Thank you. Okay, can we take the role on that, please? Okay.
On the consent calendar. Council member kessarewani. Yes. Kaplan.
Yes. Bartlett.
Absent. Tregeb. I O'Keefe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes.
Lunapara. Yes. Humbert. Yes. Mayor Ishi. Yes.
And councilman Bartlett,
would you like to record a vote on the consent calendar? Yes. Okay.
motion passes consent calendar is adopted under a supplies we are gonna
just take a quick five-minute stretch as we're switching into the next item
thank you are we ready your staff ready staff Jordan you ready okay all right
very good we are going to yeah we are gonna call this meeting back into
session and and we are moving on to the action calendar starting with action
Item number 21, which is amendments to title 21 subdivisions
to allow separate sale of ADUs continued
from December 2nd, 2025, which is why you're going first.
And as it says, items contain revised materials.
Okay.
We have council member Kesser-Wani has a statement.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I've been advised by the city attorney's office
as well as the fair campaign political practices commission
at the state level that I have a conflict of interest
and therefore we'll be recusing on this item.
Thank you.
Okay, and Council Member Drago.
Similarly pursuant to this advice from the city attorney
and the Fair Political Practices Commission,
I will be recusing myself from these items
as a tenant in an ATU in Berkeley.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'm gonna make sure we allow them to leave
but then open the public hearing
and have staff give their presentation.
Okay, go ahead, staff.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Council members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm Director of Planning and Development.
Joined at the table by Justin Horner,
Principal Planner on the policy team
and Branka Tataryevich on the policy team
who will be presenting on behalf of staff.
Take it away, Branka.
Thank you, Jordan.
Thank you, Mayor Ishi and the members of the City Council.
My name is Branka Tataryevich
and I'm an associate planner with the land use planning division.
Tonight I'm presenting the ordinance to allow separate sale of ADUs under
assembly bill 1033 as directed by city council referral and planning commission
input.
The planning commission reviewed the ADU condominiums item in spring and summer.
The commission first discussed AB 1033 in March and recommended adoption of the
new section,
ADU condominiums as VMC Section 2129 in May.
Berkeley Municipal Code currently doesn't allow ADUs
to be sold separately.
AB 1033 gives cities that option
if they adopt local regulations.
City Council ask the Planning Department staff
to create that pathway to broaden
moderate income home ownership
and help homeowners build equity.
The new chapter 21-29 is Berkeley's Opt-in to AB 1033.
It is nested in Title 21 subdivisions.
The chapter applies only to the separate sale of ADUs
on eligible lots and creates no new development rights.
It provides a path to condize what is already allowed.
The processes ministerial were applicable under state law
and our objective standards.
State law also requires a lien holder consent,
a safety inspection, and buyer disclosures.
If the ADU is a covered rental,
the ordinance preserves tenant protections,
the right of first refusal, and the right to remain
per chapter 2128, condominium conversion.
CCNRs and any necessary access easements are needed
as required under the David Sterling Act
and Subdivision MAP Act.
Under the proposed ordinance,
condo converted ADUs would be exempt
from the condo conversion mitigation fee.
Overall, the ordinance complies with state law,
adds no new standards,
and provides a practical path to attainable home ownership.
Finally, staff recommends that the city council
hold a public hearing
and adopt the first reading of the ordinance
to implement AB 1033 by allowing the separate sale of ADUs
condominiums through amendments to title 21. That concludes my presentation. Thank
you and I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
presentation. I would like to now go to councilmember Luna Parra so that she may
present her supplemental. Great, thank you. Vice mayor. I think we might have to take
down the staff presentation in order for me to share my screen. I have a
presentation. All right. AB 1033 and the goal of the ADU condo conversion
ordinance is to provide opportunities for more affordable homeownership which
is a critical piece of the puzzle and one that I personally relate very closely
to as a young renter with some hope that I'll be able to afford a home in the
Bay Area eventually. I think the fundamental question right now is around
how to balance the stability of ADU tenants and the opportunities for potential future ADU homeowners.
I don't believe that we should be incentivizing putting ADU tenants in jeopardy of displacement
in exchange for homeownership opportunities. That was not the purpose of AB 1033 which allows cities
to pass ADU conversion ordinances to encourage more developments of ADUs to be sold independently.
Renters in affected ADUs should be provided with protections similar to those of tenants
and other units proposed for condominium conversion based on our existing condominium
conversion ordinance. Based on feedback from tenants, housing supply advocates, and our legal teams,
this supplemental material proposes adding the following tenant protections to this ordinance.
One, to add a condition of approval to prevent no-fault evictions. Two, to establish the right
of first refusal for 90 days for all ADU tenants. Three, prohibits condo conversion if there has
been an owner move-in eviction for the past five years to disincentivize using owner movements to
avoid other tenant protections. Four provides a choice between paying the affordable housing
mitigation fee or agreed a rent control that condylized ADU if it is rented out, and I'll explain
more about that in a moment. And five more clearly define which ADUs are eligible for conversion.
Zooming into the last point, these definitions would limit ADU conversion to ADUs built after
2002. And this is because pre-2003 dwellings that had undergone, that have undergone the
amnesty program process are subject to this ordinance. They, they, the time, the staff
can explain this better, but the time at which the program is approved, that is the year
which it is officially built, I guess, for the purposes of this. Pre-2003 dwellings
that have not undergone the amnesty program process may be converted through the regular
for condo conversion ordinance, not the ADU ordinance.
Pre-2003, ADUs are considered built in the year
they went through the amnesty process,
so they would still fall under this ordinance.
Prior to 2003, accessories up dwelling units
did not have their own code section
and were only listed as a special use
in the single family residential district.
The term ADU has also become a popular term
that is used interchangeably with residential,
other dwelling types that were previously referred to
as in-law units, cottages, granny flats, et cetera.
Most of these units are now considered full dwelling units
and could only convert condominiums
under the condo conversion ordinance.
So this slide compares the differences
between our condo conversion ordinance,
which is already law for non-ADU conversions,
the planning commission item and our supplemental item.
The status of a covered versus an exempt ADU
varies on situation, on year of construction,
on year of certificate of occupancy,
on owner occupancy status,
on whether it was built on existing residential space
etc. The status of an ADU can vary and can change over time. Part of our goal
here is to simplify the process and ensure that all ADU tenants are
protected from displacement for the sake of conversion without adding new
protections on property owners that do not wish to convert their unit. So first
the tenant right of first refusal. The condo conversion ordinance requires that
those converting a unit provide one year of right of first refusal for current and
future tenants and covered and exempt dwelling units. The Planning Commission
and recommended one year only for current tenants
in fully covered dwelling units.
And the current supplemental compromises
by decreasing the timeline to 90 days
for current and future tenants in all dwelling units,
allowing for a quicker process for sellers.
For the conversion prohibition after no fault evictions,
so again, the current non-ADU conversion ordinance,
condo conversion ordinance has a waiting period
that prevents conversions after no fault eviction
from happening by prohibiting landlords
from doing a conversion for 10 years
after a no fault eviction.
The Planning Commission recommendation
removes these protections for all units,
meaning a landlord could perform a no fault eviction
and immediately convert their ADU,
displacing their tenant to sell the unit.
And the current supplemental compromises
by shortening the conversion prohibition
to five years instead of 10 years.
And it also adds an Ellis Act savings clause
to ensure compliance with state law.
In terms of prohibiting owner move-ins for current tenants,
the condo conversion ordinance prohibits
owner move-in evictions for all current tenants
at the time of their conversion.
The planning commission version prohibits owner move-ins
for current tenants living in only covered dwelling units
at the time of conversion and our supplemental
mirrors the existing condo conversion ordinance
by prohibiting owner move-in evictions
for all current tenants at the time of conversion.
We're almost done, sorry.
For the affordable housing mitigation fee piece,
the condo conversion ordinance requires property owners
to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee
during a conversion.
If they opt into rent control, the fee is halved.
The planning commission version does not require
property owners to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee
during a conversion.
In our supplemental, a property owner who opts
to make the newly converted ADU rent controlled,
which would only apply if the condo unit is rented out,
they would pay zero dollars of the H-M-F.
This incentivizes the preservation of rent-controlled housing,
prevents displacement,
and gives property owners more flexibility.
I want to clarify again that this supplemental
is not intended to add any new tenant protections for ADUs
that are not already covered by the rental ordinance,
unless they are converting their unit into a condo,
and that we are not required to adopt
a AB 1033 ordinance under state law, although we should.
And these are some of the impacts briefly
for the owner move-in.
The protections would only apply in the case
that the property owner voluntarily
opts to convert their ADU into a condo.
So for example, a landlord who wants to go out of business
so a relative can move into their ADU
when it is already occupied by a tenant
can still do that without penalty.
Someone moving their relative into an ADU
would likely not want to convert their ADU
because they aren't selling it.
So the proposed tenant protections of the supplemental
would not apply.
And the supplemental only ensures that
while creating this new tool for property owners,
we don't incentivize displacement.
It does this by applying less restrictive versions
of tenant protections that already apply
in other situations of Berkeley.
Ultimately, the goal of this legislation
is to incentivize new development of ADUs
for the sake of condensation,
not to replace a tenant in an ADU
with a homeowner in an ADU.
Statistically, tenants of ADUs are lower income
and significantly more likely to be displaced away
from Berkeley or into homelessness
than a middle income family looking to purchase a home.
As I said at the beginning,
I would love to purchase a condo home in the future
and start a family in Berkeley,
and I'm so glad to see that council is taking concrete steps
in creating these opportunities,
and I do not want to displace my friends
who are current young tenants and ADUs in this situation.
This is not a zero sum game,
and I believe that these amendments balance our priorities
to ensure that we are incentivizing affordable home ownership
without displacement.
And I want to thank Director Klein and his team
all of their hard work on this. I'm also really grateful to the Planning Commission, to the
Rent Board, and the City Attorney's Office for their substantial contributions to this
ordinance. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Council. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, so I'd like to get questions from council
members first, and then, and that could be to Vice Mayor Linopara or to staff, and then
I will take public comment, and then we'll go to council comments before moving to vote.
So, questions?
Okay, I'd like to ask staff if you can please speak
to the need for clarification of language around
which ADUs this would apply to.
This is council member, Lynn Oparis-Pointe.
She mentioned that staff might be able to explain it better
so I just wanted to get some clarity on that.
Sorry, which ADUs her supplemental would apply to
or which ADUs the staff proposal?
The final bullet point, if you wouldn't mind pulling it up,
for clarity around the language. I mentioned that because the the situation
in which an ADU is granted the the amnesty program makes makes the like
date kind of complicated so I was wondering if you could just explain it
better than I could what that means when an ADU an existing ADU gets approved
under the amnesty program. Sure under the staff and Planning Commission proposal
a unit that sought amnesty through the the city's amnesty program for
unpermitted dwelling units could apply could qualify for conversion as a condo
but only if but there's two pathways through the amnesty program there's a
certificate of compliance pathway which doesn't result in a full certificate of
occupancy that in that case the the unpermitted unit is only screened for
um for housing safety and it doesn't go through the full land use entitlement
process it doesn't go through the the full inspection process in that case it
couldn't get converted into a condo if it goes the full route was that which is
essentially the normal entitlement and building permitting process with amnesty
protection from any code enforcement, then it would qualify for conversion, regardless
of the date of original construction. And I think that's one way in which the supplemental
differs from the Planning Commission recommendation.
Okay. Thank you. And I know we've gone over this, but I think it would be good if you
could also help us understand what, if any,
productions exist for tenants who live in an exempt ADU?
So yeah, I can answer that question.
So fully exempt units have no protection.
But there is really small subset of units
that are fully exempt.
So that doesn't mean that the ADUs to be converted
are not going to offer any protection,
because most of them are actually partially covered
units, and they have some of the tenant protections.
So all of the tenant protections that
that are in conversion ordinance that apply to partially covered units would also be applied
to these ADUs.
And most of the ADUs that are rented would fall into that category.
So these protections would be exclusive right to purchase, right to remain, and recent no
fault evictions screening.
Thank you.
So the point is full exempt units that's a very, very narrow subset and it only actually
applies to ADUs that are on the property zone for single family use and where there
are only two units and one of them is owner occupied.
Thank you.
Councilmember Blackaby.
Thanks Madam Mayor. One quick question and we may not have the answer. I was
curious if staff has any rough projections, predictions as to the kind
of volume we might expect. I know we had a similar discussion about that during
the middle housing discussion, but do you have a sense of under the Planning
Commission proposal any rough projections of volume and how that mayor
or may not be affected in the alternative version,
do we have any sense of numbers?
Sure, I'll give a crack at, take a crack at that.
So we have been seeing production on average
of about 180 years per year over the last five years or so.
We don't think that that's gonna be impacted in a huge way
by either of these proposals.
What it does, it creates a new avenue for separate sale,
but I mean, it's difficult to speculate,
but I don't think that this will necessarily,
I mean, we think that it could have a slightly beneficial
in terms of production.
It could encourage a little bit more production
by creating an opportunity for somebody to
take advantage of some unused land on their property.
And then regarding the supplemental material,
you know, most of the proposed expand provisions
don't have any direct impact on unit production.
They're really about when there's an existing sitting tenant.
And so if somebody who's choosing to produce a new unit,
they could decide whether or not
they want to rent out that unit.
You know, the one possible exception is the application
of the affordable housing mitigation fee,
because that's, but that's still an edge case
because it's somebody who is planning to produce an ADU
for a separate sale with the expectation
that it would be a for rent unit, right?
So that's a pretty narrow subset
of the kind of units we're talking about,
but it could have a slight impact on production,
but we don't think of it as impact.
Okay, great.
And then getting back to the earlier question
about kind of what's covered, what's not covered,
again, your sense is the vast majority,
the fully covered units and the partially covered units,
that's still where most of the volume is.
And the number of units that are of the fully exempt kind,
which is for the most part what would exist in my district
in D6 is your individual homeowners who may or may not
create an ADU and are going to be owned or occupied.
That's a relatively small percentage of the overall volume.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, I just want to go out.
We really don't have good data
distinguishing these by type.
So it's really difficult for us to answer.
You heard Bronca speculate that it's likely
a pretty small percentage of the overall volume of ADUs,
but we don't have great data on that.
Okay, but if you are a tenant, an ADU,
that's owned by someone who does not live onsite,
full protection, or partial or full protections
under the existing rent controller.
And that's preserved in this piece.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Oh, sorry, yes, thank you.
Council Member Tablon.
Thank you.
I would actually like to refer my question
to the city attorney.
Thank you.
I also have a Steve Heilis
that worked on this project available.
Feel free to ask either of us the question.
Sure, thank you very much. Thank you both very much. So this was before my time, but we've
received communications periodically from members of the ADU Task Force regarding exemptions to the
rent stabilization ordinance for certain types of rental units codified by the 2018 Berkeley Measure
Q. Can you clarify what those exemptions were and what impacts on those exemptions the amendments
were posed here tonight in the supplemental would have how the proposed language would interact with
the RSO? I can start and then I can turn it over to to Steve if he is prepared to answer that but
in our examination of the ordinance there's no conflict between measure Q which was as you
mentioned a ballot initiative and this ordinance. Steve I don't know if you're online or Lauren
if you wanted to add anything. Yes, I am. Hi. Yes, so under MeasureQ, which as you noted was
passed by the voters in 2018, certain ADUs specifically, certain ADUs on properties where
there's a single family home and the landlord occupies a unit in the same property are fully
exempt from the rental ordinance provided that the tendencies in question were created after
on September of 2018.
And so for those types of units are fully exempt
under the event ordinance and they are treated
as such under these staff proposal.
Thank you very much.
And so what the language proposed by the supplemental
remove that exemption for those units?
It wouldn't remove all of those exemptions,
but I believe it would remove some
in that it would apply certain tenant protections
to all ADUs.
We, however, have concluded that the way
that the supplemental is written
wouldn't pose any conflict with measure Q.
All right, thank you.
And then my final question is for the planning staff.
Do we, and my apologies if we don't have this,
but do we have numbers on 80s produced
before and after the November of 2018?
We have numbers produced after 2018
And I mentioned it's been on average about 100 a year
since then.
We don't have good data on production
prior to around that point actually.
Yeah.
Thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Okay.
We will move on to public comment then, please.
And I've got a minute from someone.
Yeah.
I know many of you are here for that.
So I kind of want to just get a sense of how many folks.
OK, it'll be a minute.
So and you have a minute from this person here.
OK, go ahead.
Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
As chair of the Run Board, I'd like
to thank Councilmember Luna Parr and Councilmember Bartlett
for their support for this supplemental, which will,
I think, the important thing to understand
is largely mirrors protections already
in place for tenants when condo conversions occur,
but significantly lower the burden of those protections
during the conversion process.
The board supports, in concept, the idea
that we want to make it easier to produce
homeownership opportunities in Berkeley.
Whether we need more housing, whether that's
rental housing or owned housing, and as Councilmember Lunapara
said, maybe one day some of us young folks
will be able to buy a house in Berkeley.
But I think the important thing, as Planning Director Klein
mentioned, is that we don't need to incentivize
the creation of units that already exist, right?
Those units that are currently tenant occupied
have been built.
We don't need to do anything to incentivize their creation.
And it doesn't make a new housing
to replace tenant occupied housing
with owner occupied housing.
And so any unit that's going to be built
because of this ordinance will be built empty of tenants.
No building that you build from the ground up
comes with a tenant inside it.
And so this will have minimal impacts
on the creation of what this proposal would do
to incentivize the creation of new housing.
As Director Klein stated, the one part that could
is this part about the fee.
But these are units that are designed to be sold and owned.
So the imposition of rent control
will have a de minimis impact on selling price
if it's being sold for a home ownership opportunity.
Those units are not going to be rented.
And it's more of an insurance, right,
that basically if you're not going
to use the ordinance for the purpose
that we're designing it to, we want
to make sure that tenants in those units have protections.
Additionally, sorry, my phone locked.
I like to be environmentally friendly
and have a fast closed time,
but it sometimes bites you in the butt.
Likewise, all currently in built ADUs
were built with the understanding
that they wouldn't be sold as condos.
So there's no rug pole going on here.
This is the status quo and we're granting a new right,
which is the right to convert to a condo
and imposing reasonable protections
that mirror current protections.
Thank you.
So just I'll say I have staff from the run port here
if folks have any questions.
Thank you.
Good evening, thank you Carol.
Is that Carol?
Sorry, I can't see you.
Yeah. Okay, thank you.
So, I appreciate the chance to speak to this.
I am here to support the work of Council Member Luna Parra.
And also-
Sorry folks, can I just have it be quiet
while people give public comment?
Thank you.
Go ahead.
So, I'm here to support that.
And there's many details I don't know.
but I did want to speak to the item on page five
in the packet, which indicates ADU condos
would be exempt from conversion mitigation fees.
So I would very much encourage a relook at that.
I have, for the last 20 years,
have lived in limited equity condominium co-housing,
which meant there was a group of us that got together,
bought and moved in as renters into a property that had already been unfortunately depleted
of renters, but we moved in as an empty, as co-operators. The point was that we negotiated
for permanent affordability at the moderate income level in perpetuity, and we were in
exchange for giving up the rental conversion fees, the condo conversion fee, that helped
us create and be able to buy these units as moderate income people. And that agreement
is now going away because the city attorneys said, no, you can't make it in perpetuity.
I would really like to encourage you to think about that as a bargaining negotiations to
actually make it permanently affordable if, with the mitigation fee forgiven, if people
go with land trust or some other mechanism that keeps it
perpetually affordable to moderate income people.
Because we know how crazed the market of sellers
and interested parties have been.
Thank you.
Thanks Betsy.
Thank you.
Hello Madam Mayor and City Council.
Nathan Meisel, Berkeley Ramport.
Good to see all of y'all.
I want to thank Council Member Bartlett, Vice Chair
Linda Parra for introducing this item.
I think, you know, Chair Alpert said really all the main points here.
Certainly, those who originally got in the ADU, you know, market or business, this is
a new avenue for them and hopefully for, you know, regular folks in our city to be able
to live here and maybe buy a home.
I'm in that camp hoping that's something I can do one day.
But more importantly than about me, it's really these productions.
And I think the graph that the Vice Mayor showed really illuminates on it.
The city has similar protections that are in place for the kind of conversions already.
These protections mirror that and in some ways are a compromise and I think it really
gives a reasonable balance between allowing for a greater building and a home ownership
and protecting tenants from displacement.
Things are both very important in this city.
So thank you for considering this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening Mayor Ishi and council members, my name is Audrey Kramer, I am a sophomore
at UC Berkeley and am speaking to you today on behalf of Cal Berkeley Democrats.
I am coming to you as a student and I urge you to adopt amendment to title 21.
Housing in this city is expensive, we all know it, but the people who feel it are the
students like me.
Enabling the sale of these units separately encourages the building of these homes allowing
for more housing to be built in our community.
It is important to me as a renter in this city that my government works hard to keep our city and community affordable and renter friendly
I'm particularly in favor of councilmember Luna paris amendment to increase tenant protections for all of us
Please adopt this amendment to title 21, but especially the revised agenda material. Thank you for your time
Thank you
Good evening Mary. She and council members Sam Greenberg here on behalf of East Bay for everyone
East Bay for everyone believes that the most successful outcome of this policy is increased production of ADUs for condomization
We believe that increasing tenant protections for sitting ADU tenants would not preclude increased production and would limit displacement of lower-income
residents younger families and generally vulnerable tenants and I also want to highlight that director Klein just shared in his response to councilor Blackaby
Blackby's question that
That added protections wouldn't have a notable impact on production
We applaud your dedication to implementing AB 1033, not every jurisdiction in the state is doing that, but we urge you to pass this policy right.
We can be a model for how cities implement AB 1033 justly, statewide, and I hope you can accomplish that tonight.
With CalHome funding zeroed out in Newsom state budget and with tenants more precariously housed than ever,
it's important to pass this policy, but to do it right with added protections.
Thank you.
Thanks Sam.
Good evening everyone.
Thank you Council Member Bartlett and Vice Mayor Monopara
for these amendments and modifications.
I really hope and urge council to support these.
I am extremely hopeful for the continuous agenda
of having housing options as well as tenant protections.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Good evening Mayor and city councilors.
I just wanted to thank you for making for this item
and making ADUs easier to create and use.
And I also wanted to thank Council Member Luna Parra
for the supplemental because you can have
housing development and renters rights.
And so thank you so much and I hope you will adopt
Council Member Luna Parra's supplemental.
Thank you.
I'm going to turn this down a bit.
Hello.
My name is Daniel.
I'm with the Cal Berkeley Democrats.
And I would just like to voice my support for the measure.
I think that, obviously, Berkeley's
facing an acute housing shortage,
and ADUs are probably going to make up
a big part of remedying that issue.
ADUs made up, I think, something like 20%
of new housing developments in the past few years, which
obviously implies that they'll be a big part of housing
development in the future.
I also think that it's important to ensure that tenants still
have their needed protections.
I think that as the, what's it called, as they said earlier,
it wouldn't so adversely affect housing, what's it called,
production of ADUs.
So I think that just looking at the facts,
as long as they don't adversely affect ADU production,
I think that it's reasonable to adopt it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Is this on?
Good evening, Mayor Yixi and council members.
I'm Ida Martenak.
I'm also a Rent Board Commissioner
and would like to echo the comments of my colleagues.
And I just want to say my hope
is limited to surviving this year,
but should we all survive this year,
it would be nice to be able to afford a home in Berkeley.
And I really wish that for the younger generation
to be able to own a home.
And I welcome Vice Mayor's
and Council Member Bartlett's supplement
in that it is a very happy compromise.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Good evening, Council Mayor and Vice Mayor.
My name is Rebecca and I'm an ADU tenant in Berkeley.
I think that we should adopt a version of AB 1033
with more tenant protections,
with the goal of incentivizing new development for condos
instead of replacing existing ones.
And as an ADU renter, I want,
just as everyone else before me said,
to be able to buy a home someday, especially in Berkeley,
but I don't want to be risk being evicted in the meantime.
Please support Vice Mayor Luna Parra's supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi all, I'm Audrey Tamson, another Audrey,
but a student in Cal Habitat for Humanity.
Many students as vendors see ADUs
as important to Berkeley's housing,
and I know this because they let me and you guys know,
important enough to email you over winter break,
to show up, and to speak here today
on our first day of school.
Here's a comment from Theo Wang, who isn't here today.
Like many students, I chose Berkeley not just for school,
but also because I care about this community
and hope to stay in the area after graduation,
and housing is a big issue on my mind.
Over the past few years, I've watched friends struggle
to find affordable housing close to campus
or face unexpected rent increases.
Student housing often comes in the form
of small units or ADUs, and those spaces are essential
for keeping Berkeley accessible to students
from all backgrounds.
When tenants are displaced,
it doesn't just disrupt our housing.
It also hugely impacts our education, mental health,
and sense of belonging.
Please consider our voices.
AB 1033 expands housing access opportunities.
Simultaneously displaced ADU tenants
are more likely to be homeless.
Berkeley can set a precedent here tonight.
Prioritize new home ownership and tenant productions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Shalini.
I'm also with Cal Habitat for Humanity,
an organization centered around equitable housing.
I'm speaking on behalf of my peer, Ava Smith.
A close friend of hers who lived in her hometown
her whole life was forced to leave
the home that her family was living in
after the landlords decided to turn
the home's garage into an ADU.
They were without a home for months
and ultimately were forced to lead the community.
A large reason why I've loved living in Berkeley
is because of this community's diversity.
Permitting ADUs as written as AB 1033 has written
can hurt this diversity.
AB 1033 is a good policy that will increase
the number of housing units,
but in a city that already relies on rent control
to prevent displacement,
I hope that tenant pretensions will be included
in AB 1033 because by including safeguards
to prevent no-fault evictions
and guaranteeing first-rider refusal,
Berkeley can ensure that families and individuals
will not suffer from the implementations of ADE
as the same way people have in her hometown,
and that's it, thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Hi, my name is Lucia, and I'm also part of CalHabita,
and I'll be speaking for my friend Lorena.
Hello, my name is Lorena,
and I personally am currently fortunate enough
to live in a student rental here in the University Village
where my rent is covered by financial aid.
Otherwise, like many others,
I'd be struggling in finding affordable housing.
As I've had countless of my peers
tell me of their unfortunate housing situations
that ultimately left them homeless,
couch hopping, and seeking unconventional housing
for the night.
It is plain to see that it isn't humane
and should be prevented from worsening.
It is substantial that we keep in mind
that many students live in ADUs,
hold up,
that many students live in ADUs or small rental units
and as students we wish to protect ourselves as tenants.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Madeline.
I am also a member of Cal Habitat for Humanity of Berkeley
and I'll be speaking on behalf of my peer Oliver Chang
who cannot be here today.
Hello, my name is Oliver Chang.
I am currently renting an apartment in Berkeley for college
and will be there for at least another year and a half.
I've seen too many examples first-hand
of how housing instability has affected
how students grow about their daily lives.
In fact, today I was with a friend who was absent-minded
because all she could think about was how she had to move out
because rent was being raised
at where she was living currently,
affecting her thought process
and how she interacted with everyone.
As a result, I believe we should say yes
to AB 1033 and tenant protections
because Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.
This is a good policy.
We should allow ADUs to be converted into condos
and sold separately,
especially when they are newly built and not rented.
But this should not happen at the expense
of existing ADU tenants
who are especially vulnerable tenants
that live there currently, dessert protections as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Alex Dafrega,
and I'll be reading on behalf of Angie,
a fellow Cal Habitat for Humanity member
and UC Berkeley student.
A couple of years ago,
I lived in a rented ADU with my family.
Though it wasn't here in Berkeley,
it was one of the many ways we experienced
an inequitable and inaccessible path to ownership.
And it is applicable to a variety of communities
across the country.
Having the ADU as a housing option
had significantly helped my family find a sense of stability
amidst the housing challenges we were experiencing.
A lack of information on tenant protections
and educational barriers pushed us to displacement
when the rent increased over time
and ownership of the ADU was not an option.
Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.
ADUs have the potential to offer an affordable space
upgraded from a room or apartment.
If combined with greater tenant protections
against displacement and towards home ownership,
Berkeley can expand long-term housing stability.
We hope that the Lunapara Bartlett Supplemental
is adopted with AB 1033.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you very much.
Good evening, Council.
I'm Debbie Sanderson.
I'm speaking on behalf of the ADU Task Force.
In the past, this council has been very supportive of housing,
and we thank you for that.
We think it is now imperative that we
build as many ADUs as we can.
But we want to remind you that the people
of Berkeley gave us a clear mandate in 2018.
And we should continue to honor that mandate
through the life of the ADU, even as a condo.
So we urge you, I think the spirit
of 2018 measure Q was to believe 80 years that on owner occupied property a small number
of them to have control over who lives in their 80 you because they live there too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Mary she and vice mayor Luna Parra and city council members first of all I want to thank
council member Luna Parra and Ben Bartlett for this very thoughtful,
supplemental, um, item. You know,
tenants living in ADUs are consumers in the rental housing industry.
When you have a business and your ADU is a business, it is a business.
You are making money. So tenants should have protections,
looks like consumers and other industries should have protections.
And these are really reasonable. These are really reasonable.
I would love for them to have one year for you know to think about it
But you know to think about if they have the first right of
Approval but doesn't matter 90 days are fine all these are good
So I really would hope you that you consider this that tenants need protections. Thank you
Thank you
Good evening mayor and council members Christical Branson executive director of the Berkeley property owners Association
I just want to remind you yes in
2018 the adu task force of which I was one of the founding members and with Ben Bartlett's help
We came forward with a proposal to the voters that said that owner occupied properties certain ones
Especially with new construction adus would receive exemptions from parts of the rent stabilization ordinance
I'm here to say that I do believe in reading this carefully the council member Luna Parris proposal
Actually contradicts that it puts tenant protections on some adus
they decide to convert and be able to sell off the ADU and that is not
permitted under the law because the rent stabilization ordinance is a
directive of the voters. She also is proposing that you remove the ability to
do an owner move-in. An owner move-in is given to those properties where a
tenant has tenant protections under the rent stabilization ordinance. So I think
you need a more clear answer on that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good
evening to the mayor and to council members my name is Dominique Walker I'm
the vice chair of the Berkeley rent board and I just wanted to echo my
colleagues I think that this is a fair compromise councilmember Luna Parra been
Bartlett I think that we can work with this and I would love for you all to to
vote yes on the amendments and I'll see the rest of my time to my colleagues
thank you hello my name is Andy Kelly I'm a record commissioner and vice chair of
the County Planning Commission.
I was just here to speak in support of the supplemental,
which I think is a very reasoned compromise.
Sorry, can you move closer?
Yes. I've never been accused of not being loud enough in my life.
I'm just here to speak in support of the supplemental,
which I think is a very reasoned compromise,
and the spirit of collaboration,
we'd love to see the council impart on these issues.
I think it's important to note that no one affected by this ordinance
tonight built an ADU with the intention of selling it.
That's a major thing that the city is giving to these homeowners,
and it's a wonderful thing if you need to retire
or you want to pay for your kid's college,
having the ability to sell is wonderful.
But so is the ability of folks who are living there
now to stay if they want to.
We can do both things, it's not mutually exclusive.
And giving tenants three months to figure out
if they can purchase the property, that's a great thing.
It's good for our neighborhoods to stabilize them,
it provides the stability and affordable housing
that ADUs were meant to do in the first place.
And the tenant protections would only exist for the rent control
if the homeowner decided they wanted them.
No one forces that in the supplemental.
Only an owner who's saying, I'm going to sell this ADU.
I'd like it to remain affordable.
It's going to be in my backyard.
I'd like folks to be able to stay there.
That's a choice.
You don't want to do it.
You pay the affordable housing fee.
You pay the condo conversion fee.
You go through the regular process.
But it allows the protections without anyone
being forced to do it.
It's a wonderful compromise.
It provides a pathway to home ownership
for folks who don't have a million dollars.
And I strongly encourage the council to support the supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any public comment on this item online?
Public comment on item 21 allowing separate sale of ADUs.
Currently have four hands raised.
First is Alfred Tu.
Good evening, city council.
My name is Alfred Tu.
I'm also a Rent Board Commissioner.
And I'm here to also speak in favor
of the item with Council Member Lunaparra's supplemental.
Our goal here is to get people to build new ADUs
so we have more housing being built,
and also get people who have an empty ADU
but aren't interested in renting it out
to perhaps consider selling it.
Portland, Oregon, and to our north,
they implemented an ADU condo ordinance about 10 years ago,
And they now have a good ecosystem of businesses
that specialize in building new for sale ADUs.
And that's really the motto we want to go.
Where people are building new homes
rather than just taking homes from one person for another.
Similarly in San Francisco,
they passed the AB 1033 ordinance recently,
but theirs only allows new construction to be condoized.
So I think what we have proposed here
is a good compromise between the stronger tenant protections
as well as offering flexibility.
Thanks for your comments.
Next is iPhone.
Should be able to unmute.
City council members and honorable mayor,
this is Catherine Crandall.
I'd like to cede my minute to Deborah Sanderson.
Oh, she spoke already.
Kathy, I'm sorry, do you wanna speak instead?
No, other than we can't afford to incentivize any kind of building of the ADUs, and so I've
written a letter to all of you, so thank you for your time, and please vote no.
Next is Brianna Morales.
Good evening.
My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.
We strongly support this ordinance, especially at a time when California is facing a housing
crisis and housing costs are through the roof. We love to see creative flexible opportunities
that support housing choices, especially with ADUs that already exist in neighborhoods across
Berkeley. This ordinance will help create new pathways to home ownership that are often more
affordable, more attainable, and more flexible. It could mean a renter having the opportunity
to buy the home they already live in, or a homeowner helping a loved one build equity nearby.
We strongly also support protecting tenants and appreciate the council's attention to these
concerns. We encourage continued work towards an approach that maintains a clear and workable
pathway for ADU homeownership and preserves predictability for these small projects.
Berkeley has long time been a leader and so we're hoping to see this ordinance pass so that we can
align with state law and bring more homes to California. Thank you. Thanks for your comments.
Okay, next is Daniel Brownson.
Hi, yeah, I think it's telling that the housing advocates,
including the author of the supplemental council member,
unipara and the members of the Berkeley rent board
have been willing to compromise resulting in this,
you know, already compromised supplemental measure.
Whereas the landlords like the person who spoke
on behalf of the Landlord Association,
which shouldn't even exist
because it's a price fixing organization,
seem completely unwilling to compromise
and approve any tenant protections whatsoever.
So I strongly encourage the board
to adopt the supplemental
so that it will be balanced with tenant protections.
Thank you.
Thanks, Daniel.
Next is Tony.
Good evening.
This is Tony Mester speaking from district two.
I support the staff recommendation
on the ADU conversion, condo conversion.
I don't support the supplemental.
I think it's idealistic to believe that the supplemental,
some of the items in the supplemental
would not be a disincentive.
I think if it passes,
you will see the number of ADUs being created, reduced.
I don't know by what percent.
I'm not that smart, but I do know that it would be a burden
for those people who are going to use their equity
to build housing, and I think we need the ADUs,
and I'm very proud to have been part of the Measure Q team,
and I'm very proud that we've had so many ADUs created.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tony.
Okay.
Last hand is Cleo.
Cleo, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Cleo.
So ADUs are different from multi-unit buildings
in that they tend to be owned by nonprofessional individual
homeowners.
This means that creating more cost and or more complexity
will be a major roadblock to condensation and sale.
People will still build the ADUs, sure,
but they just won't sell them.
On the other hand, virtually no small entry-level new homes
are being currently built for sale in Berkeley,
other than the ADUs if they're conduiced.
By contrast, the city is building tens of thousands
of new rental apartments.
For this reason, I am against the amendment
proposed by Councilperson Luna Parra
because it would disincentivize private homeowners
with ADUs from conduiting and selling them,
thereby denying entry-level home buyers
with virtually the only potential new source
of affordable first homes.
So we're only talking about a guesstimate
of less than 1,000 new build ADUs since 2018.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's it.
OK.
Thank you very much.
We're going to move on to Council comments starting
with Councilmember Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Then I want to give a huge thank you
to Director Klein and the planning staff
for all your hard work on this item.
It's been pending for so long, and I'm
glad that we finally got into it. I think that ordinance as prepared by
planning staff and the Planning Commission is pretty much ready to roll
with one exception. Way back in October Mary Shee, Councilmember Blackaby,
Councilmember O'Keefe and I submitted a supplemental with a proposed amendment
to a chapter in section 21.29.010.C.1, covered rental ADU sub-paragraph B, for the purpose
of limiting the right of first refusal to 90 days. So once again, I propose an amendment
that simply adds the following to the end of subsection B, quote, accept that the exclusive
right to purchase period shall not exceed 90 days from the date of the notice, end quote,
and that's in place of the one year.
I think that roughly three months is a fair amount of time for a tenant to declare their
intent to purchase, and it better aligns with typical timelines for real estate transactions.
A year is far too long to demand that someone wait to potentially sell their ADU, especially
since it is most likely people will be seeking to sell because they're having financial difficulties
or because they may want to sell to a family member.
With respect to the thoughtful and very thoughtful supplemental brought forward by council, I
shouldn't say, by Vice Mayor Lunapara, I feel that it is well intended, but I think personally
I just fundamentally see the relationship between a single family homeowner, you know,
sort of a Measure Q homeowner and an ADU tenant in a very different way.
I do want to credit the arguments that I've heard tonight here about the lack of impact
the supplemental would likely have on newly constructed ADUs.
I think those arguments are correct.
But and I also accept that I still favor the staff proposal.
Having tighter rules for multi-unit and non-owner occupied properties makes sense.
But I don't think it makes sense when you have a homeowner with just the one ADU on
the property to force them into a potentially fraught relationship with a sitting ADU tenant.
And I guess I would say why should these proposed rights, which didn't exist and don't exist
at this point, for this very limited class of tenants, all of a sudden spring into existence
in connection with a condo conversion of an ADU?
And I'm not completely – well, I'm going to strike that.
I think that using whether a unit is covered by the rent stabilization ordinance is the
cleanest and clearest way to establish different standards for ADU protections.
So I think we should stick with the Planning Commission and staff recommended approach.
Let's just keep a clear, workable line.
And ultimately, you know, it may have some impact to incentivize more ADU conversions,
if not construction of ADUs.
As far as applying an affordable housing mitigation fee to ADU conversions, I can't support that,
as I think it's far too discouraging of such conversions.
Berkeley suffers from an even more acute shortage of affordable ownership housing, as it has
been pointed out, than it does affordable rental housing.
So I'm committed to not having a feed for these conversions.
So with all that said, I would like to move for the purpose of discussion the staff version
of the ADU conversion ordinance with the amendments proposed in the October 28 supplemental that
I just referred to that was submitted by the mayor and council members Blackaby and O'Keefe
and I to limit the right of first refusal period to 90 days for the tenant.
Thank you.
Yes. Thank you. Do I hear a
second? Um that was my next
question. Is there a second? A
second. A second from council
member Blackaby. Uh moving on
to council member Taplin's
comments. Uh thank you. Uh
just real quick and my
apologies for not asking this
in the first round. The
Cooper who's Rose and what I'm gonna try to feel that so the planning commission
recommendation applies a no fault eviction screen on condo conversion
eligibility of ten years and that applies to covered units and partially
covered units but not to fully exempt units I believe that the supplemental
expands that to also apply to fully covered units,
but reduces the period from 10 years to five years
for all three categories of ADUs.
Thank you.
To share my thinking,
it's really helpful to know that there is
a relatively small number of ADUs situated
on owner-occupied two-unit properties,
and the diversions of a prohibition on conversion
following no fault termination penalty
is present in both versions.
I'm very committed to increasing pathways and opportunities for homeownership, and I
see condo conversion for ADU sales as a valuable tool, and want to be cautious to not unwittingly
create impediments that would have a chilling effect on ADU production.
That being said, I do welcome my colleagues' deliberation on the two proposals for the
No-Fault Eviction screen in particular.
sorry just to clarify the no-fault eviction for for all all eighties just
councilmember oh I I I I welcome hearing from the rest of my colleagues on the
fine points of both in either of the two proposals on that point okay thank you
And actually I would like to see if there's a motion to close the public hearing before we continue more. So moved. Okay.
Thanks. Can we take the role on that please. To close the public hearing council member Taplin. Yes Bartlett. Yes. O'Keeffe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes.
unipara yes Humbert yes and Mary she yes okay okay thank you very much I'm
gonna go to councilmember Bartlett thank you madam mayor it would be possible to
to post that one chart with the the three proposals with the exes that one
you know with the Planning Commission when apart Bartlett yeah give me a
moment I think that's helpful thank you and in the meantime I want to do want to
to thank the planning staff, thank Director Klein and team
for your diligent work, wonderful work,
I love the proposal.
I do think it is benefited by my colleague,
the Vice Mayor's efforts here to really what I see
is a really rational, really rationalization and unifying
of the baseline protections of foreign detentants
that we give to houses, people living in houses.
And in one sense, without it, we kind of carry on
the prejudicial relationship between
some of family homeowners and home dwellers
versus apartment people, in this case, ADU people,
that work so hard to kind of unify and make even.
And so I think that these protections afforded
to the people of ADUs are less burdensome
than those living in homes.
And again, going with what you said, 100 units a year,
I think this is going to be negligible.
However, even though it's negligible,
if it keeps one person from falling out into the street,
it's worth it.
That's a real person.
And believe me, I think the fears,
and the ADU people, yes, I'm all ADU.
I'm Mr. ADU.
I formed the task force.
I'm all about it.
But again, I don't believe in a zero sum relationship
that we hear so much in our world today.
You can have your cake and eat it too.
You can have economic growth, and you can have people living
a good life.
They're not exclusive.
And this is one example where I would really impress upon you
the fact that we can protect people while advancing
the goals of homeownership and starter homes and ADU
development.
And you realize if someone's making aid to you to sell it,
they're doing it to sell it.
And they will be engaging in property taxes, and et cetera,
and doing all things you do to sell property.
It's a commercial decision.
This is not the usual story of aid
to use about my grandma being in there, my mama, my sister,
got rained out, and Florida is coming here to live with us.
This is you selling it to someone to make money.
And so you will factor in that cost when you sell it.
I mean, this is really, I think, again,
the fears are overblown.
And I think the rationale for doing so
and executing with these elements are good.
They're good for the community, good for people,
and good for our economy as a whole.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you.
Just gonna make some brief comments.
I'll be supporting council member Humbert's motion.
Here's why.
I do want to say I really respect the supplemental.
It makes sense.
It's a good, like the heart of it is in the right place.
And it's, you know,
it's very easy to feel good about tenant protections.
That's just, that's a,
it seems on its face like always a good policy.
Here's why I can't support it.
I'm not choosing to support it tonight.
We're making the law more complicated.
And we have to, that's the mandate of this,
is we have to sort of update our laws
to incorporate this specific situation.
I'm pretty allergic to making laws more complicated.
I think, as I said earlier in my comments
for Consent Calendar, we really need
to be making them clearer, more streamlined,
make more sense at any opportunity.
And so, yes, we have to tweak our law a little bit.
We have to add a little, you know,
cross some things out and add some things.
But the best way to do that in this case
is to maintain as much as possible
the philosophy and the structure of the existing law.
And that's what I'm basing my vote on.
Right now in Berkeley, like it or not,
renters who are renting in multifamily developments
have certain tenant protections.
Renters who are renting in single family home
type situations, either a part or all of a home
more back of a home, have none essentially.
And the staff recommendation,
the Council Member Humbert's motion supports
carries that philosophy forward into this new situation.
And so that just makes more sense to me.
It feels more comfortable for me.
And I'd like to just continue,
I'd like to keep our law structurally
the same as it exists now.
And that's why I'm voting the way I am.
Thank you. Actually, if you don't mind before you speak, can I ask a couple of questions?
Or do you want to? I want to respond to that? Sure. Please, go ahead. Yeah, yeah. That's
fine. I would argue that the planning commission
version is much more complicated than our version given that ADU units often can like
go in and out of certain statuses and if we apply the same tenant protections across
the board, that very much simplifies the process.
And also because we're mirroring existing legislation that we have currently for the
condo conversion ordinance, that also kind of connects everything together more than
the planning commission version does.
So that's my argument.
So I will ask my questions, but I do want to make sure you get your comments in as well.
So I'm curious if you can let us know, because I just couldn't pull it up quickly, what the
affordable housing mitigation fee actually is, so that when we're talking about the fee
we can just be clear about what we're talking about.
Yes.
Sorry.
So for staff.
You know, we have HHCS staff on the line, and so I think we'd like to turn that question
to either Margaret Ernst or Mike Uberti to speak to the affordable housing mitigation fee that
applies to condo conversions. Hi council members can you hear me okay? Yes thanks for being on.
Sure no problem thank you for having me. I can't see my video I'm hoping I'm looking good for
everyone. We can see you you're here. Okay so how the affordable housing mitigation fee works is
it's based on a nexus between ownership costs and rental costs for the unit that's divided
by the current interest rate. And so we usually, we have a kind of set way that we calculate the
projected ownership costs for the unit as a condo, including a five percent down payment price,
the cost of future HOAs, property taxes, et cetera, comparable to a rental cost for the unit.
Now there's an alternative called the rental limitation in which
property owners can elect into establishing a rental limitations on the unit in exchange for
a fee that's based on the sales price of the unit, an 8% sales price, or in certain cases,
a 4% sales price. And so that's either they can do that based on an appraised price at
the time of conversion or they can base that on the actual sales price. They can defer
the fee until the unit is sold. And then that's based on the actual sales price when it goes
on the market.
Thank you. I remember when we were talking about this, there were some, I don't know
I don't know if it was like median, you know, amounts or something that was an actual dollar amount, just to kind of put some specific as specifics into this conversation. I don't know if you can speak to that at all.
I believe we probably I worked with planning to develop examples based on like an estimated sales price so you could kind of compare how the two fees would look.
So I think that might be what you're thinking.
Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. We've continued this item so many times. I don't have the
same documents in front of me anymore.
All right. We do, thankfully. Thanks to Bronco. Mike and I worked about, on this, I want to
say about six months ago. So the example that we came up with, and so you're going to have
to bear with me, because there's a lot of numbers here, because to be honest with you,
this is not a simple fee. This is a complex calculation. So Mike mentioned that you're
the difference between the rental costs and the ownership costs. So if the rental costs were
estimated at $1,500 per month, that's $18,000 a year annually. The ownership cost is you develop
the estimate of that based on estimated mortgage payment costs plus taxes and insurance and HOA
do is you might estimate that at $2,700 per month for a small ADU or $32,400
annually. Okay, the difference between those numbers, the ownership cost minus
the rental cost, is $14,400. And so the mitigation fee is developed by dividing
that difference by the prevailing interest rate. Six months ago, it was six
and a half percent. The resulting amount is two hundred and twenty one thousand
dollars. Two hundred twenty one thousand five hundred thirty eight dollars. And
that's that that's a pretty real world. Those I mean those amounts we came up
with. We did our best to estimate what the actual rental and ownership cost
would be of an ADU around seven hundred fifty two a thousand square feet. Thank
Thank you. That is really helpful to have an actual number in front of us as we're
having this conversation. And thank you, Mike, for being honest while in answering
that question. Jordan, can you also speak to the impact of a conversion prohibition
after no-fault eviction? I know that Councilmember Taubman asked us to opine about that, and
I'm interested in thinking about that more as well.
well first let me say I think it's quite rare that this occurs I would actually
potentially if you if you have questions about specificity I think that rent board
staff are work work with those cases much more frequently than we would sorry
I should I should clarify that question it's to speak to the impact of a of a of
of adding this to the potential conversion of ADUs to condos
or building ADUs, it's really on the planning side.
Oh, so whether adding it would impact production.
Thank you.
I really don't think it would impact production much,
if at all, to add that.
So currently the planning commission proposal,
already applies to covered units and partially covered units would not apply
to fully exempt units supplemental proposes to expand it to also apply to
fully exempt units I think that it would impact production only in cases when
somebody is intending to sell a condo as an investment property or condo eyes an
ADU as an investment property in those cases yeah it could serve either it's
you're gonna add a huge amount of cost to the conversion,
to over $200,000 is what we estimated,
or you're gonna limit the future income-generating
potential of the property.
So yeah, in those cases, it could serve as a disincentive
if somebody would only produce the unit
with intention for sale as an investment property.
Yeah, and I think that's important
because I think the conversation
that we're having here is about encouraging condoization
in the hopes that also people are owning their homes
and not just someone's buying it in order
to rent it out as additional income.
Because they can do that as an ADU.
They don't need to convert it to be a condo in order
to rent it out in that way.
So I just want to clarify that for folks.
OK, I'm sorry.
I wanted to make sure you got to make your comments.
I just have a couple short comments kind of emphasizing some of the pieces of this.
First, for the affordable housing mitigation fee, the goal isn't necessarily for people
to pay the fee, but if this is happening, if somebody is purchasing this converted ADU
condo is then renting it out, then those tenants get rent control protection, which is also
not the intended purpose of this and is an unlikely scenario I think. I also want to
go back to some of the topic of how many tenants this would apply to. I don't this wouldn't
apply to many tenants. I think we all know that we have a crisis of displacement and
of homelessness, and even if this applies to one person or one family, that person or
family is getting evicted from the city or is significantly more likely to fall into
homelessness and the best, we know that the best way to prevent homelessness is to keep
people housed in the first place. I understand the unique relationship that ADU, that tenants
ADUs have with their landlords,
if the landlords have on the same property.
I think that if they are not choosing to convert it,
they still can evict those tenants.
That is not changing.
I think if we're granting,
as Commissioner Kelly said,
if we're granting this opportunity for homeowners,
which is a great opportunity,
then it should not come at the expense
of our current tenants that are very vulnerable
in this naturally affordable unit.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Just stepping back very briefly,
one thing I've been observing
and wrestling with a little bit
is that we have a series of different housing policies
in Berkeley to accomplish different goals,
different housing types,
whether it's rental housing or housing that's available for purchase, tenant protections
to protect people who are in those rental units.
And so part of what I've been wrestling with a little bit is thinking about, well, what's
our A number one goal with this particular policy?
And one of many challenges we face in Berkeley is that we don't have enough housing for purchase
at the lower end of the economic scale.
And by lower end, it's still plenty high end.
I'm just saying that we're trying to create more housing inventory that's available for
less than a million dollars, and hopefully substantially less than a million dollars.
And to me, this ADU conversion policy is one chance, and we've heard, I know she's not
here, but Council Member Kester-Wani has talked a lot about in the past some of this work
to create more inventory on that side of the scale and not just at the upper side of the
scale.
The ADU conversion policy under AB1033 is focused on generating more for-sale inventory at that sort of lower, relatively lower, relatively more affordable price point.
We have other policies, like the density bonus that incentivizes the creation of affordable rental housing, and that is a clear policy choice, and we're trying to put that to work, and the state's trying to put that to work.
And we have a rent control system here in Berkeley.
It's the most robust in the country
to provide strong tenant protections in as many places
as we can.
But I keep coming back to the goal.
In this case, our primary goal is
the creation of more housing for purchase
at a less exorbitant price point.
And from speaking to residents in my district,
I know there's real apprehension to moving forward
with ADUs at all if they feel potential restrictions.
It's a disincentive to convert existing ADUs.
And I do believe that it's the ethos
of this additional regulation on ADU,
on a single family property where the owner is occupying
one of the units.
The ethos of this additional regulation,
whether it's real or perceived,
is a disincentive to participate.
I heard it a lot during the campaign,
and I hear it as I go around now.
There's just a sense that I don't know if I wanna do this.
If I feel like my hands are gonna be tied,
feel like I'm going to have these additional restrictions, additional fees. Why bother?
I'm just not going to do it. It's better for me not to do it at all than to do that.
And that feels like that moves us backwards in terms of what we're trying to do with this
particular policy. Again, I could be wrong, but that's sort of where my head is at in
terms of my discussions in the district and thinking about the goals and what we're trying
to accomplish. So for that reason, I really appreciate the passion and the commitment
of the vice mayor and councilmember Bartlett for their proposal. But thinking about what's
the primary goal here, what's the primary problem we're trying to solve with this particular
legislation, I believe that the planning commission version with councilmember Humbert's amendment
is the better approach to actually creating more housing for purchase at this kind of
price point. If our goal was different, you know, if we had a different goal and that
wasn't the goal, I think a different policy prescription could be the right choice and
that could end up supporting the supplemental.
But for this particular goal, for this particular reason,
I'm gonna support the staff recommendation
with Council Member Humbert's amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And speaking of what is kind of our goal here,
what I, I mean the purpose of really converting the ADUs
to condos is to encourage more opportunities
for home ownership.
And at the same time, I know that we need to be doing
our best to protect the tenants who are currently living
ADUs. At the same time I'm also concerned about some of the aspect of
Councilmember Luna-Tapar's items and worried about how it might
disincentivize the conversion of ADUs to condos, specifically the affordable
housing mitigation fee piece of it. Another thing I realized that in this
conversation we really need to have better data around ADUs so I'm just
saying that out loud because I think that's something that we should all be
working on because I think that will help us make more informed policy
decisions. I want to comment on something that was said earlier. I really want us to
consider the possibility that people will be condolizing their ADUs in order to live
in them themselves and sell their main houses instead. In fact, I know some older residents
who are selling their main homes to their children, for instance, or to someone that
they know and then are living in the ADU but might be interested in continuing to own something.
so condoizing it might make sense for them.
So I just want us to think about that
and not make too many assumptions
about how people might utilize this.
The other thing that I also agree with
and that I agree with Council Member Luna Parra,
Vice Mayor Luna Parra's item is the right of first refusal
for all ADU tenants within 90 day time period.
I want to briefly speak to why we were interested
in shortening it to 90 days.
We had many conversations with different folks
about how long it takes to get funding together.
And we thought that 90 days was reasonable,
wasn't enough time.
If you were able to get funding together in 90 days,
you'll most likely be able to purchase.
And I'm interested in giving everybody that opportunity,
given that we're talking about converting ADUs to condos
and to encourage home ownership.
We want to allow the people who are currently living in them
to have the opportunity to purchase their ADU first.
And given 90 days that we've kind of agreed
is a reasonable timeframe,
I'm also interested in including that as well.
And so speaking to council member Taplin's interest
in a conversion prohibition
after no fault eviction for five years,
I'm also interested in supporting that.
So I wanna signal my support
and see if folks have any other comments
about my comments before we move on.
Right now we only have one thing on the floor.
So, yeah, Vice Mayor Lighteau Parra.
I have some kind of high level comments
in kind of an attempt to convince my colleagues
about what the choice that we're making here is
and how we are treating tenant units
in comparison with homeowner units.
If the choice that we're making here
is about replacing our tenants with homeowners,
I think that is a, I think we've lost the plot.
I think it is so important
to create those middle level for sale homes,
but are we really willing to displace
and evict our vulnerable tenants to create them?
That's not a decision that we have to make.
That is a policy choice.
Our primary problem that we're trying to solve
at a high level is housing affordability
and housing stability for all.
And I'm really frustrated
because I think that this conversation
is leading into the same fundamental problem
that we see over and over again
about prioritizing homeownership in placing their homes
at a higher standard than tenants' homes.
And we should not be considering
tenants' homes are unequal to homeowners' homes.
We are telling tenants that they do not deserve
the residential and financial stability that homeowners do.
And I think that's the policy choice
that we're making right now.
Yeah, that's my argument.
Okay, so right now, just so we're clear,
the only thing that's on the floor is the staff recommendation with with the
supplemental that council members Humbert Blackaby and O'Keefe and I have
put forward. I'll make a motion to approve the supplemental material
without the affordable housing mitigation fee section. Second. Sorry
you're supplemental with without the affordable housing mitigation fee. I still
can't fully support that where it's at. Where are we? Do you have a friendly
amendment? Yeah I think the piece that I have a hard time but still is the sorry
I'm just trying to pull up my notes. The owner move in since like I said there
might be some owners who would be interested in moving in to their ADUs
converting them to a condo and then selling their the main house. Do we think
what I'm worried about is a landlord using owner move-in eviction and then
turning it into a condo. I wonder if there's a way we can meet in the middle
there and accommodate that issue without completely removing it. I would be
interested to see if anyone else is in support of this. So I'd like to ask if any
of my colleagues have any comments.
I'm interested in this, mostly in the name of unity.
I think I'd prefer to just have my way,
but I think the other side's arguments are reasonable.
So it would be feel better if we could find some agreement.
And I'm open to looking for that.
And this, I like this, keep going.
Can I, sorry, I'm just going to share my name.
Go ahead, Councilmember Dapley.
I did want to speak to the point about displacement.
I think that's why I'm interested in the prohibition on conversion following a no-fall
eviction.
I see both proposals as having very valid and very useful dissentives against displacement,
and I want to just voice that.
I don't think either the Planning Commission or Planning Staff or any of the members of
the council are seeking to replace tenants with homeowners. I think we are trying to
thread the needle here, but I wanted to sort of reiterate that that's why I'm so interested
in the prohibition on no fault eviction conversion.
you, yeah Vice Mayor Lopara. I think in the interest of not trying to come up
with an entirely new policy on the dais, we can revert to the plan and
commission version of the OMI evictions and that's my of the owner movement
evictions. So yes yeah okay. Do you want I'm sorry do you want to actually just
to repeat everything I think that might be helpful.
Yeah, it would, this motion would approve
the supplemental item without the affordable housing
mitigation fee or the changes to owner move-in evictions
from the planning commission version.
So that would leave, sorry, I'm just pulling up my notes.
I wanna make sure I'm saying everything correctly.
So that would leave the right of first refusal of 90 days
and the conversion prohibition
after no fault evictions for five years.
Correct.
And just looking to see if anyone has other thoughts.
And I'm imagining a scenario
where somebody has rented their ADU backyard ADU
to a tenant that wasn't working out
and they wanted to condylize it.
And I feel like what's being proposed right now,
I do have empathy and concern for that landlord.
think I think they need because it is as I alluded to before this is more of a single-family home situation. It's a little more personal
I am I do want to preserve that right sort of of this of who you get to live next to for homeowners
so but I I
Don't know. I feel like there's still a compromise in here. But the
It's the pairing of those two things that concerns me. I
guess in
that situation
They would either have to wait five years and if it is a no-fault eviction because there are many, you know
I don't know what it's called, but
faulted evictions
That
homeowner can take if
They perform a no-fault eviction they would have to either wait five years or they can just rent it out to another tenant in the meantime
I don't know. I guess I don't think that we should I'm worried about weighing
About displacing that tenant
And possibly pushing them into into homelessness
When the homeowner has multiple options to not live with that person if if it's not working out for them
they don't have to condoize it and
Yeah, it
Okay, I just want to check and see if there any comments and then I think we should move forward and vote
Yeah, it just cuz I guess we're having a little bit of back and forth
So respond I just I want to say I I hear what you're saying
I think you I think we're gonna agree to disagree, but I think what you're saying is reasonable
I just I'm not I'm not I'm just not comfortable with what's being proposed at this time, but I appreciate the argument
It's it has a lot of merit
How do you think what would you propose differently I'm not sure I'm just I'm open to some sort of
less
less
draconian isn't quite the right word, but less strong tenant protections like I am open to
Something I just I do want to preserve I
Don't know why this has come to just me. Maybe maybe other people on my side aren't open to this at all
Yeah, I just I really want to make sure to preserve the
the right of a of a homeowner a single-family homeowner to choose who lives next door to them next on the same
property as them. I just, I want to preserve that. So whatever we do has to make that possible even
when they want to do a condo conversion. So just, just being realistic thinking about the votes
that we have here, I do really want us to make a push for the 90 day, um, uh, 90 day, um,
right of refusal, because I do think that that's something that we can have votes for. Um, and so
I just want to say that with the hope that you might make an adjustment and focus just
on that piece because I do think that that piece is winnable.
And at the same time, to address Councilmember O'Keefe's concerns, it's possible for us
to have this provision after no fault evictions for five years unless the owner is moving
into the audio into the condo and that might address your concern right there's
a difference in a no fault eviction in a owner move-in eviction there's no
difference between those they have different names yeah because I agree if
if you could if there's crossover so there they are they are not the same
thing but situation could happen with your school. Okay I have one more point
if I can add if someone condylizes and sells their ADU and then that person
sells it to someone else that homeowner has no choice over who lives there. They
can choose who they sell it to but then that person can sell it to whoever they
want. So it it's kind of yeah. Does that make sense? Does that address your
concern. They could have the most control if they keep renting it out. Does my vote even matter
why is everyone looking at me? Everyone's vote matters. Yes, sorry. Go ahead. Count some over
Taplain. Thanks. Yeah, I appreciate the conversation. I, you know, just, you know, I think, you know,
I hear what everyone is saying. I see where we're trying to go. And I think between the
what's on the table I feel most confident that the main motion by Council Member Humbert
will get us as close as we can get to where we want to be. Okay so our okay I have one more last
stitch effort if we can compromise to only apply the no-fault eviction
prohibition for all covered current tenants or all sorry all current tenants
and we can set a date for that that does make the law more complicated though
sorry say that one more time only apply the no-fault eviction five-year
prohibition for all current tenants,
as of the time of the second reading,
but that does make the lot more complicated.
I don't know.
Can I, is it okay if I?
Yeah, please.
Thank you.
The thing that sort of happened for me when I,
that was a really argument, or just, you know,
I respect a good argument, so I want to name that.
But I think what's happening for me is I'm just going back
to my original orientation to this, which is like,
I think that the planning commission staff recommendation
just makes more sense and it just feels cleaner to me.
And I do wanna, it would be nice if we could come up
with a compromise and voted unanimously
but I don't think that's on the table.
And I think I'd rather just stick
with Council Member Humbert's motion.
Yeah, Vice Mayor, I think the only thing
that we might be able to pass to add on
from what your supplemental is, is the 90 day,
I'm mixing up all my phrases on my board.
Thank you, right of refusal.
Thank you.
90 day right of refusal for all.
I'll amend my motion to just that then.
So then it would be, just to clarify,
it would be staff's recommendation
with council member Humbert's supplemental.
But the 90 days would be included for all.
For all.
For all tenants, yes.
OK.
So I believe there was a second from council member Bartlett
already.
And so in that case, I will ask if the clerk can take the role.
Does that mean we have the same motion twice?
Or no?
No.
So what's the difference between the two?
The addition is that the 90-day right of refusal
would apply to all, as opposed to just the 90 days
was just a change from a year in which motion in council member
something substitute substitute no supplemental and council members in the
main motion in the main motion yeah okay did you have a question I think that
was my question was how it it's exactly Humbert's but with a different number
there's no same number what's that but it would apply to more people okay I
I guess the question is home Councilmember Humbert had a something
extra and I just want to make sure that's in it or if it doesn't matter
anymore maybe he could speak to that. Yes go ahead. So the Planning Commission
version gives one year of right of first refusal for covered tenants. Council
member Humbert's change reduces that to 90 days. My supplemental expands that to
of all tenants, but only for 90 days.
So to exempt partially covered and covered to 90 days.
Yes, 90 days of right of first refusal.
Thank you, thanks for clarifying.
Council member Humber, did you want to say something as well?
Yeah, no, I can't support that.
There may be a majority that does, but I can't support it.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I just, sorry, I'm out of order, my apologies.
council member. No, no. No,
Council member Taplan. Did you
have a comment? Yeah, it's
just it's just it's I mean,
it's difficult to keep up.
It's you know, it's difficult
to parse. On the fly like
this. I I might you know, I
remain my support for the main
the motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. By
On the main motion by council member Humbert, council member Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
O'Keeffe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Unipara.
No.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Maryishi.
Yes.
Okay, that motion carries.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I know that was a lot of sausage making.
You all sitting through that.
OK, I think we should take five-minute break
so we can switch over to the next item.
Let's get back in it.
Hello, lovely people in the crowd.
We're going to get started again.
OK, Sam, Siroc, Rebecca, everyone please.
Paul, Sydney, I'm just going to start calling everyone by name.
okay all right let's get started thank you so much all right we've got a few
more items left so let's let's get going we're gonna move on to item number 22
which is public health vital statistics vital records fees we don't have a
presentation from this but I will ask if there are any questions from our
council members and I will also open the public hearing questions from council
members about item number 22 okay seeing no questions I will ask if there any
public comments maybe say the title of the step any public comments for the
public health vital statistics vital records fees item number 22 but I just
want to say get given the leptospirosis that's that's come out it's just ironic
that when the bathrooms that were portable bathrooms that were raised in
2017 and that passed council which have now eight years later have been set
aside that we now are in the middle of another epidemic because at 2017 the
reason that passed council was because the HAPA that had broken out in San
Diego and was spreading to Santa Cruz and other areas and I hope that we don't
have to have that widespread of an epidemic again that we have to be
fearful of before we recognize the importance of or the community recognizes
the importance of having sanitation because sanitation has now come up as
the issue with the leptocerosis at Harrison. Thank you. Thanks Carol. Any other comments
online? One online commenter. This is on item 22, public health vital statistics fees. And
the hand went down. Okay. No, no comment. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there a motion
to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you very much.
councilmember can we take the roll please okay to close the public hearing
councilmember kiss her wani councilmember kisser wani to close the
public hearing yes tap when yes Bartlett yes tregg of i o'keefe yes blackaby yes
unipara yes Humber yes and Mary she yes okay okay are there any council comments
on this item yeah yes go ahead councilmember Humber I do have one I just
want to thank Director Gilman and the staff at HHCS for preparing this item. No one likes
death and taxes and people like a fee you pay after death even less. But we have to
make sure these fees keep up with the cost of providing these vital services. Thankfully
these increases for most people will equate to just a few dollars over a lifetime, so
I don't think we're pricing anyone out of being born or dying and I'll support this
item. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. And is there a motion to approve?
So moved. Second. Very good. Can we take the role, please? Okay. To approve the item,
Councilmember Kesser-Wani? Yes. Tapplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Trega? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackaby? Yes. Lunapara? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mary Ishii? Yes. Okay. Motion carried.
And the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to item number 23,
changes to selected recreation and camps facilities
and program fees.
I believe there's also not a presentation for this one,
so I will ask if there are any council questions.
Yes, Council Member Bakabe.
Thanks, Madam Mayor, and Director Ferris is online,
is that right?
Director Ferris, just a quick question.
I think we've seen this in previous reports.
Do you have a sense of not just the before and after
of the proposal in Berkeley,
but how we compare kind of our fee levels.
And I know we can't do it at the level of every line item,
but kind of any sense of where this puts us
relative to neighboring jurisdictions
with kind of our fee levels for these programs.
Yeah, a lot of those tables are attached to the report,
but generally it puts us either close to the middle
or below the average or most other cities.
So it just depends on what program.
Okay, but we're definitely not in the case
of kind of pushing ourselves higher.
We're at median or a little below
and not significantly above median,
which is more my concern.
Correct.
Okay.
You know, in the case of Berkeley-Twalmy camp,
which these fees addressed,
we are in good shape, but it is a camp
that a lot of services are provided.
So the fees are inching up there,
but we're still in good shape
compared to other family camps.
Okay, thank you.
All right, thank you very much.
Okay, since there are no more council questions,
I'm gonna move to public comment.
Are there any public comments on item 23 changes
to selected recreation and camps facilities
and program fees?
Is there anybody online?
One commenter online, this is Alan.
Alan, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you, good evening members of the city council.
My name's Alan Aptias.
I'm the chairperson
of your parks recreation waterfront commission.
In November, the parks commission received a presentation
proposed recreation fees for fiscal year 2027. As you know the parks commission is quite concerned
about the adequacy of Berkeley parks funding. Berkeley's currently unable to fund approximately
300 million dollars in capital and major parks maintenance projects and on top of that department
is facing a potential 10% budget cut in the coming year. Simply put, Berkeley's parks and programs are
starved for adequate revenue. After receiving staff's presentation on the proposed fees,
The commission unanimously recommended that staff revisit the proposed fees because in many cases
Berkeley is charging and proposes to charge less for comparable recreational programs and
facility rentals than jurisdictions that surround it. In many cases materially less as indicated
in attachment three to the item in your packet. The commission felt that it makes no sense for
Berkeley to continue undercharging for recreational facilities and programs especially given Berkeley's
current fiscal environment and park funding needs. Accordingly, my fellow commissioners
asked that I appear tonight to request the City Council not approve the proposed fee
schedule and instead direct staff to revisit the proposed fees and bring them into better
line with the fees surrounded by surrounding jurisdictions. Every dollar counts. Our parks
are not in a thriving state. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Alan. Any other comments?
No other commenters online? Okay very good thank you so much. I'd like to see
if there's a motion to close the public hearing. So second. All right can we take
the roll on that please? Okay to close the public hearing, Council Member
or kiss or wanting?
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traga.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Zunipara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Maryishi.
Yes.
Okay.
Public hearings closed.
Thank you very much.
Are there any council comments on this item?
Yes.
Council member O'Keefe.
Yeah, I just want to say briefly,
because I have thrown a tantrum in the past
about adventure playground fees.
I just want to say this is fine.
And also, I'm remembering my kids have aged out
of needing camp now, but I remember the Berkeley Day Camp,
the affordability of it was a real lifesaver.
As a teacher, I haven't needed camp that much,
but a few times we did, and if you don't know,
you wouldn't believe how expensive summer camp can be,
and having that relatively affordable option
of very high quality childcare during the summer was amazing.
And that said, this new fee is still very affordable.
So I just want to mostly have an opportunity
to shout out Berkeley Day Camp
and give some appreciation and this is fine.
Thank you, Council Member Humbert.
Yeah, I just want to thank Director Farris
and Park staff for all the work on this.
Raising fees is never fun,
but given our budget situation and broader inflation,
these cost increases are necessary
preserve the facilities and programs that we all value and that are so, you know, useful
to us in terms of maintaining our sanity.
And using our public facilities and programs remains a very good deal relative to purely
private options.
I also want to thank staff for devising the birthday package options.
I thought that was really creative and important.
It's a great idea to offer folks this opportunity and encourage more use of these facilities
while maintaining general open public access. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilmember Bock would be. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Very briefly. I just wanted to
respond to the parks chair comments and I appreciate the feedback because I do I think
there's a tricky balance here. We want these programs to be affordable and accessible for
all residents. I think that's you know, that is the most important thing. These are services
that we want people to be able to avail themselves of, at the same time we know we are entering
a difficult budget climate. So I am certainly open kind of moving forward to just how else
we need to kind of strike this balance. So I am going to support certainly the proposal
from our park structure and all the work that they have done in this. But as we go through
the coming months and the coming year, we are just going to have to look, I am not saying
we are going to look at just these things, but we have to look at a lot of things in
in our budget in terms of how we are both
generating revenue and also providing services.
And so I'm open to, if we need to make future adjustments
to make sure that we are properly funding these things.
But I do have real sense that we're making sure
that it's accessible to everyone in Berkeley
and that to me is still the A number one goal,
but I do appreciate the feedback from the Parks Commission
and sensitive to that and it's very good feedback.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Going to council member Tapwin online.
Thank you.
On that note, I'm wondering whether it would be possible
for staff to come back as we enter the budget season
with potential options or fee levels that we can consider.
Council member Tapwin, we can do that.
We can incorporate some additional fee information
as part of the budget deliberations
we come back to council through that process. Wonderful thank you. Thank you very much and
yes just adding on my comments about the the challenges that we are going to be
facing and the importance of of looking at all the different options for
increased fee revenue while also balancing what council member Black would
be brought up around access that that's very important so thank you all so much
for your comments there. And I know our council really understands the
challenges that we face ahead and the importance of also considering our
values as a city. I did you want to say something else? Really quickly just to follow up on
that as well. And by the way, I love to all the camp and this will be this now
the second year we've taken our kids. It's amazing and I will say Scott you're
right like the value for the amenities for what a family pays is I mean it's a
very attractive option. So as we're working with staff going forward, maybe the other
way to think about it is making sure that certainly there's, you know, if you are at
the more modest end of the income spectrum, again, super affordable, make sure it's completely
accessible. There might be some income-based things you could look at, but just we might
be able to be creative in terms of I don't want to be assessing big fee increases on
folks to discourage them from using the services. So maybe there's some capacity or ability
the pay that also comes into play. I don't know. I'm reluctant to go into this territory,
but I think we're going to have to at least look at it as we move forward. So thank you.
Absolutely. Thank you. And I know that the Parks Department is particularly focused on
equity and access, and that there are some options for scholarships for different programs
through the Parks and Recreation Department. So I just want to shout that out to thank
the department, but also to, to bring that to folks attention if anyone's
listening and, um, you know, is, is looking for some relief from some fees
that we have. Um, okay. So, um, we have already voted to close the public
hearing. Um, is there a motion to move this item forward?
Thank you. All right. Can we take the role? Please. Clerk. Okay. To approve
the changes to selected recreation and camps, facilities and program fees.
Council member kiss or why? Yes.
Taplin. Yes. Partly. Yes. Tragov. Aye. O'Keeffe. Yes. Black to be. Yes.
Unapara. Yes. Humbert. Yes. And Mary. Yes. Okay, motion carries. Very good.
Moving on to item 20. Thank you, staff. Moving on to item 24 amendments to
title 23 zoning to permit by right approval of qualifying housing projects
on sites identified in previous housing elements
and revisions related to design review.
All right.
Jordan, where's my fun acronym?
I'm just kidding.
Go for it.
See if we can come up with one on the fly.
Yeah.
OK, I'm going to pass it back to you.
Thank you.
Good evening, again, Council Members Jordan Klein.
I'm joined at the staff table by Ann Hirsch,
ladies planning manager and Burns senior planner and our design review lead
and Justin Horner principal planner for policy and Justin is gonna bring up a
very quick slide deck Mary She members of the city council Justin Horner
planning department staff tonight I'll present amendments to the zoning ordinance
to enact program 32 of the housing element regarding by right approvals of
housing projects and revisions to our design review regulations for these
program 32 projects and for middle housing projects in the MUR zoning district.
The 2023-2031 housing element update includes program 32 which requires the city to amend
its zoning code to reflect the requirements of the California government code that allow
residential uses by right, that is with a zoning certificate, for developments in which
at least 20% of the units are affordable on sites that have been listed as opportunity
sites in previous housing elements. There are currently 14 such projects or
properties that meet the government code requirement which are included on the
map in the slide and listed in your staff report. In future housing elements
the list of eligible parcels may change as some sites are
developed and others end up meeting the government code requirements. The second
item relates to design review for Program 32 projects and for residential
projects in the M. U. R. A middle housing zoning district. As you recall,
the intent of the middle housing changes was to approve new code compliant
housing projects without any discretionary public hearings and without
any appeal. B. M. C. Section 23.406.0 70 contains the city's design review
requirements. To summarize for our purposes here, design reviews required
for all projects in all non residential districts. Therefore, design review
applies to projects in the MUR district, which is a manufacturing or non-residential district,
as well as any projects on sites identified through Program 32, which are all in commercial,
that is, non-residential districts.
Projects that do not require a use permit, such as Program 32 and middle housing projects,
receive staff-level design review.
However, staff-level design review decisions are appealable to the Zoning Adjustments Board
and Zab's decisions on the DR appeal
can be appealed to the city council,
although that is quite rare.
As being able to use DR to appeal a project
to the city council is inconsistent
with the intent of ministerial approvals to avoid appeals,
the proposed ordinance includes
an abbreviated design review process
recommended by the Planning Commission
for MUR and Project 32 projects.
These include staff level design review,
one advisory visit to the design review committee for design related input only and a new provision
that would exempt projects covered by this process from appeal to the ZAB or the city
council.
That's the end of my presentation.
Please hold a public hearing and we're available for any questions.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to pass it forward to, are you ready?
Actually, yeah, yeah.
I'll ask a question.
You're asked a question?
Yeah.
like you don't want to present your supplemental.
So Madam Mayor, I don't have a supplemental.
I have two short amendments that I want to make
to the ordinance, but before I do that,
so this is the public hearing, so I can ask a question.
Director Klein, can you just briefly explain
what was your recommendation to the Planning Commission
or Mr. Horner, whoever wants to take it,
what was your recommendation to the Planning Commission
as it relates to middle housing projects
in the mixed-use residential zone.
And can you explain why you made that recommendation?
Our initial recommendation for both Program 32
and for MUR projects or middle housing projects in the MUR
was to exempt them from design review.
This was in our view consistent
with the city council's intent
to allow code compliant projects
to be approved ministerially
and not be subject to any discretionary hearing
or any appeal.
And we, in the process of implementing
middle housing zoning changes came across
this particular provision that would create
an appeal pathway for middle housing projects,
we thought that we should remove that provision.
And Mr. Horner, can you just clarify
why does the mixed use residential zone,
why does it historically have this requirement
for design review, whereas the residential zones do not.
Design review is required in any non-residential zone.
So any commercial zone and any manufacturing zone
requires design review for any project.
And so the MUR, although it permits residential,
is classified as a manufacturing zone.
Okay, thank you very much.
I think we should close the public hearing
and then I can discuss my proposed amendments.
Thank you.
Sure, that's fine.
questions? I no longer see Councilmember Taplin, but I think if his hand is raised he'll pop
up. So I will then move us on to see if there are any public comments on this item. So public
comments on item 24, which is amendments to Title 23 zoning to permit by-right approval
of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous housing elements and revisions
to the design review.
Is there anyone online who has public comments
on this item?
We have three hands raised.
First speaker is Cleo.
Cleo, you should be able to unmute.
Hi, I have a small observation here.
I noticed that there's a property
1049 Gilman Street that is in the list of properties.
that's the location of the Dollar Tree.
And so I think the observation I'd like to make
is that it's amazing that, you know,
we're having by right authorizations to build housing
that are going to contain lots of affordable housing,
but we might also want to consider
that we want to keep things like the Dollar Tree
because this is my neighborhood
and it is the only affordable store
in the entire neighborhood.
And I know that I have neighbors
who have been in the area for a very long time
and who are on the lower end of the income spectrum
and for whom that store is invaluable.
So this is great, but while you're doing it,
don't forget to keep the actual, the affordable stores
that people who would benefit from the lower income units
might actually want to use.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Kelly Hamergren.
Can you hear me okay without a echo?
Yes.
Okay.
So I really pushed for this design review
when I heard it at the Planning Commission
because I've been attending the Planning Commission
for 10 years now.
I've missed very, very few meetings.
A design review has changed considerably
those 10 years from what it used to be, very picky and many, many meetings. And now with SB
330, we only have like one meeting at the beginning and then kind of a final on colors
and products and things. I always thought that it was for the mixed use projects because
projects in residential areas that are the big apartment buildings do come to design review.
And design review really contributes a lot in terms of that of the building of just
seeing so many projects over so many years to improve to improve the project make improvement.
There are some things that the architects as you know as good as they are will miss
and the design review makes significant contributions and so that one
stop at design review is really not going to slow things down
and there's a great benefit to improving the project because once it's built you can't change
you really can't change it.
But the Design Review Committee can catch problems
that have been, shall we say, not considered or missed
in the development and the design of the building.
And it's just so important.
They contribute so much and I can't-
Thank you, Kelly.
Thanks for your comments.
and then the last speaker is Brianna Morales.
Hi, good evening again.
My name is Brianna Morales
with the Housing Action Coalition.
We're a member supported advocacy organization
working across California to advance housing
at all income levels.
And we see this as really about follow through.
These sites were identified by the city
as appropriate places for housing.
And so by allowing qualifying projects on these sites
move forward by right. The city is honoring commitments it made in its housing element
and bringing local rules into alignment with state law. We see this as a balanced approach.
It prevents housing especially more affordable middle housing to from getting stuck in layers
of process that costs and uncertainty and delays without improving outcomes. And I think importantly
for builders and communities alike predictability is incredibly important. When housing can move
forward more efficiently we get home sooner and lower overall costs and a better chance that
projects serve lower income households actually pencil out. It benefits not just future residents
but the broader community like local businesses, schools and neighborhoods that depend on people
being able to live nearby. It's a practical, people-focused step forward towards a more
functional housing system. And so yeah, the Housing Action Coalition strongly supports
this ordinance and encourages it to move forward. So thank you for your time and continued
leadership on housing. Thank you. Okay, that's it. Okay, very good. I will go back to actually,
I'm going to see if anyone has a if there's a motion to close the public hearing
So moved second, can we take the role in that please clerk?
Okay, the close public hearing customer kiss our wani. Yes Tapplin. Yes Bartlett. Yes
Okay, yes lack of be yes unipara. Yes, Humber. Yes and Mary she yes
Okay, going to council comments starting with councilmember kiss her wani
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I hope we can wrap this up relatively quickly.
I want to thank our planning director and Mr. Horner
for your very brief presentation.
And so I just want to recap.
The planning department recommended
that the planning commission
eliminate the design review requirement
for middle housing projects
in the mixed use residential zone
to better align with the council direction
in the middle housing ordinance,
which we passed unanimously back in,
I think it was June, July, time flies.
So, and what we said in the middle housing ordinance,
remember is we wanna treat all residential zones
except for the hillside overlay zone equally.
They are gonna get the same density per acre,
dwelling units per acre.
They are all going to have the opportunity
to go through a by right streamlined approval process.
So I have great respect for our planning commission.
It is my view that their recommendation
to have these small slice of middle housing projects
that are five or more units
in the mixed use residential zone
to have a requirement to have
one non-binding design review meeting.
I think that is going in the wrong direction.
And the reason why is all other middle housing projects
are gonna be able to go straight to that permit counter
with their plans.
And they don't have to go to design review.
And I think we heard in public comment
that there's no delay.
There is a delay.
The design review group, they meet monthly.
That's a one month delay.
I don't think we need to do that.
And I'm also thinking about the potentially new developers,
people of color, people who are new,
who are trying to get into this development industry,
I think we should be lowering barriers
and making it easier to enter this market.
And so I have a brief amendment that just reverts back
to what the staff proposed,
that we're not gonna require design review
for middle housing projects of five units or more
in the mixed use residential zone.
On the housing element opportunity sites,
it's interesting that staff was,
they're also saying no design review.
When I looked at it today, you know,
other sites in commercial zones do go to design review.
It's typically one non-binding meeting.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
What I'm trying to do with these amendments is like,
let's just treat like projects the same.
So all middle housing projects in the city of Berkeley
will be treated the same, no design review.
All of these sites in commercial zones
will be treated essentially the same.
They will go to design review.
Those are gonna be bigger projects.
they may, you know, have greater benefit
from the design review experience.
So with that, I'm going to share screen on Zoom
and introduce, oh, someone else is sharing.
Share, okay.
Share, let's see if I can get the amendments up.
Those are visible.
Okay, so the first amendment here is in this B1A.
we are just saying except for residential uses
in the MUR zoning district.
Oh, oh, even bigger apologies.
As big as I can go and still have it be visible.
Okay, okay, so that's the first edit.
And then these edits below, these are the amendments
that came out of planning commission.
So what we're doing is we're leaving the housing element
opportunity site portion,
but we're just striking the piece about MUR
and for projects including five or more units,
this again is just to treat all middle housing projects
of any unit number in any zone the same.
And on a personal note, as somebody
who represents this mixed-use residential zone
on the far west side of the city, formerly redlined area,
it just rubbed me the wrong way that we would
treat this part of town for projects that are trying
to do a lot of density, five or more.
We're going to put them through the wringer.
I don't think we should be doing that.
So these are the amendments.
So I'd like to pass a motion to,
or make a motion to pass this ordinance
with the amendments shown on the screen.
Second.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other council comments?
Oh, yes.
Council member Trecub.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to conform with council member Kesawani,
and I appreciate your suggestions.
To clarify, this was only exempt,
MUR, our middle housing type,
quasi housing type proposal,
but it would not alter anything under
like the proposed, let me see if I can pull it up.
the balance of the items.
And I'm specifically looking at, for example,
the 14 sites under Program 32,
three of which are in my district.
So yes, we're gonna go with the Planning Commission
recommendation for that,
which is those housing element opportunity sites,
including the three in your district,
they will have the non-biting design review meeting
an opportunity to improve the design of the project
with this middle housing in the mixed use residential zone.
It's the way I think about it is we're just treating
those projects the same as the projects in the R zone.
So where I live in R2, there is no design review requirement.
If I wanna transform my parcel into a five plus unit
middle housing, middle income development.
So we're just saying if you go far west
to mixed-use residential,
you'd have the same treatment with this amendment.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay, thank you, Council Member O'Keeffe.
Yeah, I just wanna say I'm supporting,
I'll support Council Member Casarwani's motion
and I just, I really need to say,
I think what's my hottest take has always been
that design review is a waste of time
and I think we should get rid of it as much as possible.
Architecture is an art form, and I don't think art benefits
from a committee.
So that's my hot take.
So yes, I like this.
More of this, please.
Thank you.
Vice Marilu Nopara, I support the motion as well.
Any other comments?
Yes, sorry.
I forgot we were in the comments.
But I will support this item, although this
is where my colleague and I have maybe a slight,
albeit respectful disagreement,
having sort of done the Design Review Committee.
I think committee members do good work,
and I know that was not actually your comment,
but I think the committee is very efficient.
I think it reviews project,
most design review projects don't come back
for a second design review meeting.
That said, it does make sense from a consistency
and equity standpoint to make the further
alteration to this proposal suggested
by Council Member Casalani.
So I'll be supporting the motion.
All right, thank you very much.
And then we have a motion on the floor.
Do we have a motion on the floor?
Yes, we do.
Sorry, I can't remember the second.
All right, I am also gonna be supporting the motion.
So if we could take the role, please, clerk.
OK, on the motion by Councilmember Kisser-Wani.
Councilmember Kisser-Wani?
Yes.
Kaplan?
Yes.
Bartlett?
Yes.
Triggin?
Aye.
O'Keefe?
Yes.
Lackey?
Yes.
Buna Parra?
Yes.
Humbert?
Yes.
And Mary Ishii?
Yes.
OK, motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, staff.
Thanks for being here.
to the late hour of nine fifty six p.m.
Can't swim over a kiss or any we've email that. Thank you.
Okay so now public eye to public comment on items not listed on the agenda.
Thank you. First I want to say those thrown bathrooms.
They just open up. They just open up after ten minutes so ready or not you're exposed.
And last night, I was, we were saying Pablo Avenue,
and I noticed an older man in a wheelchair
outside the Everett and Jones.
This is about nine o'clock at night.
And he didn't, he wasn't properly clothed for the weather.
I could share my scarf and I had a jacket with him,
but he was clearly cognitively impaired.
isolated out there by himself so I engaged with him he didn't know how he
got there he didn't even know he was in Berkeley and after it took almost I was
with him for almost an hour probably over an hour after ten o'clock and you
know mobile was no mobile crisis but I have to say the officer that responded
the Berkeley Police Department, was officer Edwin Gicala.
And he was incredibly empathetic,
the way he communicated with the man.
It was just, he was very, very sensitive to him,
very kind, making him comfortable.
And it was just really good to see an officer
that was trained and skilled in this way,
that wasn't where, you know,
And he was taken away in an ambulance.
But to see that situation that it could have gotten so much worse,
because the man, I was holding on to his wheelchair.
He kept trying to wheel away, because he was convinced he was going to make himself
warmer if he wheeled miles away.
But it was, that officer really deserves to be thanked for that.
What was the name again of the officer?
Officer Edwin Gicala.
Thank you.
We can have our city manager pass it on to, uh, thanks to him as well.
Thank you.
Other, um, public comment on items not listed on the agenda.
Anyone online?
Yeah, we have four hands online.
Uh, first is a call or no phone number ending in two one, one.
Well, good to talk to you.
Good to talk to you tonight.
I just have to remind you our great company contributed more over 1.2
million to the city of Berkeley finance.
In business license,
what business license to be 60, 70 thousand dollars a year,
as well as self-stacks, which the city get one percent.
So let's go forward.
We're not only losing, we're in business,
but our customers are losing
and many of them are crushing you
for the fact that you did nothing
when you had seven places vacant and drank more.
And eventually you rented for one buck
when we talked to this woman,
We thought we would pay anything she want.
We never gave any chance.
This fixed what was done wrong and go forward.
Again, we are dealing with horrible time
with this monotone in the White House.
We need all of our strengths
to build the city of Berkeley as it was before.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we have Alfred Twoh.
Hi, everyone.
I want to invite everyone to the Friday kickoff
There will be a window. The
goal of connect Bay Area. The
solid measure initiative to
fund and save transit in the
Bay Area. Want to give a big
thanks to everyone who's
already endorsed the measure.
Encourage everyone else, too, as
well. At connect Bay Area dot
org. And there will be a kick
off at 10 o'clock on Friday at
the Embarcadero Plaza, and then
another one at 12 15 at the
we're going to have a
conversation here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Harford.
And then we have Daniel
Brownson.
Hello.
So recently Santa Cruz
became I believe the first
city to terminate their
contract with block safety.
Berkeley should follow suit.
We know that the owners of
this company, the people who
We know that despite prohibitions on them doing so before they have shared
information with ICE, we know that ICE is coming to the Bay Area.
Minneapolis will not be the end.
These cameras, as long as they are up, are weapons pointed at the very heart of our community.
It's time to take them down.
People will say, oh, but what about public safety?
But at the current moment, there is no greater threat
to the public safety of our community
than the rising fascism that is now very much here
as we can see in Minneapolis.
And those cameras will be used to track those
who try to stand up against the fascist incursion
when it comes to Berkeley, which it will.
the council members. Thank you,
you know, maybe I missed it. I read the packet. I listened to the staff report. I thought I
understood the item and then a supplemental is brought forward and I wasn't able then to comment
about the new proposal and it passes. Yeah Janice, I'm sorry but this is actually public comment for
items not listed on the agenda since the item that you're referring to was on the agenda already. I
I understand your comment.
I'm not commenting on the item.
I'm commenting on the process that council members
are allowed to bring supplementals
that completely changed the staff recommendation
after public comment is made and closed.
So I just want to voice my opposition to that.
If it's, you know, if we're at the meeting
to comment on an item,
we should hear all of what is going to be proposed,
especially when it's already stated
that there is a supplemental.
It would have been good to hear it.
Thank you for your comment.
I appreciate what you're saying.
I do just want to say that, you know,
that there can be changes that are made on the dais
that are completely different
from what are in the agenda packet just generally.
And I understand that can be frustrating
and the purpose of, you know,
closing the public hearing is it is really so that we can actually take a
vote on what we're talking about so I understand it's it's frustrating and
appreciate your comment. Are there other comments online? Yes two more. Kelly
Hammergren. I know surveillance is coming up at next meeting and it's very
concerning. My family's in the greater Twin Cities area, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota.
And whatever you've seen on television or may have heard or have seen on videos, it's worse.
It's worse than that. For the people that are there, it is terrifying. It's terrible.
people are being sheltered. It's just really awful, and at some point they'll probably be here,
and I think you all need to be thinking about the future. We're no longer living in the same kind of
world, the same kind of democracy that we thought we had, even though democracy wasn't the same for
this is very, very bad. So I'll leave you with that thought for the night. Thank you.
Thank you, Kelly. And Jeff Lomax. Yeah, Kelly's always a tough act to follow. And that was
a great comment. So thanks for that. But I do want to return to the previous comment.
I mean, I actually supported member Keshewani's amendment,
but I do agree that you're basically icing out,
you can substantially change an item
and then you're icing the public out of any participation
in that change.
And you all have the discretion to re-invite comments.
So nothing has to change,
but I think once you make a substantial change to an item,
you should give the public who are spending their time
and their intellects to be part of this process,
the opportunity to respond once that change is made.
So I just want to concur with the prior comment,
and again, thank Kelly, I agree completely.
Have a good evening.
Thank you for your comment.
Are there other comments?
That's the last comment.
Thank you very much, everyone.
OK, with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Second.
Can we take the roll, please, Clerk?
adjourned councilmember kiss or wanting yes Tapplin yes Bartlett yes trego aye
okay yes lack of a yes Unipara yes Humber yes Mary Ishii