recording in progress hello everyone good evening all right hello and I am
going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting today is Tuesday
February 10th 2026 clerk could you please take the role okay council member
kiss her onee here Kaplan presents Bartlett here tregga I okay
Oh, present.
Here.
Blackaby?
Here.
Munepara?
Here.
Humber?
Present.
And Mayor Ishi?
Here.
Okay, quorum is present.
All right, so it is the first meeting of February,
so we will have Council Member O'Keefe
read the land acknowledgement statement.
For those of you that don't know,
we've been taking turns reading the land acknowledgement.
And so Council Member O'Keefe,
if you could take it away, please.
Okay.
The city of Berkeley recognizes
that the community we live in was built on the territory
of the Hucun, the ancestral and unseated land
of the Tuchenyo-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 continue, 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.
I was stewards of the laws 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 Lijian tribe and to create meaningful actions
that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you very much, council member.
We will now move on to ceremonial items.
So we have a proclamation that was brought
by Council Member Humbert.
So Council Member, you're welcome to read the proclamation.
I know you have some remarks as well.
And actually, if the awardees would like to come forward,
go ahead.
Yeah.
The whole troop could come up if you'd like.
The entourage.
The entourage.
Thank you.
I wanna thank the mayor and her staff
for helping create a proclamation
recognizing the work of Tom Brohm and Barry Warren,
who were instrumental in advocating
for the city of Berkeley to establish first in the nation
recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships.
I'm proud that these brave and persistent men are Berkeleyans.
I'll now read the proclamation in recognition
of their service to Berkeley and the broader LGBTQIA-plus
community.
Whereas, Tom Broom and Barry Warren
have shared their lives together since 1975,
and through their tireless advocacy,
fundamentally changed the landscape of civil rights
for the LGBTQIA plus community in Berkeley, the United States,
and across the world.
And whereas, in 1979, while working for this city,
the city of Berkeley, Tom Broom discovered
that he could not enroll his partner, Barry Warren,
in city health and dental benefits
because those programs were strictly limited
to married spouses.
And whereas, Tom Brolem recognized a critical contradiction
between Berkeley's 1978 non-discrimination ordinance
and its exclusionary marriage-based benefits,
leading him to author two historic letters in August 1979
proposing the first domestic partnership policy,
and whereas Tom and Barry spent years persistently
lobbying the city of Berkeley, the University of California,
and local unions to adopt this new legal protection,
providing a path for equity, rooted in basic fairness,
and recognizing shared humanity.
And whereas their work inspired the formation
of the East Bay Lesbian Gay Democratic Club,
which organized a methodical community-led campaign
that successfully made domestic partnerships
a central issue in the 1984 Berkeley Municipal Elections.
And whereas, in December 1984,
the city of Berkeley enacted the first policy
of its kind in California, and I think the nation,
and Tom Broom and Barry Warren became the first couple
to file for employee domestic partnership benefits
under this landmark legislation.
and whereas this pioneering policy served as a national model,
overcoming the resistance of health care providers, employers, and reactionary opposition.
And paving the way for statewide registries, civil unions, and eventually full marriage equality.
Whereas Tom Brolin continued his service to the public as the first openly gay elected official in the East Bay.
serving as Peralta College Community District Trustee
from 1986 to 2014 years,
where he remained a champion for educational opportunity.
And, whereas since 2000, on a lighter note,
Barry and Tom have hosted more than 100 community events,
including more than 90 supper and song dinner concerts,
bringing together local musicians and music lovers
in celebration and community, and,
whereas Barry Warren's steadfast partnership
in his own advocacy as a University of California employee
were indispensable to the success of this movement,
which has since provided immeasurable benefits,
security, and dignity to millions of families.
Now, therefore, it be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii,
mayor of the city of Berkeley,
do hereby recognize Tom Braum and Barry Warren
for their visionary leadership, their decades of activism,
and the historic role in securing
the first domestic partnership policy,
ensuring that the city of Berkeley and the United States
remain beacons of equality and justice for all.
If you'd like to say a few words, you can.
And I will present this,
the formal city of Berkeley proclamation, I'll come out.
My remarks are gonna be very brief
because the proclamation says so much.
It was so detailed in recounting the steps
that we originally went through.
So I thank you for the thoughtfulness of the proclamation
and for the work that went into it.
You did your research.
We're very grateful for this community.
It's lovely to have lived here all of our lives
and perhaps there's no, at the time there was no other place on the face of the earth
that would have undertaken the risk when the city council took seat in 1984 that basically
said do it and we'll pay the bills.
There was, it was a great act of faith, no one quite knew how it would work, and we thought
it would work just fine, but there was no precedent at all.
And so I think it's a great celebration of this community that this is the first place
in the world that simply stepped up to the plate and said, let's do it, we'll pay for
it.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay. Um,
we now have a proclamation and also an adjournment in memory in honor of Todd
Walker, uh, if family funds folks who are here to
support him, you're welcome to come up to the podium here.
And this adjournment in memory was brought forward by council member Ben Bartlett,
council member for district three. Um,
and I will read the proclamation as you are coming up honoring the life and
legacy of Todd Walker, whereas Edward Todd Walker was a beloved son, father, grandfather,
brother, uncle, friend, coach, mentor, and esteemed colleague who devoted his life to
serving the Berkeley community with unwavering commitment and love, and whereas Todd Walker
served as a community peace ambassador, life coach, street outreach worker, violence interrupter,
and community leader, dedicating himself to community-led gun violence prevention and
and intervention work that saved lives
and transformed our city.
And whereas through his work with Live Free California,
Todd Walker was instrumental in achieving
Berkeley's historic milestone in 2025
of a 100% reduction in gun violence,
a testament to his tireless efforts
and the power of community centered approaches
to public safety.
And whereas Todd Walker was a pillar of faith and service
at McGee Avenue Baptist Church,
where his spiritual leadership touched countless lives
and created a foundation of hope and healing
for community members.
And whereas Todd Walker built bridges across our community,
working collaboratively with city leaders,
journalists, community residents, youth and families,
and sports teams to create a safer, more connected Berkeley.
And whereas Todd Walker's life exemplified the values
of compassion, dedication, servant leadership,
and an unshakable belief in the potential
of every person he encountered.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Adina Ishi,
mayor of the city of Berkeley,
hereby honor the life and legacy of Todd Walker,
recognizing his invaluable contributions to our city
and celebrating the remarkable impact of his life and work.
The Berkeley community grieves the loss of Todd Walker
while celebrating a life well-lived in service to others.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and council community.
The last time I was still here,
we were receiving a million dollar grant
that we got to expand the program.
And I was told that we had two options and that Todd came up with me, and so we're talking
as we're coming up.
And I said, okay, well, I'm going to take, you know, 30 seconds and I'm going to give
you 30 seconds.
He pushed me in my back.
He said, no, you got it.
You got it.
I was interested in seeing him publicly speak, knowing his track record, his history.
Todd has a legacy within the work, within the community that will never be forgotten.
He's touched so many lives.
He's impacted so many people.
a true trooper. To those who do not know and hadn't had the opportunity to spend
time with him. Ty was a true historian of Berkeley. If you sat down with him he
would give you knowledge and information from his experience growing up in the
city. Information that was passed down from you know his older brothers and as
well as his own experience and so our hearts are deeply saddened in this
moment. But we're also inspired to know that we must continue to allow his
legacy to live on. We must continue to put forth the work and the efforts to
make public safety a reality in the city of Berkeley, to challenge all
individuals, to relinquish sides and come together as one community for the
sake of peace and justice. Ty was an advocate, a fierce advocate, as someone
who stood by principles and in a short amount of time that we worked
together he showed me so much I remember seeing a new special in 2006 or
seven as I was dealing with some of the young men in my career that we've lost
to gun violence I met Todd at a funeral of one of my young persons and it was
his commitment to that family and making sure that things were done dignified to
make sure that there was honor and respect towards the loss of the family
members but also honor and respect towards community and so we just want to
continue to allow his legacy to live on we're gonna continue to do this great
work in honor of him and we just really appreciate I want to acknowledge both
of his daughters are here tonight and I want to acknowledge his brother his is
one of his oldest brothers of me older brother is here as well tonight so on
behalf of the live free team on behalf of the city of Berkeley we thank you and
appreciate you for this acknowledgement and we'll continue to do great work in
his name thank you all right so the final ceremonial item this evening it's
just a very brief presentation that I have I was recently in Washington DC and
I want to make sure that you all know about my trip there yes okay if I do
this then you won't be able to I won't be able to see my notes so I'm gonna
keep it here all right okay so all right everyone so at the end of
January excuse me all right at the end of January I attended the United States
Conference of Mayors followed by the Mayors Innovation Project at the US
Conference of Mayors so you can see I went to the US Conference of Mayors I'm
also going to talk about the Mayors Innovation Project I'm going to briefly
We discussed some of the lobbying that I did there and also some key takeaways.
So at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, there were three significant bipartisan takeaways
that I want to share.
Housing was a really big topic there.
The conference opened with a statement from Republican Senator Tim Scott and Democratic
Senator Elizabeth Warren, who came in person to talk about the bipartisan, unanimously
supported road to housing bill.
This bill encompasses things that both parties could agree on to address the national housing
crisis by growing more housing stock. There was also a very clear opposition to the Department
of Homeland Security, Immigration, DHS, Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE, and Customs and
Border Patrol, CBP, takeover, and invasion of American cities along with indiscriminate
attacks on our immigrant community. During the U.S. Conference of Mayors press conference,
we heard public testimonies from Minnesota mayors and the terror being imposed on their
Some of the mayors shared that they themselves are carrying around their own passports because they are concerned that they may get picked up off the street.
They talked about businesses being closed, schools, where children are not going to school because they're afraid of what's going on.
And I think it's important to bring that back to our community so that folks know about what's happening in other parts of our country.
Another thing I wanted to bring up that I thought was important for my colleagues to know in particular is that we were talking about the safety and security of elected officials.
So I've actually asked our city manager and our chief of police to do a security audit of our building.
And I want to recommend that all of my council colleagues also do security audits of their homes as well if they haven't had an opportunity to do so.
It's a very scary time unfortunately for those of us who are elected leaders and leaders
from around the country.
We're talking about some of the scary incidents that they faced.
So I want to bring that up as something important for folks to know about.
The two days were full of workshops and sessions on a full range of topics.
And Julie Sinai, who is my chief of policy, and I attended sessions on artificial intelligence,
housing, city design, transportation, immigration responses, economic development.
I also attended the API MERS session and volunteered to assist them in growing.
So, the next thing I want to talk about is the MERS Innovation Project.
Immediately following the U.S. Conference of MERS was the one and a half day MERS Innovation
Project.
MIP.
MIP is a national learning network for MERS committed to shared prosperity, environmental
sustainability and efficient democratic government.
They support mayors around the country who are taking the lead on pressing issues, climate
change, racial equity, economic revitalization, housing and more.
The four in-depth sessions that we attended were leading under pressure, protecting elected
officials, leading through uncertainty, a fiscal playbook for a thriving community,
very relevant to our conversations that we're having right now about the budget crisis.
From crisis to community asset, building a supportive child care ecosystem for families
and workers, and building an age-friendly city, the imperative of aging in place.
That photo in particular was about the aging session, very interesting topics from our
young and to our older members of our community.
Additionally, we got the benefit of an innovation showcase, which is a speed-dating type of
presentation form from 10 cities sharing innovations over the past few years, everything from seawalls
to protecting urban trees, parks, housing transit, better public meetings, and more.
only had I think three minutes to present each so it's very quick. The
annual winter sessions are timed with the opening of the congressional session
to make the most out of mayoral power and influence with the 119th
congressional session. So while in DC we leveraged this time to meet with our
congressional delegation I had four productive meetings we met with US Forest
Service which was virtual given the snowstorm I don't know if you know but
When I was in DC, there was really record storm.
Our purpose was to talk with the department leads
about our embers policy.
We met with the branch chief, the California lead,
and other members of the Forestry Service.
They applauded our city for being the first in the country
to seriously prepare for and address wildfire risks
in our wild land urban interface, our embers program,
they said, is the first of its kind in the nation.
They were very interested in learning more about how we're
implementing our ordinance, what's working, what isn't.
We stress the importance of the department continuing to provide the research and science supporting our efforts.
I also, of course, highlighted our really great community efforts and
all the efforts that are happening from our fire departments, including interns who are literally going door to door.
I met with Senator Schiff and had the opportunity actually to connect with him one on one.
Of course, we talked about fire safety in Ember, but also small businesses and just Porto's.
I don't know if you know, but he's from Burbank originally.
Porto's there's a great bakery down there.
Anyway, it's important to have those conversations too.
We met with Congresswoman LeCive Assignments office,
her legislative director.
It was great to provide some context.
Oftentimes folks who are working in DC
haven't actually been to the cities
that they're representing.
So it's good for them to understand
what we're doing in our city.
Senator Alex Padilla's office we met with legislative staff
who lead the senator's housing, immigration
and fire policy agendas.
And we also met with Senator Adam Schiff's staff,
which met about housing, disaster preparedness, and health.
I gave updates on what our city is doing
to address various issues,
what opportunities there could be to work together,
and we asked them what we could be doing
to support their work in Congress.
Some of the ideas included lots of interest
in keeping up to date on our embers work,
commitment to staying engaged
and updated on ICE activity in the Bay,
and continuing to provide stories from the district
that support our policy goals.
And as part of the Conference of Mayors,
I joined the delegation of California mayors
in a one-hour briefing with both Senators Padilla and Schiff
where the focus was on immigration and also infrastructure.
They allowed us to ask questions,
and one of the things that I mentioned
was about thinking about how we can continue
to move things forward as many of the things
in our country feel like they're actually going backwards.
And so briefly, just my key takeaway
is just housing, housing, housing.
It's amazing how mayors across the country
are all talking about housing and homelessness
and the importance of building more housing.
Immigration, of course, was a very serious topic,
as I mentioned, and bipartisan unity.
I was very heartwarming to see that mayors around the country
were willing to have conversations across party
lines in order to be focused on the matters at hand
and really supporting our community members.
I think that that was really important.
So thank you all for, for giving me some time to talk about that. Yeah.
Okay. I am going to,
all right. Very good. Now moving us on to the agenda.
We are now finished with our ceremonial items items and I will check to see if
the city manager has any comments. No comments. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Okay.
We will now take public comment on non-agenda matters.
Okay, so we'll draw five cards for in-person speakers.
And then now is the time,
if you're participating remotely on Zoom,
if you intend to speak on non-agenda matters,
now it's time to raise your hand.
Okay, so the five speakers,
and please come up in any order,
is Steve Tracy, Gina Reger, Carol Morassovic,
Stephen Alpert, and Pam Jacob.
So if you heard your name called, please come on up.
Come on up.
There's a chance to speak at the end of the meeting.
Good evening, Mayor, Council,
and City of Berkeley manager and attorney.
redundant, no longer needed, redundant.
That's our health department in Berkeley.
27 million dollars of a deficit,
almost half of it is a redundant health department.
The county's number is way bigger than 12 million.
It's 1.4 billion.
So Berkeley is spending 1% of the county total.
But we'll save, let's see, 12 out of 27.
We could save about half of that deficit
by getting rid of the redundant department.
Any chance we can rotate this to where it was last year
so the speaker doesn't have their back to the audience
and the speaker can acknowledge certain individuals
without having to twist the neck, is that?
I think your time is up.
And in here the sound, but your time is actually up.
And actually the podium has been consistently that way, so.
Next speaker.
It was at an angle before.
Thank you.
First up.
Before I speak, I just want to address,
these three screens are unseeable
by people in the audience.
You can't see anything really on them.
This is part of your time, go ahead.
Okay. Um, I recently went to a save our shops meeting and what I heard was pretty
appalling. Um, none of the shop owners in either, in any of the three districts,
we're talking about the corridor up zoning, the Elmwood, the Solano and North
Shattuck, um, charming areas, which the city of Berkeley economic depart,
economic opportunities think touts as being having the charming village quality
that we all love
that's a recent thing that you put out about
why people come to berkeley and yet you're talking about putting up eight
story buildings in these areas
i want you to think long and hard about that
it's a disgrace
and you need to include
people who live here and thank you and work here
thanks for your comment
good evening
i'm doctor steven alpert
I forwarded a copy of this recent publication by the London School of Economics.
Inequality, not regulation, drives America's housing affordability crisis to the council and to planning director Klein.
This article examines and dismisses a core belief that the shortage of housing in the US is primarily due to excessive regulation.
These international recognized academics maintain that housing affordability crisis is driven by broader economic inequality,
than solely by regulation and by lack of supply from the abstract. A popular view
holds that declining housing affordability stems from regulations
that restrict new supply, that deregulation will spur sufficient market
rate construction to improve affordability. We argued that this
deregulationist view is based upon flawed assumptions and even a
a dramatic deregulation driven supply extension will take decades to generate widespread affordability.
Thanks for your comment.
You all received this.
Thank you.
Hi Carol.
Thanks.
First I want to speak on the information report in terms of switching from taxis to the go-go grandparent.
And I agree with this because the taxi driver is, in part I agree with this,
because the taxi drivers often ask $20 minimums,
$50 minimums, huge tips.
Don't turn on the meters, et cetera.
But I would ask staff to make one revision,
which is instead of to go-go grandparent,
to make it optional whether someone can book,
lift on their own, lift your Uber, or go-go grandparent.
And as an example, last week,
I reserved a ride to go-go grandparent
that charged me $14 and something.
And I looked at had I booked Lyft directly,
it would have been $6 and 94 cents.
So they're clearly charging the highest price
and a fee on top of it.
Now again, I understand some people don't know.
Ms. Carol, thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
There's actually a mic that's down here if you'd like.
There's one right here, if that's easier to reach.
Good evening, everyone.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
My name is Pamela Jacob,
and I'm a resident at a senior building in Berkeley
at Helios Corner.
And I have been a recipient of Taxescript now for years.
I'm in a low income area, and it's been my lifeline
to maintain my health to the outside world needs.
The shop cutbacks now to once every seven months.
Six for high medical needs, one per month,
and three for regular for seven months for shopping,
and errands has turned my life upside down.
I have to cancel most of my many needed medical appointments
to accommodate this cutback
and my lifelong Richmond twice a week
and my PT swim therapy that costs $60 round trip
one single way, which uses up all my go-go credits.
And I'm able to take public transport
or paratransit due to-
Thank you, I'm so sorry, but your time is up.
Okay.
Thank you. Yeah, I if you haven't written council already perhaps my staff can
also share some of their contact information with you. Thank you. Yeah
they'll walk over and give you a card. Thank you. Okay so now we'll move to five
speakers on Zoom. First raised hand is you have one minute each. First raised
hand is speaker with a caller number the number ending in 000. Hi good evening
very nice talk to you again my assistant again Roy and you do a couple of
documents one about the business history 52 years and I request a friendly
meeting with the mayor usually friendly meeting will discuss different options
Okay, now we have to talk about what is happening in the country.
It is more a tourist monstrosity, you know, going after brown people, Mexican, Latinos,
or blacks, as you call Obama, a monkey.
This is unbelievable.
This man belongs to a mental hospital or prison, not a president.
And we need all of us to stand up because we come after you, you, you, you.
We come after the first blacks, brown, whatever.
Then they come after everybody.
It is a typical fascist style scheme.
It's also so authentic.
It's also a frozen horse for Putin, Russia.
He is Putin's laughing every day at all of us.
Thanks for your public comment.
Thank you.
Your time's up.
Next speaker is Dela Luna.
Yes.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes.
So, I wanted to talk about well, recently in the paper, there was the story about the elderly woman who passed away in the fire.
And what stood out to me was how her neighbors tried to get her help and support and called the city multiple times or the housing authority and, or the fire department because the woman had been collecting items and our house was full.
But this reminded me of the previous news story we read about a man who was in the homeless shelter and he was murdered there and they were also calling the city and letting them know that there were problems in the in that institution.
So, I have called the city and I get the same response. Some staff don't respond and there needs to be more oversight. The city might have policies, but departmental practices are not in alignment with those policies.
If they exist, and I would like for you all to publish your standard operating procedures so that the constituents know, like, what is expected of the staff when they when they are contacted by us. Thanks, Stella.
Next is Amelia per now, hi, can you hear me?
Yes, okay, I just wanted to comment on the rise in authoritarian violence. The mayor mentioned in her field trip report.
I'm just my neighbors and I are terrified that this Council has chosen to meet the moment by removing police accountability and instead looking for ways to give more access to weapons of war to use against your constituents.
Firing the director of police accountability for doing his job too much without your permission represents a huge waste of taxpayer time and money.
I'm really terrified that this is what you guys are seeing when you look out the window as.
as we are facing this huge amount of violence
that BPD doesn't need oversight anymore.
And that's really scary to us.
They've lied to counsel several times
in the last few times that they've testified,
especially about abuses of flock cameras,
and you've responded by giving them more access
to spy on us.
I think that they need more oversight now than ever.
Thanks for your comment.
All right, next is Janice.
Janice, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today.
I want to urge city council to uphold the public right
to speak on items that you are going to discuss.
What happened at the last city council meeting
for those who missed it.
Council member proposed an item,
but chose not to, sorry, proposed small amendments
to an ordinance presented by planning staff.
But instead of sharing it
so that the public could comment on them,
she stated, I think we should close the public hearing
and then I can discuss my proposed amendments.
Now this may not have been a violation of the Brown Act,
but it does violate the spirit of the law.
And I understand that last minute changes may come up,
but changes that are purposely withheld
should not be allowed.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
And the last speaker on non-agenda comments is Wilhelmina.
Wilhelmina, you should be able to speak.
Wilhelmina, you should be able to unmute.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
I just wanted to make a comment about the zoning proposal.
I wanna urge the council to step back for a minute
and think of what we have in Berkeley,
which is unique.
I have seen tour buses drive up to experience,
people getting off to experience Chez Panisse,
the cheese board,
and all the other little restaurants in that area.
And the idea that you'd have a golden goose like this
that brings in so much revenue
and propose putting high rise buildings
into what people consider
a French country little area.
I think you're gonna
maroon the city and please think creatively.
Don't just put up high rise buildings
because you think it's part of a ill-conceived plan.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
That concludes non-agenda public comments.
For the beginning of the meeting,
there is another period of non-agenda public comments
at the end of the meeting.
Okay, thank you very much.
So this, since this is the first meeting of the month,
we also have time for public comment by employee unions.
Are there any employee unions here today?
Or if you are in a union, you're online,
you can also raise your hand.
And no, no hands raised for representatives
from employee unions.
Okay.
All right, so we will move on to the consent calendar then.
All right, so at this time, if there are any council members
who have comments and consent,
please go ahead and press your button.
Starting with Council Member Tracob.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I, just for the record, need to note
that I will be recusing myself on item three,
amendments to title 21 to allow separate sale of ADUs
as a post 1996 tenant in an ADO.
Thank you.
Thank you, other comments on consent?
Do you want to?
Yeah, council member.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Yes, I like council member Trega.
I would also like to recuse on item number three.
Thank you very much.
Mr. C liquid, could you speak to what that looks like?
So we'll just vote.
Well, council members, Trega and Kesser Wani
can recuse themselves.
We'll vote on item three, then they can return
and then we'll vote on the balance of the consent calendar.
Okay, sure, thank you.
Are there other comments?
I'm just checking to see.
No?
Okay, I do wanna just appreciate staff
for pursuing funding for our housing,
our much needed housing.
Item number nine is the application
for pro-housing incentive program funds, PIP funds.
The city of Berkeley is eligible to pay
for up to 1.2, eligible to apply, excuse me,
for up to $1.25 million through the state
California Department of Housing
and Community Development's Pro-Housing Incentive Program.
The final award amount will be decided
as part of the competitive application.
The funding will be used to support
the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services
programs and support of low-income or unhoused residents,
including the Housing Trust Fund Program
and or eligible homeless services.
So thank you very much to staff for doing that.
All right, I will then close Council comments
open to public comments if you have a public comment on council or consent
items only please come up on on items three and four both of these along with
several other measures you've been passing recently incentivized
speculation speculation has consequences whether you want to recognize
it or not. On the one hand, you can't predict where it's going to go. On the one hand you
could get more displacement, more gentrification, more unhoused folks. On the other you could
have under-order properties and bankruptcies of things go sour on your speculation.
Thank you. Do you have a comment on consent or information items? Yeah I have a comment
on the way you just spoke of Mayor Adina Ishii.
Hello, my name is Iranya Delamora,
and I'm here to speak on the housing situation.
I think housing is very expensive.
People don't make enough money,
and I appreciate you all saying
that you're gonna do affordable housing,
but it'd be very helpful if you mentioned
how much it would cost,
whether it's just saying affordable
and not saying the price,
or giving a website where you give the prices,
because I've been to many meetings on different councils
and they always say affordable housing,
but then when the housing comes out, it's not affordable.
It's around 3,000, 2,500, which is the normal,
which is everywhere else.
If it's gonna be affordable, it needs to be affordable,
like 1,900 people make $25, $18 an hour.
So it'd be very helpful when you say affordable,
you give a number, not just say affordable and be vague,
and then it out be affordable when it actually comes out.
Also, you're gonna do affordable housing.
It'd be good to also make more jobs just like Donald Trump is doing.
I know a lot of people in the Bay Area do not like Donald Trump,
but I do. And I voted for him.
And I appreciate how he not just tries to make more housing,
but he tries to bring more jobs.
OK, because very nice.
You want to give affordable housing, but how are people going to pay for it?
They need jobs.
And right now, jobs since covid, which is brought by China to America
and to the world, has caused a severe unemployment.
So, and close down many jobs, let me finish my time.
And I would really appreciate with affordable housing,
you'll also create more jobs for average people
and true level jobs so people can actually have jobs
because people are suffering right now looking for jobs.
And I appreciate that kindly.
And that is all.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
You have a question?
No, go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
If you have a statement, you can appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hi, Maria.
We're on public comment on consent or information items.
Yes, thank you.
And first of all, I want to thank you for going all the way
to Washington DC and surviving the snow
and talking to everyone about us.
I really appreciate it.
And I know you am really grateful is the point.
And because Berkeley has been first,
I'm concerned that we're slipping a bit, especially
when it comes to housing.
because there are so many high development buildings going up,
it's difficult to drive, park, et cetera.
So the ratio of affordable, moderately affordable units
is so minimal.
And this good doctor that spoke earlier,
when he spoke about inequality, it's like, OK.
This is what the world is doing.
We've got those that have and those that have not.
And it's not working because the majority of people have not.
And it's getting worse.
So I'm concerned about that.
I'm really glad that we're considering bike registration
and licensing because I'm having a hard time not
running over people because they're coming out at night
in black, no lights, no nothing.
And they are utterly just taking advantage
things and being motorized and zipping and I'm really scared for them. Yeah and
God bless the firefighters and just each and every one of us but I really hope we
start encouraging more caring and sharing and more courtesy because we're
not going to get through this if we don't start taking care of ourselves
those more responsibly and each other.
Cause it's really alarming out there.
All right, thank you very much.
Thank you Maria.
Are there any online public comments
for consent or information items only?
There's currently two hands raised
for the consent calendar, consent and information items only.
First is Bryce Nesbitt.
Yes.
We can hear you.
Like, oh, but I'll push through it.
I encourage council to take item one,
which is the bicycle registration item,
off consent and discuss it.
Most of it's completely obsolete
and should be gotten rid of.
But there's a baby in that bathwater.
There's a present rule that requires dealers
to report sales.
It's in the wrong way.
But there is a modern system called bike index,
which can match an owner with a serial number of a bicycle
and a requirement to require that
the bicycles purchased in Berkeley's
be registered by the dealer is a low cost,
high impact way to help people get back stolen bicycles.
So I think you got it close, but pull it off consent,
talk about it a little bit more.
Thank you.
And the last speaker for consent information is
a speaker with a phone number ending in 211.
Should be able to unmute.
Okay, I'd like to talk about consent item number four.
About early state.
In 1968, I bought 10 units, no, I'm sorry.
In Cregmont, 28,000.
Beautiful house, still exists.
I don't own it anymore.
1978, I bought up to nuclear for 101,000.
Now both of these houses now worth over $2 million.
What happened?
Privacy equity firms, foreign money from India, Russia,
everywhere, United States, criminals,
Nelson Friedman, all of this horrible crowd
of money, money, money.
And they call that, that won't go forever.
We're going to have far worse crash than the 2008,
where me and many of my friends lost hundreds of thousands.
Lost everybody.
give me a call. Converser to me 5 1 0 8 4 8 5,000 5 1 0 8 4 8 5,000 2 year old
phone number. Thank you.
Bring it back again. Thank you all.
Thank you.
Okay. That's it. No more speakers for consent or information. Okay. Thank you
very much. Okay. Um, so now moving on, I know we said we were going to pull out
three. So is there a motion to approve item number three on the consent
calendar? So moves second. Could you take the role? Please. Clerk after she's
uh okay. Uh, on uh consent item number three, uh, council member Tapplin. Yes.
Bartlett. Yes. O'Keeffe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Bonapara. Yes. Humbert.
yes and Mary she yes okay okay all right um maybe we should get them to come
back for the rest of the consent calendar someone grab them really quickly
thank you the city attorney went back okay okay all right now at this time is
there a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar second okay moved
seconded by Councilmember Bartlett seconded by Councilmember Humbert. Could you please take the role?
Okay on the balance of the consent calendar, Councilmember Kessarwani. Yes.
Tapplin. Yes. Bartlett. Yes. Tragem. Aye. O'Keeffe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Unapara. Yes. Humbert. Yes.
And Mayor Ishi. Yes. Okay motion carries. All right thank you all very much. Consent
calendar is now complete, seven o'clock.
We are now gonna move on to the action calendar.
We only have one item on our action calendar this evening.
It is a public hearing, so I'm going to open
the public hearing for item number 14,
Zoning Adjustments Board Appeal, 2109 Virginia,
Use Permit, ZP2024-0066,
and I know we have a presentation,
but just so folks know what's going to happen,
we're going to have a presentation.
And then we'll hear five minutes from the appellant,
five minutes from the applicant,
take public comments on this item,
take council questions, close the hearing,
have council deliberations, and then vote.
So I will pass it over to the Planning Department.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Council Members, Jordan Klein,
Director of Planning and Development.
I'm joined at the staff table here at the far end,
that's Sharon Gong, principal planner,
Anne Hirsch, land use planning manager,
and presenting for staff this evening is
Singhe Saliki, senior planner, and the land use team.
Good evening, Council and Madam Mayor.
As Jordan said, my name is Singhe Saliki,
and I'm a senior planner with the land use planning division.
Tonight, I'm presenting on 2109 Virginia Street,
and appeal of the zoning adjustment board decision
to approve a use permit
to demolish a non-residential building and parking lot
and build a mixed-use residential building
with 110 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space,
off-street and bicycle parking spaces.
I'll present the review history of the proposed project
and provide project-specific details
before addressing the appeal issues.
On December 14th, 2023,
the city received a preliminary use permit application
pursuant to SB 330.
The preliminary application was deemed complete
and thereby vesting the development rights
on December 27th, 2023.
A use permit application was submitted on June 3rd, 2024
and was deemed complete on July 3rd, 2024.
On October 7th, 2024, the LPC held a public hearing
and took no action to initiate a landmark
or structure of merit designation.
On May 15th, 2025, the DRC held a public hearing
and provided a favorable recommendation to the ZAB.
On July 10th, 2025, the city mailed
and posted public hearing notices.
On July 24th, 2025, the applicant requested
to remove the item from the action calendar
of the ZAB public hearing.
On August 28th, 2025, the city mailed
and posted new public hearing notices.
On September 11th, 2025,
the ZAB held a public hearing
and voted to approve the use permit.
The city received an appeal from nearby residents
on September 30th, 2025.
Today's hearing is the fourth out of five public meetings
allowed on the SB 330.
The project site is located on the northeast corner
of Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street
the North Berkeley neighborhood. The half acre lot is split zoned and contains one commercial
district on approximately 90 percent of the lot and two residential districts on the remaining
10 percent of the lot. Properties in the same zoning districts surround the site except to the
south across Virginia street where the zoning is corridor commercial. The area is characterized by
residential and commercial buildings that are one to three stories tall with
commercial uses primarily fronting on Shattuck Avenue. Surrounding uses include
commercial uses to the north and west and a multifamily building to the south.
To the east is a commercial use and residences. The property is accessible by
AC Transit bus service and it's less than a mile from the north Berkeley
BART station and a half mile from the downtown Berkeley BART station. The proposed project
would demolish the existing two-story commercial building and surface parking lot to construct
an eight-story approximately 112,900-square-foot mixed-use residential building containing
110 dwelling units, including nine very low-income and nine moderate-income density bonus-qualifying
units. The project also includes 690 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 109 vehicle
parking spaces. The project provides approximately 7,000 square feet of usable open space,
64 bicycle parking spaces, and new street trees on Virginia Street. The site is identified as a
housing opportunity site in the city's adopted housing element. Due to the site
size exceeding half an acre, it was identified as a high potential site for
redevelopment of residential uses with a capacity of 50 dwelling units per acre.
This is a rendering of the proposed project from Shattuck Avenue looking
northeast. These are the primary elevations facing the streets. The west
elevation facing Shadow Avenue is on the left and the south elevation facing
Virginia Street is on the right. This is the east interior side elevation facing
the existing residences adjacent to the site. The proposed project qualifies as a
housing development project under SB 330 and is entitled to a density bonus
under state law. The density bonus is calculated based on the site's base
density, which is the maximum number of units allowed on the site while fully
complying with the applicable district's development standards. The density bonus
is then determined by the percentage of total units dedicated as affordable and
their affordability level. Under the city's density bonus procedures, the
base project is 55 units. By providing nine very low income and nine moderate
nine moderate income units on site.
The project is eligible for 100% density bonus
or 55 additional units.
The project proposes 55 additional units
above the base density for a total of 110 dwelling units.
This exceeds the 50 dwelling unit per acre
potential capacity of units anticipated
in the housing element.
Two concessions are requested
to exempt the public art in new fee
and relocate underground parking in the base project.
The applicant also requested waivers for height,
setback, lot coverage,
and parking to accommodate the proposed project on the site.
Moving on to the appeal,
the following slides summarize the appeal issues
and staff's response with a more detailed explanation
in the staff report.
The first appeal issue is about construction impacts
and environmental concerns.
The Appellants argue that construction activities
would create noise, dust, and vibration
that would disrupt nearby households,
and they are requesting mitigation measures
to reduce these impacts.
In addition, they are requesting mitigation
to nearby creeks and aquifers, additional soil testing
due to the site's past use as a dry cleaner,
measures to protect community health from exposure to hazardous substances
and written disclosures to future tenants regarding soil or groundwater
monitoring and any health risks associated with the site. The conditions
of approval include several conditions to mitigate the construction impacts
mentioned. No creek or culvert as defined by the BNC exists on or within 30 feet
of the project site.
Due to its previous use as a dry cleaner,
the site was remediated under the oversight of DTSC
and assessed by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
The applicant submitted phase one and two ESAs
which were reviewed by Toxics and a CEQA consultant
in order to prepare an environmental checklist.
The CEQA analysis found that the project
would not have significant environmental effects that have not already been
analyzed in the housing element EIR or that are more significant than those
previously analyzed. The second appeal issue is on labor standards. The
opponents argue that the project would be condition should be should be
conditioned to use union labor ensuring fair wages, safety protections, and higher
construction quality. The project was vested on December 27, 2023 under SB
330. This vesting date is prior to the January 1st, 2024 effective date of the
hard hats ordinance. Therefore, a condition of approval cannot be
retroactively applied to the project. The third appeal issue is on parking
concerns. The appearance argue that parking will overflow into nearby
streets worsening the existing shortage. They also claimed the location of the
parking entrance will increase congestion on Shadow Avenue and pose
safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. There's no parking minimum for
the applicable zoning districts and the BNC limits off-street residential
parking to a maximum of 55 spaces when near transit.
The project uses a waiver to exceed this standard and provides 109 spaces to help reduce neighborhood
spillover.
The project is not eligible for the residential permit parking program, so new residents would
not be able to secure the existing permits for on-street residential parking that served
the neighborhood.
The site is well served by BART and AC Transit and includes transit incentives and unbounded
parking, which encourage reduced car ownership and use.
The parking entrance on Shadow Avenue reuses an existing curb cut and is consistent with
existing commercial access patterns.
The project maintains existing street trees and adds a corner bulb out with seating on
Shadow to enhance pedestrian safety.
The fourth appeal issue is on operational impacts.
The Appellants claim that the number of units
and parking spaces will lead to operational impacts,
including noise and increased traffic from deliveries,
ride share pickups, and service vehicles.
The project includes standard conditions of approval
to manage operational impacts, such as noise and traffic,
as detailed in the staff report.
No significant operational impacts were identified
in the CEQA analysis, and the project complies
with all applicable zoning and environmental standards.
The fifth appeal issue is on public input,
affordability, and transparency.
The Appellants claimed the project increased
from five to eight stories without clear public notice
or sufficient community input.
They request stronger affordability commitments
in exchange for the added height,
and asked for transparency on how the density bonus
was calculated, which concessions and waivers were granted,
and how the city ensures that concessions
result in real community benefit.
The project has been under review for over two years,
and public outreach included a neighborhood meeting,
mailed and posted public notices, and three public hearings.
The increase to eight stories complies
with the state density bonus law,
which allows additional hide
in exchange for affordable housing.
The project includes 18 below market rate units,
nine very low-income and nine moderate-income units,
and qualifies for a 100% density bonus.
Details on the density bonus calculations, concessions,
and weavers are in the ZAB staff report
and were presented at the ZAB public hearing.
I also covered these calculations earlier
in this presentation.
Per state law, concessions granted under the state density bonus law are intended to support affordable housing and do not require the provision of community benefits.
The sixth appeal issue is on shade and privacy impacts.
The appellants claim the proposed project would create shade and privacy impacts for the adjacent homes.
The city has no objective standards for solar access
and the shadow study submitted indicate
that new shadows would fall on nearby residential homes.
These shadow impacts would be limited in duration
and extent and are typical in a built urban environment.
To address privacy,
the project steps back above the ground floor
approximately 12 feet on the north side
and approximately 10 feet on the east side.
This step back area outlined in green incorporates trees and
planters on the second level to minimize privacy impacts to the surrounding homes.
The step back is maintained for all upper stories above the ground floor.
The last appeal issue is on infrastructure impacts and emergency preparedness.
The appellant cites the site's seismic risk and deep excavation for
for the eight-story building as potential safety issues
and request details on fire protection and emergency access.
They also note increased demand on police and fire services,
loss of trees and green space,
and claim the project's impact on utilities
and infrastructure hasn't fully been addressed.
The site is not in a designated seismic hazard zone,
so no extra mitigation is needed
beyond standard building codes.
The project will meet 2025 building and fire codes,
including fire sprinklers, emergency access,
and evacuation planning,
which will be reviewed during the building permit process.
The CEQA analysis found no significant impacts
on police, fire, or ambulance services
beyond those addressed in the housing element EIR analysis.
The project is consistent with planned residential growth
and infrastructure capacity.
It includes new street trees and landscaping
to offset vegetation removal.
These features enhance the pedestrian environment
and contribute to the urban canopy.
Staff recommends that council conduct a public hearing
and adopt a resolution affirming the ZAB's decision
to approve the use permit at 2109 Virginia Street.
This concludes staff's presentation
and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you, I appreciate the presentation.
And so folks, I wanna actually give people an opportunity,
council members, if you've had any ex parte conversations
that you'd like to disclose before we ask any questions.
Go ahead council member Tregum.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
As this project appeal was moving forward
because it is in our district, our council office
was copied on at least one appellant communication.
Today the applicant reached out to a staff member
in my office, no substance was discussed,
and the emails we were copied on went to the full council.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Okay, are there any questions for staff?
Well, yes, council member O'Keefe.
I didn't want to go first, but it's fine.
I'm curious about the waiver of the civic arts fee.
Do you, I know it's hard to estimate that speculative,
but could you give us a sense
of what the value of that is?
Is that possible?
It's okay if it's not possible, but I thought I'd ask.
I believe it's 0.8% of construction costs.
What's this 110 unit project?
Yeah, do the math for me please.
I don't know, I guess $800,000 maybe less,
and range 500 to a million?
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I think I pretty,
I acknowledge that was a little bit of an unfair question,
but I just wanted to get a sense of the order of magnitude
so that's helpful.
about construction costs. And I'm curious, this doesn't matter too much, but I really am just
curious, like, how does, I understand the proposal is to waive it, but could the developer, like,
they can also build the art? Is that right? Could you explain how that works just briefly? Because
it's not, it's a little tangential, but I am curious. Yeah, so the public art and private
development policy gives kind of two pathways to compliance. You can
incorporate a public art project that's worth I think it's one one and a half
percent of construction costs and there's a process for to engage a
qualified professional to oversee that to ensure that that's it meets that
that project meets the city's standards for public art.
Although we don't actually approve or disapprove
of the art piece itself, right?
It's just the process to make sure they comply.
So they can do the onsite or art,
or they can pay an in-loof fee.
Great, thanks for clarifying that, sure.
Thank you.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Just two questions.
One for staff and potentially the city attorney.
just to remind us and also remind the public who's here tonight,
what discretion does the city council have under SB 330 for a density bonus project like this?
What kind of discretion do we have when we're hearing an appeal?
What standard needs to be met?
So under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act,
if the project is compliant with all objective standards,
then the city cannot deny or reduce the density
of the project unless it meets findings
of specific adverse impact to health and safety,
which is a very high bar to meet.
So it's really specific adverse impact
to community health and safety.
That's the standard that has to be met.
Correct.
Okay.
And then I noticed also in the staff report,
a project like this would be normally entitled
to have up to three concessions.
they've asked for two.
Do we have any reason to, or you know,
any idea why they asked for two instead of three?
If they could have taken three, or had three.
We know, just curious.
You can ask them after their presentation if you'd like.
Do you want to hold the question?
I will hold that question.
But thank you for the updates on the standard.
Thank you.
Okay, Council Member Tregga.
Did you have questions?
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
We received a communication today
from a member of the public.
And one of the things it asks about
is citation analysis for findings
under the Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance
and other approved ordinances.
I was just wondering if you could in general terms
talk about what goes into the findings around BMC code section 23 or how other provisions
are incorporated either by reference or as part of the code.
Actually, I think I can just ask for clarity.
You mentioned findings, and I just so I'm clear, is it findings more broadly or is it
specific to a commercial component?
I wasn't quite clear.
Yeah, I'll just, and I realize this is a little maybe unclear, I'll read an excerpt from the
letter after reviewing the administrative record
for this project I was unable to locate citation analysis
or findings under Berkeley's neighborhood
commercial preservation ordinance.
I also did not find findings under related voter
about the neighborhood preservation ordinance
or anti demolition ordinance.
And then at the, so I think the question is,
Well, the question I have is, can you speak to
how such things may or may not be included
in the findings of the staff report
recommending denial of the appeal?
So the findings for approval will generally include
the findings for approving a use permit.
So those are the general non detriment findings.
Other findings that might be included in the staff report
would be any use permit that is not included
in the base project by right.
So for instance, the demolition.
So there are demolition findings in the set of findings
that are attached to the staff report in specific demolition
of non-residential building.
That finding was made also.
We also include density bonus findings,
findings for the granting of the waivers and the concessions.
In addition, it looks,
let's see if there's any additional standards or findings that we need.
Those are the main ones. We also cover Housing Accountability Act findings,
which I just addressed findings for denial,
whether the city can make findings for
the dial according to specific adverse impact to health and safety.
Then any other specific findings that are for use permits
that are not included in the base project and that are by right.
thank you thank you councilmember vice mayor of the Napa thank you I have a
question about the the waiver for more parking I'm curious how that is justified
in under the allowable waivers the waivers are allowed based by the state
density bonus law so if it's a state density bonus project then they are
allowed an unlimited number of waivers and so this is one that the applicant
chose to waive because they wanted to provide more parking than the maximum
that's allowed. Thank you. I'm sorry. I need to clarify. I'm sorry, no, Singye
did answer that correctly. Thank you. I have a quick follow-up, just so I
understand. From my understanding, and I could be misunderstood, not remembering
right. Um, waivers are connected to making the project more feasible, um,
and allowing for the for those new density bonus units. Um, and so I don't
know if the applicant is supposed to defend their waivers or how how that
works or how this waiver is counts as part of that. Like I understand the
premise of that there's unlimited waivers, but I from I thought that they had to be connected
to lowering the cost of a project or making it more feasible to build. Yes there are a couple of
different kinds of requests that are that could be waivers to development standards. So waivers are
a modification of a development standard, in this case parking, in order to physically accommodate
the building with the concessions included on the site.
And concessions are modifications to development standards
or other standards,
as long as there is a justifiable cost reduction
to the project.
In the case, the parking was a development standard
that the applicant asked for to accommodate the project
that they designed to be built on the site.
Okay. Thanks.
Thank you, Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
On a number of questions that I have already been answered.
But I guess I would ask a general question.
I think I know where the answer is.
Has the project been found to comply with
the applicable development standards, accounting for any incentives or concessions required
under state density bonus law?
Yes.
Okay.
That's what I thought.
Are you aware of any evidence that the environmental assessments of the site or its remediations
have been insufficient or that any applicable monitoring or mitigation measures would be
insufficient to assure the safety of future residents and workers. With this
application the applicant provided a phase one and a phase two report as well
as a closure letter. The site itself was analyzed specifically for housing use as
part of the city's certified housing elements so it was already evaluated
through the EIR and accordingly we used the checklist just to have that as part
of the action before you tonight.
So we have a fair amount of comprehensive evidence
to support that there are no impacts.
Okay. Thank you.
And finally, is the city empowered to require modifications
of the proposed design on the basis
of shadow privacy or aesthetics?
No, because there are no objective standards
for solar access.
Thank you, that's those were my questions okay thank you very much so now we've got a five
minute presentation from the app from the appellant five minutes from the applicant so would the
appellant like to come forward and I think that the planning department might need to remove their
presentation or I'm not sure whose screen is up right now but I am sharing my screen is it great
Okay. Ready to roll. Five minutes on the clock. Go ahead. Good evening members of the city council
and the residents of Berkeley gathered here. My name is Vijay Srinikrishnan. I'm
representing the North Shattuck Alliance to appeal the approval of the property here in
2109 Virginia street. Why are we here? Well, we're neighbors and residents of North Shattuck Alliance
and we represent residents, family, workers, small businesses who care deeply about the
future of our neighborhood.
We're here to appeal the approval of the proposed eight-story building.
The building is out of character with the neighborhood and will ruin our North Shattuck
commercial district, and we believe that in approving this project, the City Council has
relinquished both your legal as well as moral responsibilities for the community service,
and I will give you some of the reasons why we believe so.
So the purpose focused on three issues. One, as we understand and we have access, the applicant
has failed to document and justify the claimed needs for waivers and concessions used to
increase the height, size and bulk of the building, resulting in an incomplete and legally
flawed application. Second, the city failed to review these needs for waivers and concessions,
we can talk in more detail. And this third, the city did not follow the established procedures
for the environmental review of the project, which is located above a toxic waste site
the former Virginia cleaners. We believe that the planning code exists for the people of
Berkeley. We don't drill oil next to schools. And the code is for maintaining and improving
the neighborhood commercial areas, such as North Shattuck, make it pedestrian friendly,
usually attractive and reduce potential conflict with neighbors.
This is a rendering of the apartment and a potential scale size of a house that's right
next to it.
And it fills 22,000 square feet with vastly increased height and lit property built end
to end in terms of setbacks and then less than 700 square feet of public use common
space in almost 22,000 square feet of the area.
So why eight storeys? The planning department says it's due to the housing density bonus
loss and your hands are tight. However, this overlooks two things. The city can ask for
documentation for needs of waivers and concessions and I think they've been brought up a few
times now. And the city can deny a project if it makes, finds necessary findings. And
what has the city done instead did not ask the applicant to document the true cost reductions
that favored the construction associated with the waivers and concessions, and did not use
its discretionary authority to actually determine if those concessions and waivers were in fact
needed.
And as it stands today, the project has been granted some quite substantial concessions
and waivers for a low-density neighborhood which is where we live.
And yes, this project is – you could argue that maybe these trade-offs are not needed,
But these trade-offs are substantial.
It affects the quality and the livability of us neighbors in the area.
And City can argue that the State law leaves it with no discretion, but asking these questions
is not prohibited.
And we believe that with the amount of trade-offs, asking these questions is essential.
The second, the City did not meet its obligations to protect the environment.
As we see the site sits above a toxic waste site, the applicant's own environmental review
you reveal the presence of various environmental pollutants.
The building is less than 30 feet away
from a well-established large pediatric medical clinic
and right next to several elementary schools.
And the so-called review that was done in 1987 state review,
almost 30 years old,
is used to justify a project remediation.
And the current approach relies on the housing element EIR,
which addresses that a program EIR
and is not sufficient to address site-specific concerns
is more of a checklist. These are serious unresolved concerns. As a parent of young
children, I urge you to know that this is not abstract risk. This is real risk. These
are risks to children, seniors, and community members who live in that neighborhood. We
welcome housing in our neighborhood. Don't get us wrong. We believe in livable family
oriented housing. We believe in the middle housing aligned with Berkeley's vision, thoughtful
when integrated, responsible development, and not driven by speculative investments
by private equity firms, which essentially has led to potentially the foreclosure of
1709 Shattuck, which is the building right next door. We don't want that type of development.
The project must be denied, our conclusion. There's numerous other projects that can be
accelerated in the pipeline. In fact, the developer has them. The city has failed to
follow its own rules. City Council has a moral obligation. And you can exercise that right.
And the toxic issues of the site require a full-scale environmental review in our view.
This is clearly not the future of Shattuck Avenue that we want to see, thank you.
Thank you.
And kudos on your perfect timing, that was great, very impressive.
Can we have the applicant come up please?
You'll have five minutes to present.
My name is Patrick Kennedy, I'm the developer of the project.
This is Mark Loper, our attorney, I think as you know I've been developing in Berkeley
for 35 years and I have never been more bullish about the prospects for downtown Berkeley
and Berkeley generally. I'm very encouraged by the emphasis on housing and the current
council and on business development throughout the city. This project is the first project
we have done that is actually for older Berkeley residents and non-students. This project is
targeting older Berkeleyans that are interested in downsizing, empty nesters
that are interesting in downsizing, and all of these people have no place to go
if they want to stay in Berkeley and they sell their Berkeley house. The
project will have a lot of downstream benefits to the city as well. It will
liberate a lot of pre-prop 13 houses that these people will sell and provide
more opportunity for young families. Folks, please let him speak. It would
provide more opportunities for young families to move to Berkeley. It would
allow a lot of legacy Berkeleyans to stay in Berkeley where they desperately
would like to go instead of moving to Walnut Creek, and it would generate a
huge amount of additional taxable property in the neighborhood of around
around $100 million to the city of Berkeley.
And that's apart from the additional taxes that would be generated by turning these houses over.
So it would also provide a lot more patrons to the arts and
businesses downtown that sorely need new patronage other than students.
So I encourage you to deny the appeal and improve the project.
Here's our lawyer that will address the legal issues.
Mark Loper, thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Council members, Mark Loper from Ruben Junius and Rose on behalf of the project applicant.
Just a few things based on some of your questions and then what we heard from the appellant.
The standard for a specific adverse impact, that means a significant quantifiable
indirect impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards.
We heard that the project was out of scale, that it didn't meet neighborhood character,
that it wasn't reflective of what some people in the community might want.
I didn't hear reference to any significant,
quantifiable, or direct impacts based on objective identified health and safety standards.
There are several approval conditions that are specific to ongoing work that needs to be done.
this project is built if you see fit to approve it and those address things
like the the contamination that was remediated there are procedures in place
that go through the state the county or the city as the city deems it appropriate
to deal with remediation activities on sites that had former toxic soils
developing housing on sites that have former toxic soils happens around the
state if Berkeley just stopped doing it,
you'd rule out a lot of sites.
I'd also like to point something out that staff emphasize.
This project is on your most recent housing element.
It was on the one before that too.
This is a reused housing element site.
That means that for the last two cycles,
you as a city council have directed from
a policy perspective this site to be
developed with dense multifamily housing.
The project does use the density bonus law.
There are only two concessions that we've asked for.
We can get into why.
Our architect is here also to help walk through
how the project goes from the base to the density.
I'm sure that many of you know things like height,
setbacks, parking location, those are very common issues
that are addressed using the state law.
The Appellant didn't specifically raise any CEQA arguments per se,
but I do think it's important to point out that your staff used the housing element EIR,
that this council is certified,
and the CEQA says that for a project that tears off of the housing element,
you cannot undergo heightened environmental reviews such as a negative declaration or an EIR,
except in very narrow circumstances and I don't think that that's been presented here.
Dealing with a site that had some soils issues several decades ago is not a unique issue.
Thank you for your time and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Okay. So, um, are, let's, did you have questions? Okay. Sorry. For the, both the, um, for the
appellant, excuse me. And the applicant, if you have, if you could stay nearby in case folks have
questions for you. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, both of my questions for, for the applicant,
if you can please come up. Thank you. Um, I have two questions, one dealing with the, um,
requested a waiver in regards to parking.
I see that the request is nearly,
well, because we have the parking maximum ordinance
in Berkeley, and so this is essentially a 200%.
It's a waiver to do nearly 200% more parking.
Could you speak to how this was calculated
to be a cost reduction to the project?
To my understanding of parking is the costs of parking
are perhaps different that they do not actually,
less parking is quite the cost.
It's actually, it actually addresses project feasibility.
These are units, a much larger units
And we typically build and they're targeting older families and individuals,
almost all of whom in Berkeley have at least one car, and we're going to limit people to one car.
But we also would like to make this a condominium project at some point if the state laws or
city laws allow us to fee out instead of having on-site units and
it's almost impossible in Berkeley to sell a condominium without at least one parking space.
And we did surveys of over 60 individuals,
and all of whom said that if they were to be induced to leave their house in the Berkeley Hills,
they would need to have a place that has at least space for one car.
So it was essentially a market feasibility issue.
Thank you, Mark, Mr. Loper has a comment too.
I just want to point out that a waiver does not need to demonstrate any more.
State laws change, so with a waiver you don't need to demonstrate any cost reductions in a project.
That's only for a concession or an incentive.
Thank you.
I didn't know that.
That's good to know.
Thank you, Council Member.
Did you have your question answered?
This one was, I have a second question.
It's around the waiver for public art or the 1% for the art.
And my question is simply,
I mean staff in their presentation and Q and A provided
the two different avenues under the Popo's ordinance.
Can you speak to just the thinking behind
the request to waive either avenue?
Yeah, I can address this.
This is a concession.
And so what we need to do is show that
with the concession, the project is cheaper to build.
That's what the state legislature has said.
And we get up to three, we're only using two.
So we're only using two cost reduction measures.
and a fee that's required as part of the construction cost.
If you eliminate that fee, it's cheaper to build the project.
I think that answers your question legally.
Maybe you'd like us to talk a little bit about, you know,
how the ground floor plane works and stuff like that,
or you feel like you've got your question answered.
I would be interested in just like specifically,
I'm not going to ask you to pull out a performer,
but can you speak to just order of magnitude
of the reduction?
I'm just trying to better understand
the basis for the request.
Yeah, sure.
So it's a percentage of the construction cost.
And I think staff said it's about 0.08.
So I think the estimate we heard was around 800,000,
maybe a little more.
But again, I wanna be clear,
and I don't mean to be uncharitable,
but the state law says we get up to three concessions.
We get up to three exceptions
from things that make the project cheaper to build.
And getting out of the art requirement
makes the project cheaper to build.
Thank you.
Council Member Tracup, that's your finish.
Vice Mayor Nalapara.
Thank you.
I have a quick question about the waiver for parking.
If a waiver is supposed to be for a development standard
that physically precludes the project,
can you talk a little more about why
more exceeding the maximum number of off-street parking
does fit that definition?
So this is where state law, I think,
might get a little funky, a couple years ago the state legislature,
which works really hard to produce housing, gave projects that invoke the density bonus
more discretion when it comes to the amount of parking that they're allowed to have in the project.
And I think that that might be part of how the project is able to justify the number of spots.
And I also think that the second thing is that by getting rid,
So the project is invoking a density bonus, which allows it to have the number of units
that it's getting.
And one way of thinking about the waiver that we're requesting is by going up to essentially
double the number of units, if we waive the parking requirement, then that allows the
density bonus units to be treated the same as the base units when it comes to the number
of parking spaces.
I know that's a little bit of a wonky answer and it's kind of two things, but
Okay, I think what he's saying is 55
Spaces would have been allowed with the project of 55 units, but now that we've doubled it we can get
55 spaces, but on the issue of parking I've been a big proponent of car free housing for 30 years in fact the last
10 projects I built had no parking for residents, but the economic realities are for this demographic ie older Berkeley ins
They want to keep their cars and
We have to defer to that judgment if we're going to make the project
Economically possible to finance our banks won't finance
Empty nester housing if we don't have at least one space for each of the house of the units. It's just an economic reality
We're doing a seven-story project down the street. We have no parking, but that's largely for students
Okay, thank you. I want to just clarify with the planning department how the
The parking structure works because it was my understanding that it was point five to one
And so if they had a 55 unit building, it would be half
I just I don't remember the policy and just want to clarify
Yeah, the standard in the BMC is that the parking maximum
Is a half a space to each unit and so it would be half the number of total units that is allowed
Okay. Thank you. That's it
Thank you. Councilmember kiss our wani. Thank you very much. Madam Mayor. Thank you to our staff for the presentation
Thank you to the appellant's and the applicant, you know, I just wanted to explain something about this density bonus law first
I wanted to confirm that the project is taking advantage
of a relatively new modification to density bonus law,
AB 1287, which gives greater density for,
you could say, I guess, less affordable units.
And so density bonus law is very complicated,
but this isn't, I just want to acknowledge
What the appelants are saying, this is quite unusual.
In my experience, to have a three-story based zoning
become an eight-story project.
And it's because it's 100% density bonus, correct?
And it's done with essentially 30% affordable units.
As you noted, 15% very low income.
That means the area median income
is 30% to 50% of the area median income.
and then it's another 15%,
so it's nine units of very low income
and then another nine units of middle income.
What that means in terms of area median income,
it's 80 to 120%.
I know that might not mean much of anything to folks,
but it's more like a middle class type of salary.
We don't actually,
typically the below market rate units on site
don't serve 80 to 120% of the area median income.
To my knowledge, we rarely, if ever,
have units at that income level, correct?
Yeah, that's right.
I believe in the entire fifth cycle housing element period,
in that eight year period,
I believe we permitted fewer than 100 moderate income units
for that entire eight years.
It's very rare for those middle income units to be built,
And I think that was the policy motivation behind AB 1287.
Yes, and I know it's hard to discern what the policy motivation might be,
but it seems like you venture to do that.
And I think it's trying to incentivize this middle income housing, giving a greater density bonus.
So I just wanted to acknowledge that that's what's happening here, and
It will be the tallest building when constructed
in sort of this corridor.
And it's driven by the state law.
It's not something that the city of Berkeley
has control over.
And I think as council member Blackaby had noted,
we also don't have the discretion to reduce the density
because it's provided by the state density bonus.
So I just wanted to explain that.
This is a bit of a quirk because there's a newer law
that's used to give greater density.
So I don't have any further questions or comments.
I'm ready to vote.
Thank you.
Thanks.
So we haven't heard public comment,
so we have some more things to do.
But Council Member O'Keefe?
Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have a question for Mr. Kennedy,
if you don't mind, back to the art thing.
And I'd prefer if you could answer if possible.
Could you just let us know?
I understand that the civic art concession
saves the project money.
That makes sense.
I imagine there are a number of concessions
you could have asked for,
and I'm wondering why you chose that one,
and I have a fault question, which is,
do you plan to put any art at all,
or any sort of, yeah, anything of that nature
in the building, even though I guess
you wouldn't be required to under this concession?
Yes, we are planning to do a significant ball bout on the street which will provide seating for probably another 15 or 20 people.
And the building itself I hope will be an aesthetic contribution to the city.
But specifically other artwork, we're not planning any right now.
It's very hard to get any projects financed right now.
So every, you know, a million dollars here,
a million dollars there makes a big difference
on whether a project proceeds or doesn't proceed.
And this was a significant reduction
in the fees from the city.
And you picked it just because it was
the most significant reduction.
You could ask for the concession.
Is that why?
I still didn't get an answer to my question
as to how you chose to ask for this particular concession.
I think it was the most significant one
that reduced the total construction cost.
And I didn't realize we had overlooked
a third concession frankly but it's too late. Yeah but you know as council member
Kezerwani said the law is changing quite a bit all the time and but in any
case it was necessary in order for us to try to get this project finance. Okay
and I just I guess this isn't quite a question but one of the reasons I'm
I'm motivated to push on this is is it true that you'll be covering up a really
really significant mural on the adjoining building that will I believe
that won't be visible once this is constructed. Am I wrong about the geometry
of that? Which is is I'm not sure which but I have not noticed the
significant mural. You haven't noticed the big mural? No. Okay. Okay. Thank you Council member
Trig up did you have another question actually I'm sorry I'm gonna go to
councilmember Blackaby because he has not asked a question yet great thanks
Madam Mayor one question a couple questions one for the applicant one for
the appellant one for staff yes that's three I notice in the appellant's
presentation this is for the applicant
they contend that the environmental review was not sufficient, that the phase
two environmental assessment is not a substitute. Just talk about, from your
perspective, why your belief that what you did present is sufficient. You met
the standard. Can you just talk us through that that discrepancy or
disagreement? Let me defer to Mr. Loper here. He's got better expertise on this
subject. Thank you councilmember that's a very good question. Typically how
infill housing projects work on on sites that at one point had some sort of
remediation activity is that you start with something called a phase one which
is basically a desktop study that involves looking at the history of the
site and the cleanup activities that took place. This site already
underwent a significant effort to clean it up and it received a closure, no action letter
and stuff probably has all the details in front of them on their computers.
And so a phase one looks at things from a desktop perspective and a phase two involves
a more serious and in-depth look at the actual conditions on the ground and sometimes that
involves doing sampling and boring and testing.
And then a phase one and a phase two get discussed and baked into the CEQA clearance
document which here was a consistency determination with the Housing Element EIR.
And as I mentioned earlier, this is not a unique condition to housing development sites.
So I expect that the Housing Element EIR talked about this approach at length.
And then the final thing, and I mentioned this during my presentation, but I'll just
mention it again that's that's not the end of the of the show if you look at
the approval conditions from ZAB there are at least four or there are four
conditions that the city will work with the applicant and the developer on to
ensure that when construction takes place all proper local state and federal
laws relating to site remediation are followed. Okay the staff agree that we've
that this project meets that environmental review threshold?
Yes. And just to follow up on that point,
when this project comes in for a building permit, it is routed
through our toxics management division, and so they continue that
deep dive review of the reports, the measures that are
taking place as part of the construction to abate that condition. Okay. Thank you.
Also the staff, and then after that,
question with the appellant. The other main issue in the presentation with the
appellant was whether or not the applicant was documented cost reductions
associated with waivers and again we've heard some discussion about that is are
they obligated to do that are they not obligated to do that have we met that
standard in this process. Their contention here in the presentation is
that the city didn't ask the applicant to document do they need to the
the reductions associated with waivers and concessions?
As far as waivers are concerned,
there is no requirement to provide documentation
to justify the waiver concessions as well.
Actually, there is case law that
forbids staff from asking for documentation
of the cost reduction.
So we could not ask for that.
We cannot.
Okay. Okay. Um, and one question for the appellant,
if you're near a microphone real quick. Thank you. Um,
coming back to, I think where we started the conversation again, I, I'm,
what I'm really trying to drive into is again, what,
what is the council's discretion and what we've heard a couple of times from
staff and also from the applicant is we would need to have a find a reach a
finding that there is a significant quantifiable specific adverse impact on
and safety. So I think my question for the appellant is how would you, you know,
out of all this how would you distill that? What's the claim there that you
think is appealable? Thank you, Councilman Black. This is James Henry for the appellant.
First off, on the issue of concessions versus waivers, there's two
issues. Waivers are less off the table. Concessions, however, under the Berkeley
You're asked for substantial documentation if you want to, and the planning staff did not do that.
They rely on the court case, Brierley, we discussed this extensively.
It says you can't ask for concessions, you can't ask for the documentation of concessions, and they did not do that.
They seem to be confusing going a step further, which is what the court case involved,
which is dealing with the issue of making applicants prove a project is profitable or do pro formas.
But the state law is clear that you can ask them to document what the concessions are.
What you do with them then is up to you.
But in this case, you violate the planning code by not even asking,
again in this documentation, which you're allowed to do in the state law.
And for the adverse, I believe there's also a code section maybe that got taken out in the last version,
but it's also on page three of our applicant that says you can
an I project if you make written findings upon substantial evidence that the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions consistent with subdivision K to provide for affordable housing costs.
So there's also the second tier of looking at economics.
That probably is also a very high bar too.
And that one is one that seemed to have been ignored also in the analysis.
As for the wave of public health, that clearly is a high bar, but we do feel they're toxic issues.
happy to talk about the environmental issues and the failure of the city
planning staff to address them. Uh, which might, we might argue,
and I think it may be a good argument to make that yes,
those environmental issues are sufficient to raise a question about the
viability of the project and whether it should be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. So your concern is, or particularly is, is a,
is a process concern about the documentation or request for
documentation. Um,
So you're leaning into that more than the higher bar of finding a specific
adverse impact on health and safety.
I think so. I think the adverse issues of health and safety addressed in the
environmental issues where we're happy to talk to you about that.
Well, I think there are adverse public health effects. We believe. Okay.
Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you. Okay. Council member Trig up.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, I have a follow up question for the applicant.
If you can please come up.
So I appreciate the cost of construction right now
and I appreciate the work you would be doing
on the Bobout, but I have to ask,
have you considered or might you consider
a partial contribution to the city's public arts fund
as a gesture of goodwill?
I will consider it, but not tonight, and I'd like you to remind you of the
difficulty, we have 19 stalled projects in Berkeley right now that have been
approved at various stages and we're facing headwinds on construction costs,
interest costs, and a whole host of other things. I'm well aware that about in my
district. Yeah. Thank you. Uh you've answered the question and I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah.
Okay. Any other questions from council members? Okay. We will take public comment. Actually,
do we want to take a very quick stretch break? Yeah. Let's take it. We're going to take a
five minute stretch break, but be prepared to start public comment right afterwards. Thank you.
Recording stopped. Hello. Oh, there we are. Okay. Recording in progress.
please take your seats so we can hear public comments if you have any public comment please
come on up to the podium whatever order i have somebody who's seating a minute to me over here
so i'd like to have two minutes on the sorry please oh thank you okay i want to say first
of all i don't know anybody who wants to move from their homes in berkeley into a very expensive
a rental unit on Shattuck Avenue, okay.
I've lived in Berkeley a long time.
I have a partner who left and lived in three different
buildings in downtown Berkeley during his time there
before he went to assisted living
because that was the next route.
And he said it was full of students always.
There were a few people in transition in these buildings
but it's student housing.
The building on Francisco had six minutes to campus on it
but they took that sign down now
Because that's student housing.
All right, this may not be student housing,
but it's not going to be housing the people
that you want to house.
Because again, I think as Cassarani said,
what is medium and low in the Bay Area
is still out of the reach for most people
who are working at minimum or other wages around the city.
I'd like to address the issue of a waiver.
A waiver is a giving up of a legitimate right.
And in Berkeley, I'm quoting from the city manager's
housing element and general plan report,
they saw an ink, the waivers have been given in 24,
I believe, 83% of the waivers were approved.
And before that, I think close to 90% were approved.
So it's not an exception, it seems to be a rule here.
And I wanna know why, okay?
The other thing I want to know about is we have large developers who are building here.
That they're the only ones who can do this.
And the other thing is, look at Center Street.
What is going to happen to Center Street?
We're not going to be able to attract anybody to Berkeley until we clean up what's going
on in downtown Berkeley.
We talk about the arts, et cetera.
Thank you.
We've got a mess on our hands.
thanks for your comment. I'm gonna sell my home pay a huge capital gain give up
my garden give up my neighbors and move into a high-rise no effing way find me
two people two names that will do that and there'll be two fools when I walk
around the corner and have a monolith in instead of a cute restaurant that
affects my health there's been no measure of people's mental health
impacts go get it measure the impacts I didn't even know about this till
November I didn't write a letter I'm here today the tour bus there'll be an
impact on the health of money, because no tour bus wants to park in front of a
model that's to go to the cheese board or Chez Panisse. They'll try to blind their
people to get them in. Think about those impacts. Thank you.
I'll give Jim a minute. And Melinda's giving me a minute. So I believe I have three minutes. Thank you.
Good evening council members. My name is James Hendry. I'm going to begin by
noting that as we discussed, there's different concessions and waivers. You're obligated
under the code to look at concessions and figure out what they cost. And then you have
great benefits of being lost at the city of Berkeley, particularly on the issue of, we
talked about the loss of the public arts fee. Now, the developer says that imparts need
to make the project, you know, profitable, but he also came into this council last week
and asked for it be waived in 1752 Shattuck, which has already been built and already financed.
So are we talking about modifications necessary to build a project or
modifications necessary just to make more profit?
Second, I have to clear up a major misconception that everybody seems to be operating under.
The planning department and the applicant seem to be saying, this is a toxic waste site and we chose to build on it anyway.
That is incorrect.
The Housing Element Environmental Impact Report looked at every toxic waste site in Berkeley,
including this project.
And if they'd looked in the website,
what they would have found, it said,
the project has been mitigated and you can build on it.
So the project had been mitigated and can build on it,
and thus we had to win-win.
Form a toxic waste site, Opportunity Zone.
Now, sadly, that mitigation effect was done in 1987
and new technologies and new requirements,
new measuring techniques now found out
there's toxics on the site.
Lead, benzene, chloroform, total petroleum hydrocarbons,
all located next to one of the largest pediatric clinics in Berkeley.
And so the question then becomes, and even the planning department now keeps saying,
no, we knew it was toxic even though if you read the report,
they're still claiming relying on this 1987 report and their staff report that, no,
it's harmless, there's no problem to it.
So it's a misconception to say that we knew it was a toxic site.
We thought it wasn't, it turns out it was, now how do you deal with it?
So the housing element EIR says you're supposed to remediate sites.
Remediate is a term of art, meaning take all the toxic dirt, get rid of it, remediate
the site to residential standards.
Residential standards is a requirement that's in the infill and environmental checklist.
So instead of remediation, the applicant is proposing mitigation.
What is mitigation?
Mitigation is basically a vapor intrusion barrier, e.g., a large tarp put over the toxic
to keep it allegedly in.
Whether it work or not, we don't know.
The entire documents in the report
consist of three statements.
A sales offer from a consultant saying,
hey, we'll sell you one.
A one sentence statement in the phase
two environmental assessment saying,
we think it might work.
And a statement from the developer saying,
he'll voluntarily put it in which since it's not mandatory,
does not mean it necessarily meets the enforcement
requirements you want to under CEQA.
So the question then becomes we need to mitigate this and how do we do that?
And it does not meet the environmental goals under the EIR.
Good evening, everybody. Can you hear me? Yep. I'm not used to this.
Uh, thank you for the chance to speak. I want to talk about,
Oh yeah, I have a minute. Thank you. I want to talk about,
two minutes is what I need.
I want to talk about eroding trust in our elective officials,
which is very disappointing to me. I feel like the print,
The permitting process is very opaque to us citizens.
I also want to talk about pedestrian safety,
which is close to my heart because I walk everywhere.
Right now, the public process does not feel transparent.
There's very little time to ask questions or get real answers in these meetings.
Presentations often feel vague and downright misleading.
We hear height instead of stories,
everything keeps moving around.
Some visuals in the room are not readable or even ADA-compliant on occasion,
and we've had meeting notices more than once with incorrect dates.
It creates more confusion.
Traffic and pedestrian safety is a very serious problem in our neck of the woods.
Somebody just got hit,
a 95-year-old woman at the corner of our street.
and every other day, I seem to almost see something happen on either Virginia or Cedar
and definitely in Chicago in Cedar. So I feel like the traffic there is not going to be helped by
entering all these cars, entering in and out of this building.
But I support housing and I think that there's some place that this very tall building could
come down a little bit it could go back a little bit they could be steps up and then you hear well
it doesn't pencil out for the developer and I think the weight of the council seems to be well
behind the developers and not behind your citizens so much and that really is disappointing thank you
thank you good evening mayor and council members my name is Mike Apte I'm a Berkeley resident
and a board member of Save Berkeley shops.
I support new housing in Berkeley,
including affordable housing.
We're not opposing housing.
This is about process, transparency,
and compliance with binding voter adopted law.
Berkeley voters adopted
the 1982 Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance,
that's 22.12, has never been repealed or amended.
That ordinance requires explicit findings
before demolishing an existing commercial building,
including findings that demolition
is not materially detrimental
to neighborhood commercial needs
and that replacement development appropriately
harmonizes with its surroundings.
After reviewing the administrative record
for a used permit, CP 2024-66,
I found no citation analysis or findings
under that ordinance under the related voter adopted
neighborhood preservation, anti-demolition measures.
Instead, the approval relies on zoning provisions
and state housing law.
If photo adopted ordinances no longer apply,
that conclusion must be stated clearly
and supported in the record.
Silence is not compliance.
This emission fits a broader pattern
of selective engagement in the city's rezoning work.
For example, a city commission study
on upzoning impacts on businesses
to not include interviews with business owners.
And business owners have not been consulted
about rezoning plans affecting commercial corridors.
Council is not being asked to re-decide the project
or deny housing.
You are being asked to ensure that approvals rest
on a complete and legally sufficient record
and that laws adopted by Berkeley voters
are not effectively nullified through a mission.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I've made these comments before.
At the second quarter's workshop
for North Shattuck College and Solano Oveners,
city presenters repeatedly assured us
that developers would only ask for 50%,
or most likely only ask for 50% density bonus.
This is now the third project that has been requesting
or has been granted 100% density bonus.
Could the city possibly be more disingenuous and duplicitous
about the zoning updates?
It's an outrage, 50% none of these projects are asking 50%.
This is for Solano Avenue, where again,
every slide that the city presented showed only eight stories.
And in fact, 11 stories we promoted 100% of the notice.
But you assured us that's never going to happen.
It is happening.
Three times.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm here to talk about
why you're not obeying the city ordinances.
You have the neighborhood commercial preservation ordinance
2212, which says that you should only have buildings
a scale density of user design that's appropriately
harmonizing the structures in the area.
Well, that doesn't do it.
Significantly, it will increase the amount
of auto traffic congestion or auto related pollution.
That violates your municipal code.
And also, it will be detrimental to the health safety,
peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing
in the working and working in the neighborhood
in the general welfare of the city.
That's in your city code too.
you're supposed to follow.
I thought you were supposed to follow your regulations.
Thank you.
Can I have a minute?
I think people have given their minutes.
Yeah.
Okay, I have one. So I'm sorry.
We have to go to the next person.
Pardon?
We have to go to the next speaker.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay. Hello, council.
Thank you for having me today.
I believe the property on 2109 Virginia street
should be allowed to be constructed
because at this time,
Most of the city of Berkeley is owned by UC Berkeley.
Other establishments other than
the University of Berkeley should be allowed to build.
And the city is not just for students.
It is in America and the city of Berkeley
is also for families.
Also, I appreciate how this building
is going to provide parking,
which is greatly needed in Berkeley.
Scares parking is here.
Furthermore, the way the city of Berkeley
is currently operating gives an impression
as if it is a neighborhood only for the wealthy
and the poor are not tolerated.
Another proof of this is with the recent removal
of People's Park, which was a huge, huge sad moment
for the people of Berkeley that were from here
and that grew up here and that lost their businesses
during COVID and people are still suffering.
And this would give people a place to live
that have nowhere to live right now
because they can't afford anymore.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Ms. Miku.
Thank you.
I'd also like to mention that you have 17.
Sorry, but you've already spoken, so you can't speak again.
You've already had your minute.
Well, you told me I could come after this person.
No.
I was saying that the next person needed to come up.
I had somebody give me a minute.
I'm sorry.
You've already spoken.
You're so democratic.
Art Goldberg, I've lived here for 58 years.
I mean, there's been an orgy of construction.
And I understand we've already met this state mandate.
So why is construction going on kind of mindlessly?
As to this specific building, in North Shattuck,
we don't want it.
We spoke up in 2008, 2009,
when they proposed the North Shattuck Plaza,
it was overwhelmingly rejected
and the council listened to that.
We don't want high rise buildings in that area.
It's doing very well.
Shapen each just opened up a bar.
the cheese board is remodeling, these high rise buildings will kill it.
And there are other places to put housing.
The university is starting to build all over the place.
So I think you people are not representing us as citizens,
you're representing the developers.
And I think it's time that you try to represent what we want.
Thank you.
Hi again and I have an extra minute from my friend back there.
Change is the only constant right, we certainly need housing but this housing is not affordable.
For the majority of people we already have gentrification, we already have the elimination
people that had lived here for so very very long and I understand developers
and development and I understand but the whole notion of profit means I give less
than I get and I'm really concerned that we're getting out of balance here in
Berkeley just like my body if certain cells did not stay in harmony with the
others, I'd be dying of cancer right now. It's like we have to be thoughtful. I got
an emergency notice today about how the Wellness Centers are closing. Bax is
cutting its staff and eliminating its programs. Food is drying up all over the
place. Remember, I deal in the general public. I once was opulent, but again, I chose to
care about everyone because none of us are going to be okay if we continue this inequality
and this calloused unintended consequence,
proliferation of Mayor Berkeley was first.
I don't want it to end up being last
in terms of the care for the community that it can be.
And I'm really, really concerned.
So please, I know people want to make money,
but people need to live.
Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any public comments online?
Yes. Uh,
so this is the time for public comment on item 14,
the appeal on two one zero nine Virginia. So if you're on the zoom,
now is the, um, time to raise your hand to speak.
Uh, it's currently 13 raised hands.
The first speaker is Wilhelmina.
well I mean you should be able to unmute. Hi, thank you very much. I am very disturbed
about the hypocrisy around this low-income housing. You're justifying what would basically
as a monstrosity in the middle of our neighborhood, five stories higher, four stories higher than it
needs to be under this low income housing justification. The reality is that's not low
income housing. Anybody who's working at Starbucks, anybody that's a minimum wage worker is not going
to live there. You have a legacy here. Look at what you're doing to our city. In the end,
we will have a housing problem but you will have destroyed our neighborhoods one after another.
You did it downtown, all the empty buildings, you rezone and then no buildings go in.
This is a mistake. Nobody. I've talked to hundreds of my neighbors, nobody wants this.
You are pro-dev- Your time is up. Thank you. Next is Amelia.
Hi. While we wish that everyone would take public transportation, you've cut our buses,
bike safety on the corridors is terrifying, and you have incentivized landlords to kill
our local businesses with short-term leases in the promise of up-zoning cash-outs. My new
neighbors will be using cars and ordering delivery. I just want to make sure everyone can do so as
safely as possible. I've seen accidents, traffic jams, and near-death experiences with cars pulling
into the shaded garage of the apartments across the street? Is there any chance of a ride
chair and delivery cut in or a designated entrance on Virginia? I'd also like to thank Councilmember
Tragup for the attempted shake down on behalf of the Arts Fund. We love to see it. Honestly,
seeing you guys stand up to developers on even the smallest token feels like a miracle at this
point. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next is Rohini. Hi, I hope you can hear me. I'd like
the council to know that if you vote to go ahead and vote against this appeal you're telling me
that you completely understand the remediation and the environmental risk. You're voting to
tell me that there is no risk from the benzene in the soil
to the pediatric clinic that's right behind this building
and Berkeley at magnet school which is right across from it.
It means that you've understood all the impact and you're okay with it.
Frankly I don't believe that's the case. I don't think you've done your homework.
I think you've rubber stamped this so you rubber stamped everything else.
well thank you thank you okay next is kelly hammerman um hello um i picked up one of my
old composition notebooks with notes to speak at the landmarks preservation commission from
july 16th 2015 and in those notes i've got berkeley city council passed as a goal
50% rooftop solar by 2030. Why don't we have objective standards for solar? What happened to
that? What happened to this sustainability that we used to be committed to? How things change?
Yesterday at the Agenda Committee, I asked that you schedule a special meeting,
special council meeting on state laws on housing and land use and how those have changed and how
those affect our city. We've got four more. Thanks Kelly. I'm sorry your time is up.
Thanks Kelly. Next is Sherri Washburn. Hi, I'm assuming you can hear me.
I just want to make it really clear from the start,
I support more housing in our city, we need it.
It's very clear we do, but this particular project
fails to deliver what our community actually needs.
I understand from listening tonight
that the developer is using density bonus law
to justify eight stories and 110 units,
but in exchange, we're only getting 18 affordable
in air quotes units, that's 16%.
At income levels that still aren't affordable
for many working families here,
The law sets minimums, not maximums.
Other California cities negotiate 25 to 30% affordability
for projects of this size.
You have the discretion to require more
or to reject a project with insufficient public benefit.
I'm not gonna get into parking.
I think everyone in the neighborhood knows
there's not enough parking.
And I can't imagine what it would be like to live next door
to this behemoth of a building.
But does this project justify its scale and its impacts?
The developer is asking for maximum density,
But they're offering minimum affordability.
I'm sorry, your time's up.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is a phone number ending in 0-0-0.
I'm definitely, again, it's in the high rise in Berkeley.
Well, do you have enough of them?
I emailed you last couple of weeks about earthquakes.
There was one earthquake in southern among California.
This is a bad, bad, bad sign.
The big one is coming.
The Hayward Fault is waking up.
who are going huge earthquake.
All of this cheap-built box apartment building
was beautiful.
Very smart students in Berkeley are going to be dead
if seven or eight magnitude earthquake takes over.
From a scientific point of view,
on the other hand, we just have to worry
because when Trump had access to the nuclear football,
we're going to go to World War III.
In fact, the due date clock was advanced
just last week by several seconds.
Have a good night.
Do not approve high-rise in Berkeley anymore.
All this boxes are going to collapse
in seven plus magnitude here for earthquake.
Thank you and have a good night.
Thank you.
Next is Tony.
Good evening.
This is Tony Mester from D2.
I have two points about this project.
Number one, what makes this project
particularly for senior citizens,
as Mr. Kennedy mentioned.
I don't see anything in your interim.
I looked at the layout,
and I didn't see anything that said this is for seniors.
And I also suggest that you hold a public meeting,
exploring how the density bonus is computed
by the planning department.
It is opaque and I doubt that that you even understand it. And I really think a council workshop on the subject is needed in this city.
Thank you for considering my ideas. Thank you, Tony.
Next is Nancy raider.
Good evening. Hi, Nancy Rader V6. First I appreciate the developers designing the building for larger units. I hope they're considerably larger than the time of the new style apartments we've seen and are affordable to meet the new graphics.
I also appreciate the parking space because it will reduce the number of users in the regular vehicles covering about five to day of new quality congestion.
On the negative side, if this massive building can be built with current zoning, it's a great way to advertise and look against the full bit of upsetting the facility process.
In that process, staff is offering development standards that can be applied, including building setbacks to help reduce the building's negative impacts on neighborhood.
But here we see many, if not all of our setback economy is being waived, reducing sidewalk space.
So, I don't know what meaning is to have this happen to have any review opportunity with discretion. Eric, please use it. Thank you.
Thanks, Nancy. Okay. Next is Cheryl Davela, former council member.
Oops, hold on.
Well, I didn't think you're going to send the link.
Thank you so I can't see the clock, so I can't know my time. Can you start it over and put it in a place where I can see it? But so far people have saying, like, what does this?
Why is this happening? And the weight is towards developers.
Concessions are minimal. There are no, you know, I don't know about the concessions, but it seems like.
Every time the developer gets what they want,
they get the density bonus,
they get you're not abiding by the city ordinances,
planning just approves these monstrosities.
Someone said it was an orgy of construction.
The hypocrisy of low-income housing justification.
Hundreds of neighbors don't want this,
and it's on toxic land.
The objective for solar, no commitment.
Public benefits are minimal,
18 units is nothing and they're not affordable.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Tova Solomon.
Hello. I want to mention about
the 19 installed other projects.
If those were built and brought in new residents,
then that would help ease some of the financial concerns
people are having about this project.
And as always, with VLT, there's location, location, location.
So down by San Pablo and University, three of the four
stores on that corner are closed. We have room for larger building housing down here
that wouldn't be interfering with the quaint neighborhood at North Traddock and the students
that would be moving in, their world-class students, they know how to take a bus up to campus.
putting this building in this location is just the wrong place. It's absolutely absurd.
Thanks for your comment. Next is Cleo. Hi, so I want to come to the defense of the city council
a little bit here in the sense that actually all of these regulations are allowed by the state of
California and the laws of the state of California have to precede the laws that we can pass in
Berkeley. So in reality what's going to happen is that the city council is going to have to
approve this and there's going to be a lot of hang ringing and the reality is that this is just
what's legally possible. The developer is doing what's legally possible. But I do want to point
out two things that the city of Berkeley is passing a lot of its own regulations and what I've
noticed is repeatedly it does so without paying attention to what the state of California is
really doing or not paying sufficient attention to what the state of California is doing. And so we
we end up with these unintended consequences
where we've designated this site in the housing element
creating additional density authorization for it.
And now I think nobody really wants what's happening
but we don't have the choice.
And it's fair for the developer
to be looking at the housing element and saying,
I'm alive.
Next is Walnut.
Hi, I work next door to the building that is being proposed.
I work in that building that has the mural
that our applicant doesn't know about.
I teach kids with learning disabilities.
Building construction of this magnitude
that will take so long is going to be so detrimental
to my students and to my coworkers,
especially when, no, when it stalls.
then my main grievance is anyone who has a legitimate problem with this building is treated
like oh you're against housing oh you don't care about past redlining these are not going to be
for sale these units they are not going to be affordable i will be a renter the rest of my life
and i won't be able to live in one of these make them all affordable put your money where your
mouth is don't claim that this is all out of altruism when it's about making
money thank you okay that was the last commenter online so okay thank you all
for your public comments is there a motion to close the public hearing so
moves can we take the role please clerk okay to close the public hearing
Councilmember Casarwani.
Yes.
Tapplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traga.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Lackey.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishio.
Yes.
Okay, public hearing's closed.
Okay, so Council Deliberation starting with Vice Mayor
Lunapara.
Thank you.
I just want to say something really quickly.
Berkeley minimum wage right now is $19.18 an hour and as a full time job that makes
$39,894.40 which is obviously way below cost of living.
The nine very low income units designated here will be deed restricted affordable for
residents that are at 30 to 50 percent of the area median income.
30 percent area median income in Berkeley for a one person household is $33,600 and
for a two person household is $38,400.
This means that these low-income units,
which will sit on a lot that currently has no housing at all,
will quite literally be affordable
for people making minimum wage in Berkeley.
These are units for low-income residents
that otherwise will not exist.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Tracob.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you to everyone who came here tonight,
as well as to staff for their diligence.
I certainly heard from many neighbors
leading up to and including tonight
and appreciate the labor, time and effort
that it takes to participate in this process.
I also understand this is the place you call home
and what is happening directly next to your home
affects you more than any of us sitting here.
So I have listened and I appreciate it.
And unfortunately, as in many circumstances,
we are faced with some tough choices.
On the one hand, understandably,
some members of the community have expressed
concerns and desire for additional features,
such as more affordable housing, higher labor standards,
and keeping the 1% for the arts provision.
On the other hand, this application includes 110 dwelling units,
including nine very low-income units,
which, to Vice Mayor Luna Power's point,
will in fact be affordable to many making minimum wage,
as well as nine moderate income density
bonus qualifying units,
which is basically workforce housing for working families.
And even in the face of a nearly $35 million budget deficit
our city faces, I'm personally deeply committed.
And I think I speak for everyone on this body, actually,
in saying this and supporting funding civic and public arts
and demanding that the residential projects built
in Berkeley are done with the workforce,
not on the backs of it and including units
that are affordable for those who build them.
And that said, we desperately need housing,
especially around and in the near vicinity
of transit, which corridors and like all of my colleagues,
I'm committed to trying to do my part in addressing
our housing unaffordability crisis despite how challenging
it may be to find appropriate locations,
appropriate conditions, appropriate unit price point
in development that will satisfy all Berkeley constituents.
As has been mentioned, several projects have stalled
in Berkeley, most of them are in my district.
And we are unfortunately not receiving
much needed housing elsewhere.
Furthermore, state laws have dramatically limited
the level of discretion available
to quasi-judicial entities such as the ZAB
and the city council.
And in this case, based on everything that I'm aware of
in the state housing law landscape,
as well as everything we heard from staff,
we don't have much discretion either.
But even before these state laws were passed,
and I, between the ZAB and City Council,
I have been absorbing the landscape for the last 14 years.
Even prior to this, it would have been challenging
and legally risky to demand something of an applicant
unless they themselves agreed to something
that goes above and beyond local or state requirements.
Now it's next to impossible.
And all we can do is voluntarily ask, and we did.
For all these reasons, and based on my close review
of the appeal pocket and staff responses,
I will be supporting approval of this project.
to the community members here tonight
that may disagree with this vote.
Please know that tomorrow my office and I
will get back to working alongside of you
on the issues that we have been working on,
including revitalizing our downtown and commercial spaces
and addressing street safety for all.
Together, we will continue to endeavor
to create a Berkeley we can all call home.
Thank you, Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to begin by saying that I understand where the
neighbors of this proposed project are coming from. It's a big change. There's
no way around that. It will mean less privacy, less light and a big change in
view. All else being equal, being unhappy about these things is perfectly
justifiable and understandable. I don't condemn you for that. However, at the
same time, we as a city should act according to our principles and above
we must follow the law. Our principles are that we need to allow for more housing to help make
homes more affordable and available to people at all income levels, and this project will do that,
and be a city that can welcome all, including immigrants and the workers who keep our city
running. We also need to follow our principles of maximizing new homes near jobs and transit to
support local businesses, shorten commutes, encourage alternatives to driving, and thereby
help protect our climate and and this project checks those boxes as well and
finally and most importantly we must comply with state housing law and allow
projects that meet all applicable development standards and particularly
with respect to density bonus projects. Our staff and all voting members of the
Zoning Adjustments Board are in agreement that this project meets
applicable standards. Absent additional evidence to the contrary and I've heard
none, I'm compelled to affirm the decision of the zoning adjustments board
and vote to dismiss the appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Bartlett.
Thank you Madam Mayor and I want to thank the staff for your presentation and
thank the applicants here, well the community for your efforts, your
diligent efforts and you know and while I sympathize with you I empathize with
you that I don't see any real basis to deny the project and and further I want
to encourage this project because although although it will be a difference
in your life it will also be a positive difference in the lives of many
other people particularly those who live in the building and the decades that we
have stopped housing in Berkeley have led to the scarcity that has driven so
many people out of town and so many people who have become accidental
millionaires, homeowners who are benefiting from the scarcity, you know,
none of that's equitable and too much of the development has been borne by other
districts and so there is a larger equitable argument here to be made that
this project is kind of benefiting our efforts to make an equitable development
seen in Berkeley. Um, and just so you know, um, the district that we're in right
now for this building here is the only district that is that that has experienced
an increase in racial diversity because it has built the most apartments. So
this is the where we're at. This is, um, a necessary thing to increase our
conferences, the city because these are tax revenue tax revenue generating
entities and also higher culture, more equity, lower rents, more opportunity.
And ultimately your neighborhood will benefit from this, and I want to thank you for your diligent efforts.
And I'll be voting to approve the building. Thank you. Council member Keith.
I believe that comes over to help on his hand up before me, and I wouldn't mind an extra minute. That's okay.
Yeah, so it's fine. Council member Taplin.
Sure, thank you very much. I mean, I don't want to believe or drag this out, but I'm not going to bring hands, but.
It's pretty straightforward if I do have to say that this is not a low density neighborhood. There are many apartments in the neighborhood. I think on this single block. There are probably more apartments in my entire neighborhood combined.
And it's on a major corridor, and that those are things I think make this area attractive and appealing.
I think it's a fine location for multi family housing. I'm excited for.
The opportunity for older homeowners to downsize.
Um, and like Council member Bartlett was saying a lot of our districts, a lot of our neighborhoods have been.
Building housing have been constructing housing for, for years and decades and.
It's not, there's, there's no.
There's like, we should not.
See new neighbors or the growth of our neighborhoods as some kind of burden.
These are people who are part of the fabric of our community.
And these homes are going to be part of the fabric of our neighborhoods.
I'll be willing to.
Denying appeal, thank you council member black.
Sorry, I'm sorry going back to council member. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, I'm ready now. Appreciate that.
Well, I did want to state briefly. It's already been stated, but.
It's important to really reiterate that we don't really have the option of upholding
this appeal legally.
There's many dimensions of state law that are at play that make that not an option.
But if that was my only response, I think that would be a cop-out, actually, I'm going
to say more.
The fact is, I'm happy to support this project and to deny the appeal, even if I had leeway
to deny it, I wouldn't.
I identify as a pro-housing council member.
I was very openly pro-housing when I ran for this position,
and I was elected with 75% of the vote.
I make that point, not to brag,
but there's a sentiment that this sort of,
approving this sort of project
is somehow against the will of the voters,
and it's not democratic.
And I have to push back against that.
That's just not the way I see it.
I think it's clear from the makeup of the council
that the people of Berkeley,
and also people who don't live in Berkeley, by the way,
who wish to want more housing.
And they want housing projects like this one
that are close to transit.
It's not displacing anyone or any businesses.
It is displacing a mural, and I'm salty about that,
but overall, it's a good project.
And it also includes a really meaningful amount
of actual mathematically affordable housing,
a very significant amount.
With all the respect to the appellants,
most of the arguments in the appeal,
many of them demand that our staff go above and beyond
following their own established procedures,
which if we were to agree to that,
I think it would be a huge blow to fairness and equity.
That's a really important value of running a city.
And a number of the other appeal points,
I don't want to dismiss,
I don't mean to dismiss the importance of them.
They make sense, they're real complaints,
but having been on the zoning board for more than 10 years,
these same complaints, these objections are raised
for almost every single large housing project.
Construction impact, shadows, traffic and parking.
These things are brought up every single time.
And if we denied projects based on these factors,
we would have built almost no housing in the last 15 years.
And that, as I mentioned in the beginning,
would be unacceptable to me
because I want more housing in the city
and I'm gonna continue to support more housing.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I'll be brief.
We've all had a lot of time to express our comments.
And so to be clear, you know, look,
like Council Member O'Keefe mentioned,
I also was elected pretty clearly
because I do support development of new housing in Berkeley,
of all types.
We've made a lot of progress as a community
over the last few years,
but we know that there's a lot more to do.
Not just by the way on the rental housing,
but also on condos and housing for purchase.
It's also why I was so appreciative of the work
We've done the ADU ordinance where people can now,
we're making that available for ADUs to be purchased
separately as a potential starter home
for folks who need housing at that price point.
So transoriented development, middle housing,
our ADU policy, that's all part of this housing solution,
this kind of mix of different tactics
that are in the arrows and the quiver, as it were.
And projects like this are also part of the solution.
I do appreciate the concerns
that have been raised by the appellants,
and it's why I kept coming back to ideas
that my colleagues have also mentioned,
which is what's the standard, what is our discretion,
like what's the threshold that we would need
to determine to say that it rose to a level
where we would need to somehow move this back to ZAB
or support the appeal, but given, in my view,
that it appears, as I've read the record,
that the environmental review process steps have been met.
I don't see how this meets the level of adverse,
specific adverse impact on health and safety.
I just, that's a very high standard,
as other people have said.
That's to me the prong that the opponents are asking us
to rely upon, and I'm sympathetic,
and I understand the concerns,
but I don't see that it rises to that level
as I do my analysis.
One other point.
I also do appreciate the feedback
that folks have given about the corridors project.
I'm very sensitive to the argument that current zoning
and the current density bonus
already support developments of seven or eight stories
along Shattuck.
So it does raise the question,
what is the point of doing further up zoning
if we're already ending up with housing
at the level of seven or eight stories,
which feels appropriate to me.
And so as we move forward, again,
I'm in a dialogue with a lot of folks on this subject.
I've met with the business owners a couple of times
and meeting with residents in District Six and nearby.
I want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about this process
because, again, we are continuing to move forward
on the development of new housing,
and I think that is the right path,
absolutely the right path as a community.
I also just want to make sure that we strike the right balance as we move
forward, um, beyond this project. Um, and so, um, um,
as we continue on that path, I'll just,
I wanted to sort of articulate that as well because I think this is a great
project. Um, and I'm really, um, I think this will do a lot of
good. Um, and I think this feels appropriate for this,
um, uh, for this neighborhood,
but it feels like it also may be about,
at least from my perspective and from neighbors I've talked to,
that may be about the limit of maybe what's appropriate in this quarter.
So again, I just want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about what this means
moving forward because under existing zoning,
we're ending up with a really good project in this neighborhood.
And I just, I appreciate that fact.
And I appreciate the feedback that some others have shared about that tonight.
So I will be supporting a project.
I will vote to deny the appeal,
but I at least wanted to get some of my thoughts on the record. Thank you.
Thank you. Council Member Kessarwani. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I just wanted
to, I don't typically respond to the public commenters. I want to thank the
public commenters. I did want to respond to one point that was made which is sort
of questioning why would anyone who owns a home in the hills ever think about
downsizing. I just need to help, maybe I need to just help explain why that might
might be. You know, as people age, it's no longer safe for them to drive. As people age,
they may lose their vision. They may lose their hearing. You know, we have people with
disabilities who aren't able to drive. So it is very important that we think of the
full array of people who live in our city and make sure we think about opportunities
for people to be able to, if they want to,
downsize and live in a neighborhood that is more walkable.
I mean, this is at the corner of Virginia and Shattuck.
It's walkable to multiple grocery stores.
It's a public transit corridor.
So it's really an important resource
to be able to locate housing here.
And somebody said, you know, why would you do that on a financial basis?
Well, there's now Prop 19 that allows homeowners over the age of 55 who have
disabilities or who are victims of wildfire to transfer their tax base anywhere in
the state. So there are a lot of reasons why, uh,
for aging homeowners in the Hills who can no longer drive down to get their
gallon of milk. This makes a lot of sense for them. And, uh,
council member Black can be talked about it.
we are trying to actually provide other opportunities
for people to downsize and own a starter home
or a downsized home across the city.
So, excuse me, there are, we are going to now
with the second reading that I recused from
have accessory dwelling units for sale as starter homes
or a downsizing opportunity.
I think next meeting we're gonna look at subdivision
as it relates to middle housing
so that there can be multiple small cottages
on a lot and I have an item that's gonna be heard
by the Land Use Policy Committee
to look at a local density bonus
so that we could make it easier to create
some of these larger condo projects in the downtown
or in other public transit corridors for this very reason
and the reason why I think it's so important
is because Berkeley, the Thousand Oaks neighborhood,
It's the oldest neighborhood in the Bay Area.
And so we have a very aging population.
And you think of the Thousand Oaks neighborhood,
you know, parts of that neighborhood
are not necessarily walkable to grocery stores.
So I think this is really important.
Excuse me.
So I think this is really important.
Please don't speak
or the council members are speaking.
You know, to be able to provide this opportunity
for people, it doesn't make sense for everybody.
It is, it does make sense for some people
and some people are really telling us
that they want these opportunities to downsize
and stay in the community that they know and love.
And so, so I just wanted to make that point
and thank all my colleagues, thank the staff
and thank the public commenters
for all of your comments.
Thank you, Council, for your comments.
I do just wanna add that I know some folks are saying
that they feel like this process can be confusing
and they feel like the information is difficult to get
and to understand.
And so I just wanna say that we are working
to continuously make these processes more transparent
and clear and I really wanna thank staff
because I know you also answer a lot of questions
for folks in the community but also from council members.
And thank you for the presentation as well.
I didn't get to say that earlier.
Okay, so is there a motion?
I move approval of this recommendation.
Second.
Clerk, can you please take the roll?
Okay.
To deny the appeal and affirm
the Zoning Adjustments Board decision
on use permit ZP2024-0066.
Council member Kester-Wany?
Yes.
Tap one?
Yes.
Bartlett? Yes. Tragov? Aye. O'Keeffe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes.
Unapara? Yes. Humber? Yes.
And Maryishi? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay, we are now
moving on to public comment for items not listed on the agenda. Is there anyone online?
Uh, yes, there's 2 hands raised for non agenda, public comments.
1st, is Tony, yes, I'd like to talk about the, um.
The, the upgrade that's recommended that's being suggested for the carters. Um, and I tend to agree that.
If, sorry, Tony, give me 1 2nd, could you pause?
I folks, I know you're you're heading out. Could you please have your conversations outside?
So that we can hear from the public commenters, thank you.
Sorry, Tony, go ahead.
I just want to say that it seems ridiculous to upzone more
because if we can get seven or eight stories
with the current corridor zoning, including San Pablo Avenue,
why would we risk not getting the affordable housing units
that we get with the density bonus?
If we raise the base unit to seven or eight stories,
we're not going to get affordable housing
under the density bonus.
And so it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive
to up-zone when we're already getting benefits.
Thank you, Tony.
Okay.
And last public commenter is Eid.
Go ahead.
Hi. You know, when you walk or drive through Berkeley, it looks like really pretty much
a box town. It wasn't like that beautiful town it was in the 60s, 70s, and even the
80s. This high rise is, they all make the city very ugly, and the more built, the more
rent increases. A one-bedroom now goes in Berkeley for over $2,000. That is disgusting.
The fact is the mega landlords, one of which David Rui,
he was a bicycle shop owner,
small tiny bicycle shop owner, had that big business.
They have control.
Did you ever see a whole Mary again, and many others.
It is wrong.
It is wrong.
This big price boxes are very big risk and vigorous equates
which are coming also doesn't help anybody.
We need to go forward.
Again, my phone number is five,
my company phone number five one zero eight four eight five zero zero zero
fifty fifty two years old phone number I wish everybody well but it's too there
was just one more speaker Cheryl Davila former council member
is this a public comment after the meeting on non-agenda items yes I can't
hear you. Yes it is. Okay can you start my clock over please? Yeah so it's interesting that you know
the people are against something or for something and you never vote the way that the people
vote. To me that sounds like collusion, possibly corruption, possibly a monetary gain of some
sort in order to get these developers to achieve the goals that they want to achieve and not
listen to the people. And the fact that you still don't care about Palestine, Palestinians,
people dying every day still being martyred. There was no ceasefire. So free Palestine.
And you know how are you preparing for one more this is the last the last speaker after
it.
Nope.
Hand went down.
Okay.
That's it.
Thank you all for your public comment on on agenda items I will now entertain a motion
to to adjourn second can take the role please clerk okay to adjourn council member kiss
Councilmember Tarwani. Yes. Taplin. Wait. Councilmember Taplin. Councilmember Taplin. Yes. Bartlett. Yes. Tragob. Hi. Okey. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Unapara. Yes. Humber. Yes. And Mayor Ishii. Yes. Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you everyone, thank you staff. Thank you Berkeley