Good evening everyone. I'm calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting
today's Tuesday, April 14th, 2026 and it is 605 p.m. Can you please take the roll
clerk? Okay. Councilmember Kesser-Wani? Here.
tap one and some of Taplin I see he's on this is some let's see you can contact
him let's see councilmember Bartlett is currently absent councilmember treggem
present he here black to be here I'm gonna par here umber present and mayor
ishy here customer Taplin are you present on on the zoom can you hear us
well we'll see if he if he's able to join there's a quorum present in
and council member Kessarwani is participating
under the just participating remotely under the Just Cause
exception in the Brown Act a quorum of the council is
participating in person at the physical meeting location that
was noticed.
Council member Kessarwani if you could
provide a general description of the circumstances relating
to your need to appear remotely.
But please do not disclose any medical diagnosis
disability or other confidential medical information? My reason is a family care
need. Okay and Councilmember Taplin is here. Councilmember Taplin, if you could
provide a brief general description of the circumstances relating to your need
to appear remotely such as a contagious illness family caregiving need. Can you
hear us at this time okay. Councilmember Kesserwani if you could publicly
disclose whether there are any individuals 18 years of age or older
present in the room from which you are participating and if so their
relationship to you. There are no individuals present in the room in which
I'm participating in. Okay and council members Kesserwani and Taplin will
participate through both audio and visual technology for the duration of
the meeting. Councilmember Taplan are you able to to hear us? Yes can you hear me?
Okay if you could provide a brief description of your circumstances
relating to your need to appear remotely such as family caregiving need or
contagious illness or something similar as allowed by the Brown Act. Family
caregiving? Family caregiving, thank you very much and if you Councilman
Taplin could publicly disclose if there is anybody 18 years of age or older in
the room from which you are participating and if so the nature of
their relationship to you. There is none. Okay thank you thank you very much we
can we can proceed Madam Mayor. Thank you so much Mr. City Clerk. We are in the
first meeting of April and so we will read the land acknowledgement. We're
taking turns as council members reading the land acknowledgement and this time
it is council member Brent Blackby's turn. Great thanks Madam Mayor. This is the
land acknowledgement statement. The City of Berkeley recognizes that the
community we live in was built on the territory of Huijun, the ancestral and
unseated land of the Chochenyo speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and
descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance
to all of the Ohlone tribes
and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight,
we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants
of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 year history
of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound
and the Ohlone people who continue to reside
in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have
and continue to benefit from the use
and occupation of this unseated stolen land
since the city of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the 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 Lijean tribe and to create meaningful actions
that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you so much, council member.
So for our ceremonial items this evening,
we have two adjournments in memory.
We're actually gonna start with Cynthia Brantley Pierce first,
who is a community activist.
And I believe we have one of our council members
is going to read something for that.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
It is my honor to read our adjournment in memory
Cynthia Brantley Pierce. We are joining tonight's meeting in memory of Cynthia Brantley Pierce.
If folks are here for her, you're welcome to come up to the podium to receive it if you'd like.
And Cynthia was born April 15, 1964. As tomorrow marks her 62nd birthday,
we hold her memory close this evening in celebration of a life defined by purpose and
passion. Many here know of Cindy as a formidable political fundraiser who helped power the campaigns
of California State Senator Lonnie Hancock, Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, Congresswoman
Lynn Woolsey, and East Bay Regional Parks District Director Elizabeth Eccles. She dedicated
her career to closing the gender gap in our legislatures, championing pro-choice Democratic
women and playing a pivotal role in the early success of Close the Gap California, a non-profit
organization dedicated to advancing women in the California legislature. More recently and despite
her cancer diagnosis in 2019, Cindy's commitment to our democracy never wavered. She volunteered
regularly with the local chapter of Flip the Vote and turned her 60th birthday celebration into a
a massive fundraiser for the cause
that drew hundreds to her beautiful backyard.
Closer to home, she was a staunch supporter
of the Berkeley Public Schools,
lending her expertise to the PTAs at Berkeley Arts Magnet,
King Middle School and Berkeley High,
while also fighting for the passage of local bond measures
to support the school district.
Perhaps the greatest testament to Cindy's legacy
is her children, Clayton and Will,
who are in the chambers tonight.
They carry her spirit and passions forward
through their own work.
Clayton as a lawyer with the ACLU working on voter rights
and Will working with the Movement Voter Project.
Cindy was a devoted mother, wife, sister, daughter
and dear friend to many of us.
She was a community builder
and a tireless advocate for change.
We honor and celebrate her exceptional life
and we'll miss her dearly.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And I think we have a couple of folks
who are going to speak.
Only two of us are going to speak now,
but I was asked to be one of them
because I think Cindy might have been,
well, she and I worked together for a number of years,
and I think she had just moved here
and I was one of her first clients.
She, of course, became a friend and a force to be reckoned with in this entire community.
As Rashi said, Cynthia lived a life of passion and purpose,
and she was the most focused person I ever knew.
She had two great passions, really.
One was that women's voices be heard and represented
when decisions were made about the community.
And the other was her family.
And her, I'll say her extended family and community.
She had several houses on one lot,
something we're looking at doing now, more of at Berkeley,
up with family members living there.
It was beautiful, it was a community,
and many people involved in Berkeley's future were there.
I hope, I'm really honored to be here.
I hope her family understands how much she loved them
and how much all of us love her and them
as they continue their journeys in our community.
Good evening, my name is Betsy Cotton
and I'm the former executive director
for Close the Gap California,
an organization focused on creating gender parity
in the state legislature by 2028.
I'm honored to have the opportunity to speak tonight
about my colleague and friend, Cynthia Brantley-Pierce,
who was one of our organization's early fundraisers
and instrumental in propelling the organization forward.
Cynthia was also the go-to fundraiser
for Democratic pro-choice women in the Bay Area.
It was no one better at political fundraising than Cynthia.
She was smart, organized, and most importantly,
knew how to get a crowd in the room.
There was no saying no to Cynthia.
I'm particularly grateful that Cynthia chose
to share her talents with Close the Gap.
We were a young organization with a big mission
to get to gender parity in the California legislature.
In recent years, gender representation
in the California legislature had slipped dramatically
to less than 25%, and we were determined
to reverse this trend.
With Cynthia taking charge of our fundraising,
closed the gap grew exponentially,
allowing the organization to hire much needed recruiters
and get our name out across the state.
And it paid off.
California has now reached gender parity
in the state Senate.
We are on track to achieve gender parity
in the state assembly in 2026.
None of this could be achieved
without Cynthia's skill and leadership.
I had the opportunity to work with Cynthia last year
on a gubernatorial event between her treatments.
She got to work and made the event a huge success,
showing up with a large network of women
from the community she's developed over the years.
I'm struck by the impact of deeply principled
changemakers like Cynthia, who spend their lives
working to make the world a better place.
I know that all of us in the East Bay
and across the Bay Area will miss her example
of professionalism, commitment, passion,
and most of all friendship.
Thank you.
Do you guys want to guess?
Yeah, that's right.
Come on in.
It's a joke, I mean.
You got it?
No, you can pick it.
My first day with the phone.
Thank you.
Mayor, I see that Council Member Bartlett has joined,
so we just need to do the Just Cause exemption
script for Council Member Bartlett as well.
Council Member Bartlett is participating remotely
into the Just Cause exception.
And Council Member Bartlett, if you could provide a brief
description of circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely at this
time. Yes under doctor's orders I'm remanded to the home. Okay and if you
could you disclose if there is anybody 18 years of age or older in the room
with you and if so what is their relationship to you? There's a
professional nanny in the adjacent room with my six-year-old. Okay thank you very
very much. Thank you. We can proceed. Thank you. We have another adjournment in memory
that councilmember Trager will read. Thank you so much to councilmember Kesserwani for
reading the previous one. Go ahead councilmember for Winston Burton. And so Winston's family
or friends if you're here you're welcome to also come up to the podium. Thank you. Winston
Edward Barton, a devoted father, community advocate,
and lifelong educator, passed away on January 26th
at age 77 after a long battle with diabetes.
A proud father of three, grandfather of four,
and great grandfather of two,
Winston loved his family deeply
and dedicated his life to serving others,
especially those on the margins of the Berkeley community.
Born in Philadelphia, and I'll never forget,
his torn reminder, whenever I did anything wrong,
or not up to standard, that you can take me out of Philly,
but you can take Philly out of me, he would say.
He began his career as a cab driver
before becoming an electronics instructor
and pioneering workforce training program.
From launching a program for single mothers
in electronics to developing employment initiatives
for displaced workers, refugees, and unhoused individuals.
His work spanned decades and changed countless lives.
After moving to the Bay Area in 1982,
Winston dedicated himself to expanding opportunity
for others.
He began with Advocates for Women in Hayward.
Then, in 1983, developed and led the Refugee Employment
Program for Catholic Charities of Oakland.
In 1988, he became Employment Coordinator and Program
Director at BOSS, Building Opportunities
for Self-Sustainability, where he
focused on creating job training and employment
pathways for unhoused individuals
across Alameda County, work that reflected
his lifelong commitment to dignity, equity,
and community impact.
Winston also became a leader in community service,
working with organizations like BOSS,
but also serving on numerous local boards,
including the Berkeley Public Library Board of Trustees
and the NAACP Berkeley Chapter,
where I got to work with him when he was its president.
He was also a musician in his youth,
a devoted sports fan, a beloved organizer
of family and community gatherings.
He believed in bringing people together
across differences with honesty, humor, and respect.
He is survived by his three sons, grandchildren,
great-grandchildren, and extended family,
who are here today, and all of whom carry forward
his legacy of compassion, equity, and community.
May his soul rest in power.
May his legacy continue to inspire the Berkeley community,
our beloved Berkeley community that he loved so dearly.
Thank you.
My dad taught me a lot of things,
but most of all, he taught me to never give up
and that nothing is ever easy.
He would fight with a DMV or Kaiser for hours on hold
and always stay on the line rather than receiving a callback
because it was faster, very persistent, immovable,
like a stone in a riverbed.
He taught me how important it was
to stay level-headed in every situation,
or as he called it, the middle path.
Here are a few of my favorite parables, he would say,
that are now instilled in me.
And hopefully, they will stay with all of you as well.
Any time I was frustrated or anxious about something,
He would tell me, a journey of 1,000 miles
begins with a single step.
Or his version, by the yard is hard, but an inch is a cinch.
Neither too high or too low.
Sometimes when you stop, the faster you go.
If you're trying to get ahead, don't
let the sun catch you lying in the bed.
Or my favorite and most calcified
within my conscious being, once a job is once begun,
do it well until it's done.
Be it big or be it small, do it well or not at all.
Last but not least, his favorite and shortest quote,
obstacle popsicle.
For a long time, I didn't understand the meaning of this.
But as I grow older, to me, it means no excuses.
All I ask is you remember my father for the man he was
and what he has done for you and the community.
Thank you.
All to the end, kneel down.
Thank you.
Thank you all so much.
I appreciate everyone's being respectful
while we do the ceremonial matters.
It's very sad when we lose people in our community,
especially those who have been so involved.
We will now move on to city manager comments.
I don't have any comments tonight, Madam Mayor.
Thank you.
thank you all right we will now take public comment on non-agenda matters
okay so we'll pick uh five cards uh here in person and then we'll go to the first
five hands raised um on the zoom and each speaker will have uh one minute each and again this is only
for items that are not on the agenda.
Can we confirm that people online can hear us?
You can hear?
Okay, all right, thank you.
For, no, if it's on the agenda, you don't need a card.
Okay, so the five in-person speakers,
and you can come up in any order.
We have Ravi Bath.
We have Hurrant
PJ Singh
Amrit Singh and
Jared Essig
See you can come up in any order to talk on items that are not on the agenda
And you have one minute each
If you could you can come and line up here if you'd like to
Good evening
Madam Mayor City Council members. I'm here again to talk about
How important is to tell stories we've heard two stories?
Wonderful individuals are being celebrated because they've done such a great job
And I'm here to request that
When we celebrate we need to make sure that we celebrate those individuals
Accurate stories stories is what makes us who we are and I am requesting you to
Consider
How Kalabagai way was named? It's very disheartening to our community and I have spent working months
finding the evidence which doesn't support the narrative that was presented to the city and we are willing to share the evidence and
We want to work with you
To restore this. Thank you. Thank you
Come on up if your name was called and if your name was called you can also line up over here
On the mayor and members of the council. My name is a Ravi bath
I'm here to express the sentiments of my community that has been discerned
by the city decision of naming portion of Shattuck Avenue as
Calabaga way and request the city correct the historical inaccuracy
The current designation is based on narrative that portrays Kalabagai as a social activist
who suffered discrimination as an immigrant from India.
However, factual documentation suggests a different history.
Our research indicates that she was the spouse of Westinabagai, a colonial supply, and lived
a life of significant privilege and socialite with substantial property and market investments.
Furthermore, noting the recent resolution to name the park, recently dedicated to Cesar
Chavez, I request that the city apply same standard.
I urge you to re-name Calabgue after an individual who authentically devoted their life to fighting
discrimination and racism.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Good afternoon, City Councillors, Mayor, City Manager, my name is Jared Esig.
I'm here to speak to you about accessibility
for government services.
I was here about a decade ago, and I recently came back,
and I looked for a map of Berkeley,
and it was very hard to find.
This is available in your visitor center in Addison,
but it took me two hours to find this.
I went to City Hall.
I went to the Civic Center on Center Street,
and no one even knew where the visitor center was.
Someone looked it up eventually and pointed me there.
Eventually, I got a map of Berkeley.
But then I came back and looked for the location
and the agenda for the City Council meeting.
And also, both in the City Hall and Civic Center,
no one knew what the agenda was or where the meeting was.
In fact, you don't even have a city employee in the lobby.
You have a security contractor.
And they did a very good job, actually.
But you need a city employee as a concierge or an ombudsman.
Thank you so much.
accessible. I question whether you even meet California. Thank you. Your time is actually- This might be a legal assembly for all I know. Thank you so much.
Our last speaker.
Thank you. I stand with the PJ and Ravinder Bhatt's comments. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so that
Okay.
Now we'll go to the
speakers with their hands raised. This is for public comments for items not on the agenda.
We have three hands raised. First is Joseph.
People think Temple OS is a joke because of the graphics, but as a matter of fact, that's God's plan because it's like
I have to explain this over and over right? Oh, why does he get like using a fiction graphics, right?
No, God wants it 640 by 480 forever.
and only 16 colors though, because, let me explain the logic, my mom taught preschool
and they used to do crayon colorings right, and she said it's kind of weird like as soon as
the kids made something with colors for some reason to take a black crayon and put it all over
and like you get a really ugly thing covered with black and she just said she just was wondering
maybe some feeling of power or something you know black is a they can't overwrite the other colors
and stuff but uh so like inevitably when you give the kids a black crayon they're gonna like cover
the whole thing with black and so she used to take away the black crayon and uh that's that's
kind of the logic here you guys favorite game is donkey kong right so like uh it's like dude you
give him you give him that high resolution and stuff and what do they do we also have another
the next raise hand is also a speaker named joseph joseph you should be able to unmute
Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Yes, my name is Joseph Fuad Refiklu. I am a proud Azhar Bhajani
immigrant and I would like to talk to you about a problem that has been plaguing our city. My family
owns a Medicare business where we help facilitate Medicare to people who need it and our city is
being overrun by Armenian rats who come in and use fake Medicare businesses to destroy our systems
and take over our country. We need to stop the Armenian. Next is Delaluna. Yeah, I guess I'll
start by speaking on that. I wish whoever was in charge of that could be faster on getting those
bogus calls out of here because they can be offensive and racist quite easily.
I want to just speak about the pedestrian crosswalk at the Ashby Bar. Construction started
I guess finished over six weeks ago but all the cones were taken down and the crosswalk has not
been painted or finished and I'm requesting that you put construction cones back to indicate that
there is a crosswalk for the drivers. I feel like pedestrians are quite confident in that space
but the drivers not seeing the crosswalk is quite dangerous for the pedestrians.
Secondly at the last meeting there was a lot of like trying to direct public comment or speed it
up but that is part of the process and this body needs to acknowledge that when you put something
on the agenda, that means you're going to listen to public comment. So there's not
to be directed or redirected or get everyone in line and faster, faster, faster, all of
that is unnecessary. If there's no time for something, then put it on another agenda.
And it's changing what goods put on the agenda will impact the public comment rather than
trying to speed direct it one by one, every person. That energy should not happen in the
Thank you. And then we have Pauline Pauline you should be able to unmute. Hi. Thank you
very much honorable mayor and City Council. My name is Pauline Bondano Cross and I own
a community health educate I'm the executive director of Community Health Education Institute.
I wanted to comment on item 13 on the voting this evening. Item 13 on the agenda will be
taking up comments on the consent calendar soon.
OK, thank you.
That's it.
All right.
Thank you.
We are now going to move on to public comment
by employee unions, which happens
at the first regular meeting of the month.
And I believe I saw a Maureen.
I brought a few friends with me in case
I need some more time.
Five minutes is the max for this portion.
Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Amore Langmome and I am the president of the Berkeley Firefighters Local 1227.
Tonight I want to use my time to speak on the notice of proposed position eliminations
I received last Friday.
In total, 20 positions have been proposed for elimination along with the closure of
Fire Station 4.
I want to make the case tonight for why this is an incredibly dangerous position for the
city to take.
I also want to highlight something that should not be lost in this conversation.
Over the last 18 years, the citizens of Berkeley have given the city a clear mandate to fund
public safety.
They passed two dedicated fire department tax measures, Measure GG in 2008 and Measure
FF in 2020, bringing in nearly $16.2 million annually.
That is the public telling the city repeatedly that they value this service.
Tonight's proposal moves in opposition of direct direction of that mandate.
These cuts roll with the department back 20 years.
These proposed cuts don't just reduce the fire department, they roll it back 20 years
in a city that has grown dramatically in every direction since then.
The call volume in the same period of time has gone from 11,000 incidences per year to
17,500.
The city is growing and we are moving backward.
Berkeley is the second most densely populated city in California's top 50 behind only San
Francisco.
We're adding 500 new housing units every year, roughly 1% of total housing stock
annually.
Population swells to over 150,000 when you see is in session. That's more
people, more calls, more incidents, fewer firefighters. Station four is not
a low volume luxury. Engine four ran 1538 calls in 2025. That includes 28
fires, 966 medical emergencies and 17 cardiac arrests.
47% of the time, citywide, there are multiple simultaneous incidents, units are already
committed when the next call drops.
Engines two, five, and six are already at or above recommended maximum call limit.
Station fours, 1,538 annual calls don't disappear when you close it.
They get pushed onto companies that are already maxed out.
The life safety math.
minute of delay and cardiac arrest reduces survival by seven to ten percent.
Modern home fires reach flashover in nine to six minutes. Fires double in size
every 30 to 60 seconds. Traumatic injuries responses, response over
twenty twelve, I'm sorry, twelve minutes are linked to nearly double the
fatality rate compared to response under seven minutes. These are not
abstractions. Engine four responded to 17 cardiac arrest last year alone. The
The city's new experts said the resource,
if we need to add resources, not cut them.
In 2023, the city paid
for an independent standards of coverage study.
City hates conclusion.
Berkeley Fire Department is organized for yesterday's mission
and is struggling to meet today's demand.
Their recommendation at four-person staffing
to at least four or seven engine companies
and both truck companies.
Four-person crews complete fire ground tasks
5.1 minutes faster
25% faster on life the life safety tasks like fire attack and search and rescue
The bottom line the citizens of Berkeley have voted twice in 18 years to fund the department
They have given the city a 16.2 million a year
Mandate, I'm asked to see you reject the proposed position eliminations and the closure
the closure of fire station 4 and
direct
The city manager to find another path forward. Thank you
Thank you. Is there anyone else here from a union that wants to speak?
Or maybe sometimes folks are online
Representatives. Thank you. And thank you all for being here
Okay, we're moving on to the consent calendar
So I will start off to see if my council colleagues have comments
Starting with councilmember Humbert
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I'm making reference to the item on the action calendar number 18
Which is a Mills Act contract for 2845 Woolsey which was continued for March
24 2026 the agenda for that meeting
I'd like to request unanimous support for the item being returned to the consent calendar
Based on conversation with staff. I feel comfortable with the Mills Act contract being approved the application came in before the pause and
The LPC's lack of action appears to have been the result of some absences
As well as uncertainty created by the pause and how to dispose of Mills Act
Applications already in progress for fairness is sake. I think it's reasonable to approve this one understanding that once all outstanding
Applications received before the cut-off are processed. We won't be reviewing or approving
any more for the foreseeable future so I'd ask unanimous consent to place that
back on consent. Thank you. I see no opposition to that so okay we will move
that to consent then. Thank you. And then I have just one more comment on the
consent calendar two hundred and fifty dollar contribution to number 15 which
is sponsored by councilmember Bartlett the celebration for Sylvia Mendez the
spring cultural celebration two hundred and fifty dollars from our office account
thank you thank you very much moving on to councilmember back be thanks madam
mayor just two brief comments similarly on item 14 the kala art relinquishment
we'd like to relinquish $250 from the district six account and item 15 on the
Sylvia Mendez spring cultural celebration similarly we want to
relinquish $250 and I wanted to thank council member customer wani and team
for bringing item 13 the referral to establish citywide local density bonus
program facilitate lower cost ownership homes, the condo item. I'm really interested in hearing
back from staff on what might be possible there and I wanted to thank Councilmember Kesterwani
for bringing it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Tracob.
Thank you so much Madam Mayor. Thank you to city staff for all your work to bring a number
of items on consent. I'm very happy to support item number four, which is a downtown Berkeley
Association bid renewal. This vital, well, or funding allocation, gap funding allocation.
This vital organization is making so much good happen in our beloved downtown from continuously
keeping up with our businesses and property owners to keeping our downtown clean and cared
for to relentlessly and creatively beautifying it.
Thank you so much, John and the entire DBA staff,
as well as our economic development department
for your ongoing support and help.
On item 12, which is to start a process
to rename Cesar Chavez Park,
I'm happy to support this item.
I believe it creates a path
for thoughtful community engagement
while ensuring that we continue to honor
the legacy of farm workers and their essential contributions
and, I think, of farm workers like the father of my life
partner, a manong who immigrated from the Philippines
to start a life here for him and his family and support them.
On item 14, I would like to thank Council Member Kesserwani and my co-sponsors for this
item, which relates to making it easier to move stout projects, including in our downtown
forward.
I am supporting this item because it is our duty
to explore all viable solutions to make sure
that our precious downtown properties
are not sitting vacant and abandoned.
This is a referral, and I look forward to staff returning
with the information that the referral requests.
This process will I think continue to benefit
from all the thoughtful community engagement
that we received, and I look forward to seeing it
when it comes back.
On items 14 and 15, I'm happy to contribute $150
from my council office budget
to support these important community initiatives.
And lastly, on item 17, which is support for amendments
to the Berkeley green code.
I am grateful to Council Member Luna Parra and Taplin
as my co-sponsors.
And I'm grateful to staff, particularly Jordan
and the Office of Environmental Sustainability
for your work in this item.
These amendments will help ensure that Berkeley continues
to be a climate leader when it comes to green buildings,
including both new and existing construction.
It also includes opportunities to streamline
the permitting of green features, such as heat pumps,
and to make it easier for residents and builders alike
to adopt more sustainable technologies.
please to see this item moving forward in a way in a way that advances our
sustainability goals while also making implementation more practical and
accessible and I'm grateful to those who have called in or written in in
support of this item including the Sierra Club thank you thank you very much
Councilmember Lanapara, thank you. I would like to donate $150 to item 14 and
$250 to item 15 and thank you to the authors. I also want to thank Mayor Ishii
and the community for their work on item 12 to rename the Cesar Chavez Park and
align our holiday with the states and thank Vice Mayor Trago for his work on
the green building codes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember
vote. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would
like to be recorded as donating
$100 to Kala. And $100 for the
Sylvia Mendez Spring Celebration.
And I just wanted to thank my
colleagues for their support of
the local density bonus item to
promote condo development. Thank
you very much.
Thank you. Councilmember Bartlett.
please excuse the background noise uh the uh i'd like to $150 to item 14 the color arts
center a beautiful place uh item uh 13 really happy about the local density bonus for affordable
condominium ownership we heard that at the landers committee uh that i chair and i'm
really pleased with the outcome and look and thank you for putting this forward uh
councilmember keserwani uh the uh i'd like to um of course uh thank you all and for supporting
Sylvia Mendez cultural celebration. It's, you know, it's a bilingual school. This is a really good
party every year. So I'm gonna of course add 250 to that for myself. Oh I guess I have a thousand
for me. Gonna confirm this thousand dollars for my budget here for this one. And then also Delores
Cooper is a stalwart member of the community. This is item, item 16. And so the people came forward
and asked us to to consider naming this plaza over there after Delores Cooper. Delores Cooper of
of course, is the long time head of Juneteenth
and has really made maximum use of that location.
And so it'd be a wonderful treasure
if the commission decides to name it after her.
And then last but not least, I do want to call out,
I couldn't speak earlier, Winston Burton
was a lifelong friend of mine from childhood.
And he was a wonderful human being,
a powerful advocate, a true Berkeley original,
and he will be missed.
And if his family's listening or still there,
my prayers go out to you.
And I just saw him in the hospital just four months ago,
and I was really stunned that he didn't come out of it
the right way.
And my prayers are with you.
God bless, Winston.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Keith.
Thank you.
Just briefly, I would like to be recruited
as donating $200 for items 14 and 15,
both seem like worthy causes.
And my only other comment is I really want to thank
council member Kessarwani for item 13.
I think this is a really important policy whole,
for lack of a better word,
that this is a very important correction to be made.
So thank you so much for bringing that item.
I'm happy to support it.
Thank you very much.
Council member Humber,
did you have something else you wanted to add?
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
I missed number 14, the Kalaw,
I guess is how do you pronounce it art 2026
and would like to donate $250
from my office account to that item.
Thank you.
I'd also like to add $250 from my account
for item number 14 and thank council member Taplin
for bringing it and a thank you to council member Bartlett
for bringing item 15 for the Sylvia Mendez
culture of celebration and also donate $250
from my office's discretionary funds for that item as well.
Oh, I missed council member Taplin.
Go ahead, council member.
Thank you very much.
I was a little late there.
I would also like to relinquish 500 for item 15, thanks.
Thank you very much.
And also since I know some of the folks are here,
I really want to thank everyone who we'd have conversations
with about Cesar Chavez and the renaming
of the various different holidays and sites within our city.
We've had many community conversations
over the last week and I'm very grateful
to everyone who's weighed in and given us their thoughts.
So thank you very much.
I know this has been a really challenging situation
for the community, so thank you.
Okay, with that, I will see if there's any public comment
on consent calendar and information items only.
Just come on up.
Just come forward, line up along the wall there
and you can come forward to speak, yes.
One minute per speaker.
Good evening, Madam Mayor, council members,
and city manager.
I'm here, I'm go by Duran.
I'm here to talk about item 13,
local density bonus program.
And I believe you cannot legally establish
a new local density bonus program
while the mayor and the council
actually actively enable a documented density fraud
at 2425 Duran.
I'd like to understand why you insist, pass,
and uphold the permit.
While I was here, you testify that there's
material fraud in terms of how they apply
the permit with 19 unit, you give the high density bonus,
while in reality, there's only 15 operation safety limit
existing at the cost of tenants life safety
with preventable emergencies taking places already.
And I've, thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Good evening everybody.
My name is Ursula Schulz and I'm a Berkeley resident
and I'm speaking on item 13.
And the one thing I think is very useful
about the recent projects with density bonuses
is they require a minimum amount of reduced cost housing.
The problem I see with the in lieu fee
is it just reiterates the red lining
that was there before.
Because what's gonna happen, you're suggesting that
these fees go to the Ashby Bart station.
I'm sorry, can you hear me?
And I don't think it's beneficial to the working families
who need housing in high resource districts
or the small business employees
who would like to live near their jobs.
And the fees go elsewhere.
Also there's a percentage of the fees
that are administratively consumed.
So the condominiums stay exclusive
and the previously redlined neighborhoods remain so.
Building market rate condominiums, you got it.
Thank you. Thank you.
I'm requesting two extra minutes, John and Harvey.
Sorry, I couldn't see who was the second person.
Harvey.
Oh, okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good evening, my name is Michael Apte.
I'm a Berkeley resident speaking to item 13,
the proposed citywide local density bonus
for condominium development.
This proposal asks the council
to allow condominium developers anywhere in Berkeley
to elect to pay in new fees
instead of building any affordable housing on site.
For every unit in the project, not some units, all of them,
I wanna raise three specific concerns.
First, where the affordable housing goes,
the proposal directs those fees
into the city's housing trust fund
to be spent on affordable housing elsewhere.
It explicitly names Aspie East parking lot
in West Berkeley as a destination.
West Berkeley is a historically lower income,
historically underserved neighborhood.
So the structural outcome is this,
the market rate condominium development
and Berkeley's wealthiest neighborhoods generate zero
onsite affordable housing while the affordable units
get redirected to lower income areas.
The wealthy neighborhoods get exclusive market rate
condominiums, the affordable housing goes
where it always has.
Second, whether the affordable housing gets built at all.
This is the part of the proposal I found most troubling.
Nowhere in item 13 is there a specific dollar commitment,
a minimum funding requirement or binding timeline
for how the collective fees must be deployed.
The proposal says fees can fund
affordable housing elsewhere, can, not shall, not must.
The council would be authorizing developers
to avoid all onsite portability applications
in exchange for fees whose actual deployment
to affordable housing is entirely discretionary.
Third, what the data tells us,
Berkeley's own Reina Records show us
that in the last completed eight year housing cycle,
we built 228% of our market rate housing target.
Only 28% of our low income target.
We do not have a market rate production problem.
We have an affordable housing delivery failure.
A citywide policy that allows market rate condo developers
to avoid onsite affordable units
in exchange for discretionary fees
of unspecified destination does not address that failure.
It is institutionalizes it.
Council Member Keshel Wani has been strong,
a strong advocate for housing equity in the city.
I respect that commitment.
But I would ask her and this council
to reconcile tonight's proposal with it.
General equity means affordable housing
built in high resource neighborhoods,
not discretionary fees that may or may not
housing somewhere else someday this proposal should not pass as written
thank you thank you hi everyone Donald Simon three minutes please thank you
all and I do mean thank you because after meeting with a lot of you you have
a pretty thankless job you're responsible for the whole city and seems
like no matter what you do somebody's gonna give you heck for it and you've
got to put up with a lot of stuff and I think we saw a little bit of that earlier
today. So, I do not mean this to be critical. I hope that it will be insightful. You've
heard from others already about a glaring deficiency in this condo density bonus proposal.
And I want to make sure it's very, very clear as to what the outcome is if you push this
forward. You all identify as progressives, which is appropriate. This is Berkeley, California.
You have rightfully identified the sins of the past where practices such as redlining
enforced a segregationist housing system where the wealthy live over here and the poor
live over here.
And I know this is the last thing you want, but if this thing goes forward, you will be
creating the new Jim Crow of housing segregation right here in Berkeley.
Now why is that?
Because in some meetings I've seen that it's not clearly understood.
The state has set a policy that to advance fair housing,
to promote the desegregation where we all live together
is one, which is what everybody in Berkeley wants.
They don't want this continued ghettoization
where the lower income are over here
and the wealthier are over there.
The state has set a policy with the state density bonus
that gives developers what they want,
which is the ability to build more than twice as high
as what cities allow, but in exchange for that,
they have to provide affordable units.
But every time you raise height limits,
whether it's with this density bonus or the CZU,
you obviate and take away that incentive
because the developers get the height they want
without having to include any onsite affordable units.
Now, I understand that puts money into the city budget
in times when we're running short.
I understand that you think
that it's gonna increase property taxes,
but it should not be done by reinforcing,
reinforcing the housing segregation
that got us into this problem to begin with.
We need to provide the mixing of people living together.
And the only way history shows in Berkeley
that you get lower income people
living in market rate housing projects
is when developers use the state density bonus,
just as Patrick Kennedy is doing
in the project on Virginia Street
that you just recently approved.
This was presented as a way to get the stalled projects
in downtown going.
So why is it being presented now
as something that would be applied citywide?
If you go forward with directing staff
to develop an ordinance along these lines
or a proposal on these lines,
you are going to reinforce the very housing segregation
that you have stated it is your intention to eliminate
and that we all would back you on.
And so I'm asking you, on behalf of, say, Berkeley Shops,
and on behalf of myself as a Berkeley resident
that has lived in this area, if you forward this,
limit it to the downtown that it was designed
to help accelerate and do not allow it elsewhere.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
Hi, my name's Joel Meyerson, a Berkeley resident.
Let's describe this local density bonus in simple terms
that are not false comparisons to the state density bonus.
Currently, if a developer wants to build in Berkeley
and not include any onsite affordable housing,
they need to pay an in lieu fee
based on the size of the project.
The bigger the project, the higher the fee.
Under the new plan, they get to pay the same fee,
but they get to build a project that is at least twice as big
and not include any affordable housing.
Effectively, this cuts the fee in half
and bubbles the size of the project.
And the developer gets a number of concessions
and a literally unlimited number of waivers,
like waiving the height limit or whatever.
This is not a density bonus.
It is a density giveaway and a backdoor rezoning plan.
This plan should not even be being considered,
much less being sent to the city manager.
thank you thank you I think it vigorously support the land use policy
committees recommendation to refer to the city manager to have affordable
housing on site through below market rate condos this is necessary for both
apartments and for condos to have economic diversity and other diversity
in our community.
And once that is done,
no action should be taken until we have identified,
the city has identified a formula
to design so that there are
below market rate condos onsite.
Thank you.
I'm gonna see the rest of my time to Merle Siegel.
Thank you.
Good evening, council members.
Thank you for this time.
I just concur with the very eloquent speakers
that spoke about the density bonus.
I too see that if this change
called the local density bonus goes through,
it will further segregate our city.
And I don't think any one of you want to be involved
in that kind of re-segregation or re-redlining of our city.
Furthermore, I just wanted to say something
about middle housing.
past the middle housing and this would also be a boon to middle housing. In other words people who
are now making middle incomes could possibly afford to own something. Can you imagine how
wonderful that would be for people? I can because I was one of those people who could not afford
anything when I had started my career. So I really suggest that you take another look at this. Think
about ways that those condos can create affordable condos. I think it would be a
wonderful gift you could give to the city of Berkeley. Thank you. Thank you.
Christopher Cole, Wes Berkeley. I won't repeat everything you've already heard. I
am actually shocked that this is on the consent calendar and that none of you
have raised any of these concerns that the people you have just heard have
raised very viable issues and it's not appropriate that this comes back in six
months after the staff has gone off and developed it. These issues should be
developed on the action calendar now today before you approve sending it off.
This is horrendous that you were doing this without even adequate public input.
Um, I guess that's all I have to say. You've heard. It's like, how will this
program? Why is this program for downtown? Is it for downtown? Is it a
citywide program? The affordable housing will likely decrease if this
program is passed. But the only way we're getting housing now, affordable
housing is through the density bonus right or am I wrong and this and why
again is this should not be on the consent calendar there's so many issues
that are unresolved and you're gonna send this to the city manager and the
staff's gonna spend staff time building this program. Thank you. Hi council
members and mayor. My name is Mayumi Hamanaka and with Ellen Lake we are
co-executive director for at Kala Art Institute. We're just here tonight to
thank your support and your support really helped us to do our programs
which supports local young artists and teens and adults who are really eager to
create art and engage with the art and community so thank you. Not too much more
to add except for a big thanks from me too for supporting Colart Institute it's
our 52nd year and we've been in Berkeley since 1979 in the old Heinz ketchup
factory building supporting arts and culture in West Berkeley and all over
Berkeley and beyond and so it means a lot for all of you to support our
organization and a special thanks to council member Terry topland and to all
of you thank you thank you thanks for coming good evening my name is Santiago
I'm one of the founders of Latinos Initas in Berkeley,
and I'm also the founder and director
of the Cesar Chavez Delos work, the tribute site,
and solar calendar at Chavez Park,
all names that are gonna change.
I'd like to read this statement.
As part of the commemorative committee
that originally spearheaded the naming of Chavez Park
over 30 years ago,
we sincerely appreciate the mayor's item request
to engage with the Chavez Huerta Commemoration Period partners
in Latinos and neighbors, the Berkeley,
regarding the renaming of Chavez Park
after the toxic news of March 18th
and the abusive harm caused by Cesar Chavez.
Mostly, most importantly, as outlined in the mayor's direction
to the city manager and the Parks and Recreation Commission,
we also support the name change,
continuing to honor the legacy of labor organizing
and solidarity among farm workers
and recognizing them as the backbone of America.
Gracias, my name is Beatriz Leyva Cutler
and I'm part of the commemoration committee
and also former Berkeley School Board member.
We're a sanctuary city embracing and advocating
for our immigrant community
and we are proud of our farmer's markets
which enliven and nourish our city every Saturday,
Tuesday and Thursday for decades.
We support and are committed to the renaming
to reflect this outcome.
the farmworker movement continues.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the commemorative committee which
broadly represents the city, B.O.S.D., and the community.
Gracias.
Muchas gracias.
Thank you.
William Pollack is going to give me his minute.
Council members, I'm asking you to move number 13 to the action calendar and the reason why
When we talked to the land use committees, a lot of people understood that there are
issues that need to be addressed and that, as I explained, there are flaws in the report
that was presented to you.
So my concern is that everybody is saying, oh this is great, we're going to put it on,
we're going to do consent, but nobody is asking the questions that haven't been asked.
And that's what I want to talk about.
The purpose of the local density laws
that were in the report and adopted by other cities
was to increase affordable housing
and that's what was in there.
And yet this one takes it away.
It doesn't address the issues that seniors and family
will not want moved to downtown Berkeley
or what I call Cal Central.
It's geared for the upper middle class single
from outside the city because they're the only ones
who can afford market rate.
Will it be used for absentee landlords who then buy it
and then raise rents?
What happens if it doesn't get billed?
Is the city going to take away their permits?
They haven't so far.
Is there a penalty if it converts to a rental?
Those and more need to be put in an amended referral
that you can't do because you're keeping it
on the action calendar.
What the real issue is here?
Are you guys, excuse me,
are you intending for equity?
Are you intending for inclusiveness?
This is based on a flawed report.
I'm asking you to take it off the consent calendar
and talk about it and ask all those questions
that you haven't asked.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Chrissy Hoffman.
I think I'm here regarding item number 20,
which says amendments to BMC title
and our preservation commission to revise procedures.
Sorry, I think that that is on the action calendar.
So we're right now on consent calendar
and information items only.
Okay, gotcha.
So if you...
Okay, thank you.
Yep, thank you.
Hi, John Cain or Downtown Berkeley Association.
We've had no condos in downtown developed
in the last 30 years.
We've had 2,000 new rental units.
We have 3,000 more in the pipeline,
all student rental housing.
We love the students,
but we need economic diversity in the downtown.
We need people to move out of their homes
in the hills and the flats.
We need young professionals so they can build equity.
We need economic diversity.
We need to support our arts district.
We need to support our restaurants and shops.
Please support item 13
so people can have home ownership in our downtown.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I see you're smiling when you hear support.
I've been following the city since the olden days,
since I was younger.
And in those olden days,
in Luffy was the Nexus studies were on 5% return on investment.
That's how they were calculated.
But now we're looking at 20% return on investment
For construction has kind of been the bottom line and 30% being even better for investors better investment
So if we were looking at the density bonus for only the downtown
I would probably be
Agreeable to that but citywide. I think it's a huge mistake and just like so many others have said
this is really the new redlining and
presentation and as one person suggested, there should be a sunset if it's passed at all. Thank you.
Are there folks online who have public comment on consent calendar information items?
We currently have seven hands raised. This is public comments on consent and information items.
First speaker is David Scheer.
Hi, I want to speak in favor of item 13 if my children will let me.
This is a smart and innovative program. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars
that will be spent on homeless services, that will be spent leveraging state and federal funds to
build affordable housing, that will be spent on things like the small sites program, that will
be spent filling in the gaps, some of the gaps created by our crippling structural deficit.
This proposal will create hundreds, if not thousands, of more affordable for sale units
so that people can have some stability in their lives instead of being tenants for the rest of
their lives. And you know, I think a lot of folks are going to drive home tonight and walk into homes
that cost one and a half million dollars, two million dollars, and they should think about the
fact that they are talking about how building homes that cost half that is somehow comparable
to redlining and gym. I think that's outrageous and I think that this is a really great proposal
and I appreciate it and thank you. Thank you. Okay next is Justin Randall.
Hi everybody, my name is Justin Randall. I'm serving as co-president of the PTA at Sylvia
Mendez and so I just wanted to thank you all. Council member Ben Bartlett has been supporting
our celebration for the last, well this is our our fourth year and everybody has been very supportive
to celebrate the different
cultures that are not
necessarily related to
heritage, but also just the
many different ways that the
members of our community
express themselves. And so if
you guys are available, please
between 11 and two. We'd love to see you at Sylvia Mendez. We're still currently under construction, but it's still a great time to come and and see what the Soviet Mendez community has to offer you.
Thank you. Thanks so much. The invitation.
Next is Pauline.
Pauline, you should be able to unmute.
Hi, my name is Pauline Bandano,
I'm the Director of Community Health Education Institute.
And I wanted to comment on item 13 council members,
I appreciate your time and attention
and your hard work right now.
I believe item 13 will not increase low income housing.
As has been said before, it's market rate housing
and we desperately need low income housing
in many areas of Berkeley, not just market rate housing.
I think there are so many unanswered questions
that have come up in this session with council,
that this needs to come off the consent calendar,
and we need to answer some of these questions first
and think about how are we representing
the people of Berkeley and all of their needs?
Are we really providing them with housing
that they're gonna be able to afford?
And I wanna thank you for consideration of this.
Thank you.
next is Matt O'Brien.
Yes, thank you.
Many have expressed their opposition to doing away
or having the in lieu fee for these condo projects
because it will foster ghettoization
and apartment buildings full of people
who can spend four and $5,000 a month
or pay market rate mortgages.
And then there would be other buildings
that just have low income people
and they're in a different part of the city.
And so the ghettoization and the false argument
that addresses previous discriminatory housing policies
is a problem.
And so the public starts thinking,
gosh, why are they doing this?
And many have concluded that it's just another sort
of giveaway to the real estate interest
to make up for the failures of all the stalled projects,
the boarded up dead zone on center street.
And we think that we want affordable housing,
We don't want our city council
to just be pleasing the real estate interests.
We understand, you know, they have a lot of money
and a lot of influence,
but we want our city council to work for the public
and we want affordable.
I appreciate your comment.
Next is Dela Luna.
Yes, I would like to request that item 13
be pulled from the consent calendar
and put on the action calendar
after hearing that this is now being proposed citywide.
Suddenly that seems like a surprise.
And before anything would be proposed city-wise,
there should be more discussion on it.
And that has not happened.
And I think that even with the area that it's in,
even if it were for students,
there still are low-income students.
So it doesn't seem a reasonable to move the low-income units
to another part of the city, presumably,
or through the funds.
And I think that's it, thank you.
Thank you.
Is valued customer.
I'm a valued customer, also known as Martin Niklaus.
I am CEO of the Chavez Park Conservancy
and I'd like to support the statement
by Santiago Cussal and Beatrice Leyva-Cuttler
in support of a process to change the name
of Cesar Chavez Park.
I hope this goes forward fairly speedily
because it's very itchy to have the name
of Cesar Chavez Park Conservancy
when you really don't want that name anymore.
So we hope that this goes forward in a speedy way.
I also have a couple of things I want to say
about items two and three
which hire out our animal services
to Emeryville and Albany.
It's got to bring in $1.2 million to animal services.
That's terrific.
I hope that that money is used to hire additional staff
for animal services.
The couple of times that I've called Berkeley Animal Services,
I've been told, oh, I can't really help you.
We're running three different cities.
I think your time's up.
Okay, next is David Salk.
Good evening, council members.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I don't wanna restate what has already been stated
about the item 13 on the consent calendar.
I do support that item being pulled
and there'll be more discussion.
Affordable housing is tough.
We all understand that we all want affordable housing
and it's tough to make it happen,
but we've got to put our energy into figuring out
how to make that happen.
And we need to figure out how to get affordable housing
into some of these neighborhoods
that it's been pointed out.
We're guilty of redlining in the 40s
and we're trying to figure out ways of addressing,
creating more opportunities.
This is not about that.
This is not about that.
This is gonna provide market rate condominiums
and or rentals in wealthy neighborhoods.
And it'll create more money for the fund
which will then go out and purchase lots
and build housing in less wealthy neighborhoods in Berkeley.
That is not what we're trying to do.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
thank you. Okay that's all of the speakers on on the Zoom. Thank you very
much I see that Councilmember Kesser-Wani has her hand raised. Yes thank you very
much Madam Mayor. I want to thank the public commenters for your feedback and
and I do want to note as has been noted this is a referral to of a concept that
we'll come back to the council so that we can review the details and have more community
input at that point.
I also want to note that this item was heard by the land use committee where we did hear
from the public as well at that point and we accepted, I think, all of the amendments
that were proposed in that committee.
I want to thank the members of the council who serve on that committee who provided very
helpful input.
I also want to thank the co-sponsors of this item.
Madam Mayor, Council Member Tregoob,
and I believe Council Member Bartlett,
you would also like to join this item, correct?
As a co-sponsor?
Okay, so Clerk, if you could record that,
and thank you very much, everyone.
Thank you.
Okay, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Can we take the roll, please, Clerk?
Okay, to approve the consent calendar,
council member Kessarwani.
Yes.
Tapplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Yes.
Trigab.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humber.
Yes.
And Maryishi.
Yes.
Okay, the consent calendar is adopted.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right, we are moving on to the action calendar.
Let me just scroll down.
We already, by the way, moved item number 18,
which was the Mills contract item,
to consent, which we just passed.
So I am not sure if anyone was here for that,
but wanted to make sure you knew that that passed.
Okay, and did you wanna still give a public comment or no?
Okay, all right, thank you.
Okay, very good.
And so on here as new business,
Actually, I really would like us to take a stretch break.
We're gonna take a 10 minute stretch break
and that will allow the city attorney's office also
to set up, so 10 minute stretch break.
Thank you.
Hello, I think we're ready to return.
Okay, folks.
Julie, Kelly, Carol.
Okay, please have a seat.
Thank you.
All right, so we are now on the action calendar
for new business, so I will pass it over
to the city attorney's office for the proposed,
excuse me, hello, thank you,
for the proposed resolution limiting use of city property
to authorized uses that further city purposes
and protect access to city services.
All right, passing it over.
Just trying to share my screen here.
No worries, would you like me to read my introduction now
since maybe that will give you a little bit more time.
It would be wonderful if you introduce it
and then we'll launch into the rest of it.
Sure.
That sounds good.
So in light of the invasions and military-like surges
of federal immigration authorities in American cities
last October and since then, the city council unanimously
directed the city manager to identify
city-owned and controlled properties
and to coordinate with the city attorney
to develop a policy or ordinance
that would ensure city properties and facilities
are only used for city purposes
and those purposes approved by the city manager
or their designee.
We ask them to draft an administrative policy or ordinance
to ensure that city property is used for city purposes,
restricting the use of city owned property
for civil immigrate,
the use of city owned property
for civil immigration enforcement staging areas,
processing locations or operation bases,
absent lawful court orders.
This policy, which is now passed in counties and cities
across the Bay Area and the country,
is often termed ice-free zones.
We are pleased today that the city attorney
is presenting a resolution limiting use of city property
to authorize uses that further city purposes
and protect access to city services for our consideration.
We're trying to start the first slide here,
but for some reason it's appearing on my computer,
but not up there.
No worries.
There we go. All right, thank you. It's working now. Good evening, my name is Katrina Eiland and I
am the interim assistant city attorney and I'm here this evening to present on the proposed
resolution limiting use of city property. As the mayor just gave background on this item
is from a referral in October of 2025 referring to the city attorney's office,
the drafting of a potential policy and I'm going to go through some of the main features of the policy
and its purposes and some main takeaways. First, importantly, what would the resolution do?
So primarily what it would do is prohibit exclusive use of city property without city
authorization and so that term is defined in the resolution so it wouldn't be any use it would be
limited to exclusive uses which essentially prohibit others
from using the property, it would not
apply to traditional uses and ways in which city property has
always been open to the public.
So this is a narrow restriction on exclusive use
without city authorization.
And what it would do is it would bar city employees
and other city officials from approving exclusive uses
of city property that would either disrupt city operations
or discourage access to city services
unless that proposed use furthers a city purpose.
So that is, it all sounds kind of complicated,
but essentially it would make it so the kinds of uses
that someone might propose to the city
and ask for authorization that would discourage residents
from being able to access city services
or in other ways, disrupt city operations
in ways that would harm the city,
that the city will not authorize those uses
unless there's some other important city purpose
that that use furthers.
And in essence, the resolution also has findings
and those findings are that civil immigration enforcement
disrupts city operations and discourages access
to city services and that such enforcement operations
are not a city purpose.
And so in putting all that together,
In effect, it prohibits authorizing exclusive use
of city property for things like immigration enforcement
staging areas or operation spaces
where they would be essentially taking over
or trying to exclusively use city property
for their own purposes.
And finally, what the resolution would do
was direct the city manager to post clear signage
on certain lots, identifying them as city property
and specifying that unauthorized uses are not permitted.
And so this would apply to certain city properties
that aren't otherwise access restricted
and where it may not be clear to the public
that it's a city property and that in order to use it,
you would need to seek city authorization.
So turning to the next slide,
essentially as the mayor mentioned,
really the purpose of the resolution
is to preserve city properties
for city programs and services
or to further other city purposes
that are specifically authorized by the city,
putting more control and making very clear
what purposes are and aren't authorized.
It would protect access to city services
by preventing approval of certain kinds of outside uses
that could disrupt city operations or discourage access.
And importantly, the purpose is also just
establish guidance and clarity for when city officials
may or may not authorize exclusive use of city property.
So the important takeaways on this are that
This is a purpose-based and use-based resolution.
It governs approval for the type of use
and exclusive uses in particular.
It's not about general presence or activity,
and it's not targeting the identity of any particular user.
It's really about the purpose of the use.
It applies generally to any exclusive uses
that would interfere with the city operations
or access to services and do not facilitate a city purpose,
And that's a broad range of potential things.
Civil immigration enforcement takeovers of property
is only one such example.
It's designed to preserve the city's own use of its own
assets, preserve the city's resources,
and to facilitate effective service delivery.
And it ensures consistent application
of existing principles and clarifies authorization
requirements and works in concert with the city's
other related policies.
So with that, that is the presentation, the short of it,
and happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much.
Are there any questions from my council colleagues?
I can't see our other council members online,
so if you could just keep an eye out for me,
Mr. City Clerk.
Yeah, I don't see any hands.
Okay.
Council Member Blackaby, did you have a question?
Yeah, one quick question.
Thanks to the city attorney's office for this work.
And it all makes a lot of sense.
I understand kind of how we approached it this way
and tackled it this way.
My main question is this issue of exclusive versus non-exclusive
access.
And are there times, for example, if it's not a parking lot
And it's not a city building, and it's not exclusive.
So it's gathering at a park or something like that.
What is our ability to, what kind of ability
do we have to regulate that use if it's not
exclusive in a facility like that?
I think that any use that is not exclusive
would be outside of the scope of this particular resolution.
And I think if it's the kind of use
that would typically not require a permit
because there's certain things that already,
you know, under city policy already require a permit.
So there could be some regulation of that
if folks were to be using a property in a way
that currently requires a permit
and we're not doing, you know,
we're doing so without a permit.
But otherwise, if it's a non-exclusive use,
it would be outside of the scope of this particular policy.
Got it.
So we couldn't sort of say,
hey, no, you can't gather in that part of the park.
You're not impinging on other people's right
necessarily to use the park,
but we couldn't instruct people
that we couldn't instruct immigration personnel
or any other personnel,
that they could not use that space under this policy.
That's right.
The resolution doesn't generally restrict federal activity
in public spaces, in public areas.
It specifically does state that the city
doesn't interfere with or obstruct
lawful immigration enforcement.
So it wouldn't allow us to say,
you see an officer in a particular public place
and say that they were not allowed to be there.
Now, we do have our sanctuary city ordinance,
which does regulate the entry of officials
into private city spaces, so non-public areas of the city
and the sanctuary city ordinance
would continue to regulate that access.
So, like, I wish we could, I mean,
I wish we could say that, and our concern is it's,
we would run afoul of constitutional issues if we,
Is that where we start to cross a line that would be,
that would put us at risk?
I think there are important reasons
to keep the resolution to exclusive uses
and sort of takeover of public property.
And generally, local jurisdictions
are not permitted to actually interfere
with the federal government's lawful undertaking
of its activities.
We can choose not to use our resources to facilitate that.
So even if they're using city property in a non-exclusive way,
we couldn't instruct them otherwise?
That would definitely be outside of the scope
of this resolution.
Thanks for helping me clarify.
Thank you.
And just to take that one step further, just to make sure.
So if they took over a space at a park,
it would require a permit, essentially.
If that particular use already would require a permit
under city law, this wouldn't change that,
but this would, you know, we're trying to make clear
that any use of our property in these ways
would require a city authorization.
And this, what this resolution regulates
is city officials and employees' decisions
around that authorization.
So this directs city employees and city officials
and not to grant that authorization should it be sought.
Thank you.
There are a lot of conversations going on on this side.
If you have a conversation,
if you could just please take it outside.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much for your answer.
Council Member Humbert.
Yeah, I just have a quick question.
It's kind of a hypothetical.
I remember in Los Angeles,
the federal immigration authorities were using Lafayette Park
as kind of a staging ground
And it became sort of the battlefield.
And they were kind of marching in phalanxes
through the park and rousing people.
Is that something that we could under this ordinance
or under our permitting regulations do something about?
So it depends on the nature of the property
and sort of the nature of the activity is the undertaking.
I think sort of general enforcement activity
in a public place is not something
that this resolution would reach,
even if it, even if there were sort of like multiple officers
or multiple operations in a particular area,
this resolution wouldn't reach sort of preventing
immigration enforcement from happening
in a public place on a public street
or in a public park or sidewalk.
And so it's important to understand
the relatively narrow scope of the resolution.
I think in Los Angeles, there were
some questions at various times about what
constituted federal property that federal officials could
stage on their own federal property.
But I think a lot of these policies around the country
are cropping up in response to situations
where without the authorization of a particular jurisdiction,
immigration officials took over parking lots,
took over areas and sort of use them for their own purposes
without the city's authorization.
That's what this would be designed to get at.
Thank you.
Another question, Council Member Trigg?
Yeah, thank you so much.
I'm just, I'm aware that Alameda County
is also considering a policy.
And I'm curious if you could speak to just to the extent
that you're able, if this particular architecture
of regulation, how is it similar,
or does it differ from other jurisdictions
contemplating this?
That's a good question.
are various jurisdictions in the Bay Area and across the country that have adopted policies
that relate to this subject generally. Alameda County is one of them. The city and county of
San Francisco is another. The county of Santa Clara, there are various jurisdictions that
have adopted policies that are sort of designed or sort of get at the idea of
is ensuring that there is requiring authorization
for the certain uses of city property.
This policy is very closely aligned
to the San Francisco model that similarly is
very purpose-based, use-based and purpose-based.
Some other jurisdictions have sort of,
executive orders are very state executive orders,
and other jurisdictions have policies
that very directly say it is the Board's policy
or the County's policy not to permit staging areas
or particular types of enforcement activity
on city property and they are more direct
in disallowing that.
This particular resolution is not limited
to any particular type of activity.
So it's a regulation of uses of city property
that are inconsistent with city purposes
and would cause disruptions
and that kind of immigration enforcement activity
is only one such example
and there could be many others as well.
Thank you.
Okay, so any other questions before we move on?
Okay, I see no questions.
Can I take public comment on this item?
any public comment on item number 19? Anyone online? There's no hands raised.
Okay any comments on this for my council colleagues? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah I just I
want to thank I want to thank the city attorney and Katrina as well and the
city manager for their and their staffs for bringing this forward pursuant to
Council request. I think it's very important that we make clear that our
city facilities are generally safe and welcoming for all and and and don't
invite inconsistent inappropriate uses and and that they we ensure that they're
not being used for activities specifically that harm anyone or
undermine the public trust. So I'm proud to support this this evening. I think the
approach is really a wise one and thank you again to everybody who worked on this.
Thank you very much. Councilmember Blackby. I'll be brief thanks again to
see Attorney's Office for bringing this forward and for crafting it in a way
that's gonna I think again pass the legal and constitutional muster that we
that we need being thoughtful about that. So and again making a statement that is
very much in line with with our sanctuary policy and we're continuing to
look for other ways that we can strengthen our sanctuary policy and kind
of standardize and, you know, basically lay out our rights as a city and how
we're protecting our people. So thanks for writing this and I move adoption of
the resolution. Second. Thank you. Councilmember Luna Parra? Thank you. I just
really wanted to thank our team at the City Attorney's Office for their work.
Yeah thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Traga so sorry. I just want to associate
myself with the previous colleagues comments. Thank you so much to the legal
team and I'm very proud that Berkeley is moving forward with this. This is very
much part and parcel a statement of our values. Thank you. Thank you very much
and I also just want to add my comments to say thank you for your work and also
I know Paul I appreciate your input as well. I think this is just another
opportunity that the city attorney's office had to also work with the public
and I really want to thank you for for hearing the feedback as well and thank
you to Julie Sinai from my office who I know did a lot of work to keep moving
the ball forward and and get feedback from the community. I see this really is
just one tool in our tool belt. There are many things that we've looked at
and I really want to thank the community our sanctuary city task force has been
meeting monthly and this is something that came up during during those
conversations as well so thank you so much to the community. Thank you. Okay so
we have a motion on the floor if we could take the roll please. Okay council
We will now move on to item number 20 which is amendments to BMC title 3.24
Landmarks Preservation Commission to revise procedures for designating
landmarks historic districts and structures of merit and incorporate
technical edits. And we will hear first a presentation from our city staff. Oh, we
might need more chairs actually. And then we will hear a presentation from our
Landmarks Commission and Chair. Fay, if you could raise your hand on the online
that will help them find you. And then from there we will take council
questions, hear from the public and then we'll come back and do a discussion.
Did you want to say something? Just wondering if we need to vote to accept my supplemental
item 3 on this. Yes, thank you very much. We do need to do that. I move to accept my
My staff is in the back, and hopefully they can come
take care of this.
Apologies.
And for the council members online,
I believe that your sub three is actually already posted
on the page.
Yeah, thank you.
And I move to accept supplemental three.
Second.
Okay, can we vote on that, please, clerk?
to accept the revised materials from Vice Mayor Triggep
for item 20.
Council Member Kesser-Wani.
Council Member Kesser-Wani,
to accept supplemental materials.
She's there.
Well, we'll come back.
Council Member Tapplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Triggep.
I.
O'Keeffe.
Yeah, sure.
Flackaby.
Yes.
Nopara? Yes. Humber? Yes. And Mayor Ishi? Yes. And Councilmember Kesserwani? Yes. Okay, the motion
carries, materials are accepted for consideration. Okay, thank you very much.
All right, I will turn it over to Jordan. Thank you Mayor, good evening Council
members. Jordan Klein, Director of Planning Development. I'm joined here at the staff
table by Faye Mingham, assistant planner, Ann Hirsch, land use planning manager, and
Justin Horner, principal planner on the policy team, and also here with us is Denise Hall
Montgomery, who is the chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
In November, City Council adopted a referral to ask staff to make amendments to the BMC
to adjust the threshold for the number of signatures
required to initiate a landmark designation
and also consider establishing a limitation
on designations for properties
with active SB 330 applications.
And so in crafting those amendments,
we also made a number of other changes
that we're proposing this evening.
And so that's the item before you tonight
I'm going to turn it over to Faye for a brief presentation.
Thank you Mayor Ishi and members of the City Council.
Tonight, I will present proposed amendments to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to
respond to the Council referral and supplemental materials adopted on November 10, 2025.
The proposed amendments revise procedures to designate historic landmarks and incorporate
technical edits.
I will begin with a summary of current effects and background followed by the proposed ordinance
amendments after I will share staff's recommendation and will be available
for questions. Currently a landmark designation can be initiated by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the
Civic Arts Commission, an application from the property owner, or an
application from at least 50 residents of the city. Similarly, appeals of
landmarks decisions can be brought to the City Council by the same entities.
The Landmarks Ordinance has seen few updates since its adoption in the
the city of the city of
Sunshine Ordinance, which is
designed in the 1970s. Many of
the procedures have remained
unchanged and require updating.
Outdated provisions of the
ordinance pose administrative
challenges relating to public
hearing notice, notice of
decision issuance and permit
review. Many of these
procedures are out of alignment
with the zoning adjustments
board and the city's Sunshine
Ordinance. Additionally, fees
for landmark designation
requires an ordinance amendment whenever a fee is updated.
The November 10th, 2025 council referral direct staff
to update the procedures for initiating
landmark designation and appeals
on the basis that the 50 signature threshold is too low.
The referral and supplemental materials
propose revised designation and appeals procedures
by way of an increased signature threshold
with options dependent upon owner consent.
In addition to the increased signature threshold,
Supplemental 2 proposed a five year stay
of landmark initiation for development proposals
vested under SB 330.
The referral noted that some landmark designation attempts
conflict with the intent of state housing laws
meant to streamline the approval of housing projects,
such as SB 330.
A development application vested under SB 330
walks in the zoning, design, and preservation standards
that are applicable at the time
a complete application is filed.
SB 330 ensures that future changes to landmark status,
zoning or other regulations would not affect
the project's vested housing development proposal.
Since 2019, when SB 330 was adopted,
nearly one third of all landmark initiation attempts
have responded to an SB 330 application.
Earlier this year, staff brought the council referrals
to the Landmarks Preservation Commission
for their discussion.
At that meeting, the LPC formed an ad hoc committee
to formulate a statement about the referral.
The ad hoc committee's recommendations
were brought to the full commission
and adopted at its March 5th meeting.
The commission's recommendations are included
in the staff report as a detachment.
The LPC's comments prompted staff to review
the California Office of Historic Preservation's guidelines
for landmark ordinances,
as well as the certified local government
program requirements.
Upon review, staff have not identified any conflicts
in the proposed changes with the SHPO's guidelines,
nor do the proposed changes constitute the amendment
or removal of any qualifying criteria for the CLG program.
In response to the referral,
the referred options for consideration,
staff have proposed two versions of BMC section 3.24.120,
designation initiation, and 3.24.300 appeals
to reflect the two policy options for signature thresholds.
Alternative one includes two thresholds for initiation
with 200 required signatures with owner consent
and 400 signatures without owner consent.
Alternative two includes a singular signature threshold
at 200 signatures regardless of owner consent.
Both versions of section 3.24.120 include an exemption
which requires a five-year delay of landmark initiation
for SB 330 projects.
For both alternatives, designation initiation powers
are maintained for the Landmarks Preservation Commission,
the City Council, the Planning Commission,
the civic arts commission and the property owner.
The proposed amendments to appeals
reflect the referrals recommendations
and mirror the changes proposed to designation procedures
in the previously discussed section.
The proposed technical edits are summarized
on the table on the screen.
These edits consist of typo corrections,
sentence capitalization, updates for consistency
with the city's commissioners and board members manual
and the removal of language that is no longer relevant
since adoption of the ordinance in the 1970s.
For some sections, staff propose organizational changes
like renumbering, for consistency and clarity,
and procedural updates to align
the Landmarks Preservation Commission Practices
with the Zoning Adjustments Board
and the City Sunshine Laws.
Some sections have proposed technical edits
to codify existing practice.
For example, bringing LPC decisions
to City Council for certification.
Other sections contain proposed amendments
to align Landmarks fees with Land Use Division's
fees schedule.
These proposed edits remove the fees set in the ordinance
and reference the council adopted fee schedule instead.
This fee schedule can be more easily updated
and is used to set all other land use division fees.
Staff recommends that the city council adopt
the first reading of an ordinance
to amend BMC title 3.24 to revise procedures
for designating landmarks, historic districts,
and structures of merit and to incorporate technical edits.
That concludes my presentation, thank you.
Thank you Faye.
All right, I think we have a presentation also
from our chair, Denise Hall Montgomery.
Press it again.
Okay, yes, there we go.
Presto.
All right.
My name is Denise Hall Montgomery.
I'm the chair of the Landworks Preservation Commission
and thank you Council for taking the time
to hear from the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission.
We serve, our commissioners serve in this role
as professionals dedicated to safeguarding
some of our city's most
important historic properties.
As commissioners, we convened
as a panel to reflect on our
experience over the years.
We found strong alignment with
the City Council's goal of
minimizing the risk of
retaliation, whether from
neighbors or those opposed to
development against individuals
who initiate landmark
applications.
A key part of this balance is
determining an appropriate
threshold for signatures when an
application is not initiated by
City Council, the Commission, or
the Civic Arts Commission.
After careful discussion, we recommend setting
the threshold at 100 signatures.
This represents a meaningful increase,
doubling the current requirement,
while still remaining achievable.
Gathering 100 signatures is a significant undertaking.
It requires time, effort, and direct engagement
with community members, particularly given the need
for individuals to provide personal information.
We are concerned that raising the requirement
to 200 or 400 signatures is not grounded
in practical experience.
these higher numbers appear arbitrary
and risk creating unintended consequences.
Most notably, they could effectively eliminate
the ability for community members
to initiate landmark applications altogether,
leaving that authority only to official bodies
named in the Landmark's Code.
This seems at odds, this seems to us,
to be at odds with Berkeley's long tradition
of participatory democracy.
Regarding the owner-initiated path,
The LPC recommends that the process remains unchanged
and so does not require public signatures
as proposed in packet number two,
or at least as we understood packet number two.
It was a little confusing to us.
Regarding SB 330, the LPC has at times been placed
in the middle of differing interpretations
between the city attorney and the planning department
about when a property may or may not be landmarked
during the permitting process.
Since we have received clear guidance from the city council,
the properties are not eligible for landmarking
while an SB 330 permit is active,
we will follow that policy.
In that vein, LPC recommends that incorporating
SB 330 requirements directly into the ordinance
complicates the text and also could create
unintended consequences,
which I'll go into in just a minute.
We recommended that stating the relevant policy
in the application and the city website
is a cleaner way to get the result that we're looking for.
So part of our concern about putting
the language directly into the ordinance
is that the proposal is to simply restrict
landmarking designations for five years
following the preliminary use permit application,
and it lacks the necessary accountability measures
as applied to SB 330 projects generally.
Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposal
does not require the submission of a complete use permit
or building permit application.
And it does not mandate that construction
begin within a certain timeframe.
And it risks inviting bad faith applications
into the solely to block landmark initiations.
And finally, allows any new preliminary application
to restart the five-year clock indefinitely.
So those are our recommendations, those are our concerns,
and thank you for your consideration
and your commitment to thoughtful balance policy.
Thank you very much, thanks for the presentation.
And I will see if my council colleagues
have any questions to start with.
Councilmember Humber, do you have questions?
Well, I don't have questions,
I wanted to present our SEP.
Oh yes, thank you, no, you're right,
you should do that.
Councilmember Wai and my SEP.
Please, go ahead.
Okay, and I would ask Councilmember Casarwani,
since I'm a Luddite, to put up the SEP on the screen.
Thank you.
And we prepared this up after getting some really helpful
feedback from the Landmarks Commission,
as well as folks from Baja.
So this up, and I can just read it,
the Landmark Preservation Ordinance amendments in item
20 would create the possibility of indefinitely chaining
together five-year exceptions to landmark initiation
procedures through the submittal and resubmittal of SB 330 pre-development
applications and that would be highly unusual I think I'm kind of
paraphrasing here. But to avoid that we added the proposed sections
additions to section C. These exceptions would serve to foreclose the
possibility while ensuring that active development applications and entitled
projects would continue to benefit from the protections provided by SB 330. So we would
add two subsections to BMC Chapter 3.24.120 Section C. The first one, well the general
language any such designation shall not be processed for five years following the receipt
of a preliminary development application under SB 330 by the City of Berkeley unless initiated
by the property owner. One, this five-year exception period is established at the time
of the preliminary development application submittal pursuant to SB 330, the Housing
Crisis Act of 2019, and may only be applied once for any property. Any subsequent preliminary
development application submitted pursuant to SB 330 shall be subject to limitations
on landmarking in SB 330. Two, following the submittal of a formal zoning application,
any landmarking designation request shall not be processed for as long as the application
is active or as long as the resulting permits and entitlements are valid, whichever is longer
pursuant to SB 330 and in response to some additional comments that we
received from Isaac Washour very recently, and they were
good points and we accepted them. His concern, and we've heard this
from others as well. His concern was that a property owner might simply use
this five-year period to demolish a residential property as I understand it
and then and then build a non-residential property using this
opportunity that 330 really wouldn't give them, wasn't intended to give
them so we would add this additional language to our SUP and I will I'll move
to add it later if the property owner submits a formal zoning application for
a wholly non-residential project on the subject property during the five-year
exception period the exception period shall immediately terminate and the
processing of any landmark designation may resume so thank you that's our
presentation of our supplement supplemental with some additional
language. Thank you very much and I also like that Vice-Mayor Traigup
introduced his supplementals as well. Thank you very much so it is what you
see before you so apologies it's not on the screen but at the outset I'll just
say that it appears that my suggestions are fairly similar
to the Councilmember Humbert-Kesharani proposal
in some way.
I think both came out as a result
of additional conversations that we
had with members of the LPC and with Baja.
I think the, so I will just read into the record
the suggested exception language in supplemental three
and that reads any such designation shall not be processed
following the receipt of a preliminary development
application under SB 330 by the city of Berkeley
unless initiated by the property owner of record.
This exception shall expire A,
if the preliminary development application is withdrawn
or be three months after the final approval
of the housing development project
for which the preliminary development application
was submitted.
The two and a half years comes from SB 330 directly,
it appears for market rate housing.
That is the period of dependency in the application.
So the five years may create a perverse incentive
to attempt to do the SB 330 application without.
But then if the application is not acted upon,
still have an additional two and a half years
during which landmarking is disallowed.
So it conforms that provision in SB 330 around timeline.
The difference between supplemental two
that I also submitted in supplemental three
is really based on a close reading of the proposal
by the city attorney's office,
which I'm grateful for their close reading,
and they suggested additional amendments
to ensure that this language
complies with all applicable provisions of SB 340,
not just the one specific to the timeline.
I think we probably may be able to meet in the middle
and potentially combine some of these proposals.
Thank you.
Okay, questions from my council colleagues
on the supplementals or either presentation?
Yes, council member Blackaby.
So two questions, one either for the city attorney
or for planning staff.
Chair of the Landmarks Commission had referenced
the idea of rather than putting the SB 330 language
in the ordinance to have it on the website
and on the application itself,
What's kind of the pro and con of putting any ordinance
versus not putting it in the ordinance?
I would observe that I think there's some ambiguity
in the government code as to what municipalities
are permitted to do in terms of landmark designation.
And so for a project with an active,
for a property with an active SP 330 application.
And therefore, if the city council wants to establish it as policy that the city will
not accept or process applications for initiations of designation for properties within active
SB 330, I think it's valuable for council to codify that position.
Stating it on a website or in an application, I think, doesn't effectively establish it
as official city policy in the way
that codifying it by ordinance would do.
Could it leave us open for something
where the applicant says, well, it's not illegal?
I'm just curious.
I'm just, again, trying to think about the edge cases here.
I would just echo what the planning director mentioned,
that I think having it codified just
makes the implementation easier, and more clear,
straightforward for everyone involved. Okay great and my other question is back
on the signature 100 or 200 or 400 right number. Is there a clock under
which you've got to collect the signatures or is it pretty open-ended in
terms of the time? In the ordinance there is no time threshold. Okay. Theoretically
they could be collected over any period of time. So that also like okay so I
I mean, I'm a little less concerned of setting.
Again, we don't wanna set a ridiculously high number,
but at least it's not adding extra urgency
in terms of a time clock
that like if you don't reach that number,
you can take extra time to reach that number
without penalty.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Leno-Para.
Thank you.
I wanted to ask how other cities do this?
like, are there any other cities that,
how do other cities in our area do similar processes?
Sure, so in our research to prepare for this,
we looked into a dozen or more other cities
and how they initiate landmark designation
and it varies widely across the state.
For example, in Sacramento,
I believe it is the planning staff
who initiates a landmark designation.
In San Francisco, a member of the public
can initiate a designation
and it is then reviewed by staff and the LPC
before the designation is formally initiated.
Based on our research, there were not any other jurisdictions
that had a signature threshold for petition.
This is something unique to Berkeley, but it varies.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Member O'Keeffe?
I was about to not have this question,
but now based on that answer, I still do.
So okay, my question, I accept a shrug as an answer.
I don't know if this is a fair to ask you,
but I have this curiosity.
It's about the signature threshold.
I don't have a sense of what is reasonable.
Like, I just, I don't know.
I'm hearing, I see 200 sounds good to me.
I definitely am in favor of raising it.
I think it's too low right now.
I think we can see that from evidence.
But, you know, I'm hearing a suggestion
that we do only raise it to 100.
And I would personally like to raise it
as something that was achievable if there was broad support?
And I guess I'm wondering if you feel comfortable
opining on this, is 200 reasonable
or is it very hard to meet?
But if you, I don't know, it's not a fair question,
but I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Yeah, it's really tough to answer that
because as Wayne mentioned,
there's not other communities to look at.
I think a notable point here is that
About a third of the initiations that we've seen
over the last few years have been in response
to SB 330 applications.
So I think that's an argument that it's too low,
but that doesn't really help you land
on what the right number is and what's achievable.
Okay, well, thanks for trying, appreciate it.
Thank you, Vice Mayor Trega, did you have a question?
Yeah, thank you.
So I thought that some of these questions that my office
received might also just for transparency and everyone's
certification be helpful if I just ask them in daylight
to the city attorney.
So the question, the first question is, is a preliminary,
is a preliminary development application
withdrawn after 180 days without a complete development
application for SB340, or does it simply expire?
And then the second question is, if you could
apply in SB340, and I grant that I actually
didn't realize this nuance until I took a closer reading
of the law.
So 100% if the SB340 project was 100% affordable housing,
it would actually be protected for three and a half years
or 42 months after final approval.
Can you speak to how the language that was suggested
by the CAO and incorporated in supplemental three
still addresses that or if any additional changes are needed?
I think I need to look at the question that you sent me.
I hadn't really had a chance to look at it.
So let me think about it,
and may need to talk to my team as well.
Okay, thank you.
I'll give you an answer.
Did you have another question?
I'll wait for an answer on those two,
but I think we can go to other things.
Sure, yeah, Councilmember Humber, did you have questions?
Yeah, I do.
Just one very quick follow up really
to Councilmember Blackaby's question
about whether or not to include the requirement
merely simply in the application.
And this would be directed to the city attorney,
who's now working on another,
looking at another legal issue.
But this should be relatively easy to answer, I think.
My concern about including it in the application
and simply putting it on the website
is that that doesn't constitute law.
That might be, in my view, and maybe I'm wrong,
sort of underground regulation.
you know, promulgating rules and policies informally,
and I think that invites a lot of, you know,
potential challenges.
Is that, what are your thoughts about that?
I definitely think it's a cleaner practice
to have it codified instead of having to refer
to some other document or website.
Okay, thank you.
And the less, the more clarity you have,
the less opportunities for misunderstanding it,
misinterpretation.
So I definitely think it's a better practice
to have it codified.
Okay.
I have questions for the supplemental authors.
I'm just, I'm curious if you are both amenable
to the one time only per SB 330 application,
only allowing for one time,
which I think is in the Kesirwani Humbert one.
So you're asking me.
So I have other questions for the...
Yes, I'm comfortable with that.
Okay.
And I'm also curious to know,
30 months by the way is two and a half years.
I feel like there's so many numbers being thrown out,
I just want to say that out loud.
And if you could all speak to
why two and a half versus five years,
I just wasn't sure if like two and a half was not enough
or I know that two and a half lines with the state,
but perhaps council member Hepburn can address that first.
Yeah, I think, sort of generally,
we know how long projects take and there are many delays,
they're permitting delays, they're financing delays,
and two and a half years may simply just not be enough.
I think five years is an appropriate timeline
for that level of protection, but then only the one time.
Because I am concerned about a project kind of going on
for too long and not being built.
And I hear what your point is for sure.
I may want to make sure there is enough time for a project
to be it's until the project is complete
or until their final.
Until they submit a formal application as opposed
to just a preliminary application.
Once a formal application is submitted,
then it's a new game.
Thank you.
Yeah, go ahead, Councillor.
And I'll just say on my end, when
I first submitted my supplemental as part of the referral,
I was taking in the intervening months,
I've been able to take a much closer reading of SB 330.
but at the time, five years was just something
that appeared on its face to be a reasonable time period,
but was not based on anything other than my perception
of what is reasonable, and that is how I came
to the conclusion that 2.5 years for a,
at least in the case of a not 100% affordable
residential project, might be a more objective standard
in congruence with SB 330's provisions.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions from folks?
Okay, all right, well, we will go to public comment
then on this item.
So we are going to, sorry.
May I?
Oh, yes, please, go ahead.
I think I can provide some clarity on your question.
The team was able to look at the Government Code section,
which turns out it doesn't use the term withdrawn,
but rather expire to cover when the proponent doesn't submit
a complete application.
And we have some proposed language
that you could maybe read from the dais
to clarify the issue.
If I can send that via email, if that's...
Yeah, it would be helpful to see that language,
I think, so thank you.
Okay, all right.
We are taking public comment on item number 20,
amendments to BMC Title 3.24, et cetera, et cetera.
Okay, Kelly Hamigrin.
I attended the April 6th LPC meeting.
I attended online and listened to the entire discussion
that evening and that was quite a remarkable meeting
and I do have a minute from the back
so you can change the clock.
So Berkeley is a certified local government.
The staff made it sound like they dotted all their I's
and crossed their T's and did everything.
But when I listened to that meeting and they were asked
if they ever contacted the state office
of historic preservation or talk to a state
historical officer, they didn't do that.
And so I think you all need to know that,
that they did not do all of the work
that seems to be implied from the presentation here
this evening.
I heard a question about do we have a ridiculous number?
And I'd say 400 is a ridiculous number.
it's place there to make it difficult,
if not impossible, to landmark.
And in comparing Berkeley to other cities,
we so often talk about Berkeley being a special place.
And Berkeley is a special place.
And it doesn't matter whether I'm in Minnesota,
or whether I'm in Palm Desert,
or whether I'm in Munich, Germany,
as what happened a few years ago.
And I said I was from Berkeley.
people have a vision of Berkeley,
no matter where they are in the world.
And so, landmarking this city is different
than landmarking other cities,
and we shouldn't be comparing it to other cities.
This is important that we not erase
the history that started here.
Thank you.
Thanks, Kelly.
Hi, my name's Chrissy Hoffman,
and finally, at the right time,
I am really supporting the proposal of 100 signatures
that Miss Montgomery here, thank you so much.
I was also at that meeting
as one of two people present in person.
I would like to invite everybody here
to start coming to more of these meetings.
I think that Berkeley is an exceptional place as well,
and I think that the city council and all of the experts
that are on various different panels and commissions
are here to help the quality of life,
to help thriving in Berkeley.
It needs to be holistic.
There needs to be a balance
between preservation and development.
To keep the quality of life is equally as important
as providing housing that is affordable
or middle market or expensive, whatever that may be.
And so I think that 100 signatures makes sense to me.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Julie Noctway.
And when I moved to Berkeley,
I heard about Julia Morgan.
I learned about Maybeck.
I learned about John Hudson Thomas.
And I learned that Berkeley with the university
since before the turn of the century
had turned out so many outstanding architects
and so many incredible buildings and structures.
And these are known across the Bay Area
and across the state of California
as being a signature for Berkeley,
respecting these architectural heritage that we have.
And I definitely support Denise Hall.
We choose people that you want to be in charge of something.
You let them be the specialist,
and you have a fantastic specialist here,
and you need to listen to her
because isn't that why you appropriately
have somebody in charge of the Landmark Commission?
It seems like the it's a sort of like more than a hundred signatures seems unreasonable to me.
And so I hope you think that. Thank you true.
I could if I should give me another moment if you that's fine if it's OK with you as the mayor. OK.
So I just want to say that it seems like trying to undo this ordinance is kind of like an underhanded way for developers to make
preservation of our historical architecture much harder, and why do they
want to weaken the provisions of Berkeley's much-loved architectural
heritage? So you follow the money. So it's more profitable to demolish Berkeley's
architectural gems and build apartment towers than it is to respect and work
with what I think Denise Hall and the Landmark Preservation Commission try to
establish. So I respect her. I respect her committee, her commission, and you guys
for following her guidelines I hope that's it. Thank you Julie.
Good evening council. My name is Claudia Hunca. I am very concerned about this
proposal when since 1970 no issues regarding landmarking have been
changed or taken place and now that we have corridor zoning that's being
proposed in one of Berkeley's most historic commercial districts and
neighborhoods. Now all of a sudden we're looking at making changes to zoning for
to the landmarking requirements when nothing's been done since the
70s. I find it a little ironic those two are happening simultaneously. I do
support the lower number of signatures as proposed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
And I'm very disappointed in, thanks.
Thank you.
Hi, I, so this is a.
You can pull up the mic so you can, there you go.
This is actually a question for the chair.
There is a speaker, there is a participant on Zoom
named Layla Montage, who wishes to yield a minute of time
to me if that's-
If she could raise her hand, is she online?
Layla Montage.
You have a, do you need just two
because someone from the audience is giving you one.
Layla, would you like to yield your minute to the speaker?
You should be able to unmute.
Yes, I cede my time to Isaac Warshour.
Okay.
You can have three minutes, one from the audience,
one from online, go ahead.
Thank you.
My name is Isaac Warshour, I'm here to represent
the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association
and I'm sure you've seen my name and you've met with,
and some of you have met with me.
And I've been trying to advocate for common sense measures
when it comes to the problem identified by council.
And I very much appreciate the feedback
that the council has made so far.
I'd like to make some general points about preservation
and also make some points about the signature threshold.
So I think there are three misconceptions
that kind of float around,
or mischaracterizations that float around
with relation to preservation.
One is that preservation and landmarking
puts things in amber.
And that's simply untrue.
And in fact, with state law, the limitations
that it places on housing are actually quite small
and can't even affect density in many cases on a parcel.
It's really about making sure that the historic nature
of the structures on the site factor
in to proposals in the future.
The second is that if a property isn't
landmarked yet and clearly isn't worthy of being landmarked. The real reason for that
is that there's been very little comprehensive planning in preservation, and often preservation
is to force to focus on the most threatened buildings, which also happen to be the buildings
that have planned developments, and that's where the conflict emerges. It doesn't imply
that preservationists are cynically pursuing preservation, it's just that it's a triage-like
approach to the process. And then third, it's that rights of property owners should take
precedence over efforts to landmark buildings. And that runs in the face of principles of
land use planning in general, which are that there are resources that we share that need
to be managed collectively. And historic preservation, historic resources are just one of those,
and they should be managed for the collective good, and that the individual property owner
or doesn't really have the incentive
to manage those on behalf of the public.
And the last point I'd like to make
is that focusing on increasing signature requirements
is a really flawed strategy to addressing landmark efforts
that cover for NIMBYism.
In fact, landmark petitions that easily reach,
say, 400 signatures are actually precisely those
that are most likely to really have an underlying impetus
that's driven by larger political divisions
and not by real preservation concerns.
And it's those efforts by local community historians
and archivists, some of which Baja has worked with,
that would truly be sort of shut out of the process
by an inordinately large signature requirement.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay, is there anyone online
who would like to make public comment on item number 20,
which is the amendments to BMC Title 3.24.
Oh, another person in person.
Okay, go ahead.
I'm Steve Fennecombe.
I'm a member of the Landmarks Commission,
speaking as an individual.
I want to associate myself with our chair's remarks tonight,
which are very cogent, and I want to say
that the commission voted unanimously
in favor of the recommendations that she was presenting.
On the signature requirement, we did recommend 100.
I do wanna say there's not a huge deluge
of landmark applications.
I've been on the commission for nearly nine years
and some years we've had zero landmarks.
Two, three, four, even recently with a lot of development,
there have not been that many applications.
And I noted when I came into the room this evening,
I went through a gauntlet of signature gatherers.
I didn't ask them what they were gathering signatures for,
but it's really hard to get signatures even in Berkeley.
So 100 is a reasonable number.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Our folks online raising their hands for comments.
Yes, we have five hands raised.
First is Bryce Nesbitt.
Hello, this is Bryce Nesbitt.
I have two points.
One, absolute support that the fact
that you managed to collect a certain number of signatures
is not a good predictor of merit of a landmark application.
So absolutely echoing what the Baja Chair said there.
I think you need to find a better method.
Second, there's an opportunity in some cases
to move a building to a place where it is at a better home.
So you'll have a development application.
There's some incompatible structures
with that development on the block.
But in recent years, the threshold for moving a building
in terms of the number of permits and city process
have made that all but impossible to actually achieve.
And so you'll lose the structure
that you could have preserved because of city processes.
And so I think a good pair,
if you're going to take this action,
is to look at permitting reform
for moving of structures of merit.
Nobody moves an unworthy structure.
OK, next is Matt O'Brien.
Yes, I'd like to point out that Berkeley
is one of the oldest cities in the Bay Area.
And as such has architecture that other cities don't have.
You can't find it in Orinda, El Cerrito, Cupertino.
And it seems that we're not, our city officials,
our city councils don't really appreciate
that or don't understand that the residents really appreciate that. And so this seems
to be an effort to encourage demolition of these gems because money can be made. And
so the public has a perception that our city council is fostering sort of this frenzy of
greed and allowing the real estate industry to make a lot of money at the expense of the
in the future. The quality of
life and the beauty of the city
itself. And the residents are
not in agreement with a lot of
these efforts that the city
Council is taking that fosters
a lot of money to be made by
the real estate industry. But
that we'd like to bring in.
Arlene, you should be able to
unmute.
You unmuted me, Matt O'Brien.
I think you've got to unmute.
Okay, there I am.
I'm here tonight because I
chaired the very first public
hearing of the landmark
commission in 1975 and December
15th when we designated the
first nine landmarks.
By the way, they were all
Council Member Bartlett is behind him,
our beautiful building.
And 50 signatures are really, really hard to get.
It's not as though you stand in front of a supermarket
and collect them.
And I'm really, I suppose I support what Denise Montgomery
and the Landmark Commission proposed to raise to 100.
But if it's raised any higher,
essentially you're gutting the landmark ordinance
and you're gutting preservation at Berkeley.
And by the way, we learned the ordinance really carefully
because it was brand new and we held our first public hearing
in old city council chambers.
Okay.
Okay.
Next is Janice.
Thank you.
I appreciate the conversation
around the timing of the lapse applications
as this is a common problem that we're seeing more and more
that applications are put forward
and then they are allowed to lapse.
So I appreciate that council member Trey Group
or vice chair is trying to reduce that.
And I don't understand why we would wanna double
the timeframe established by the state.
And secondly, I agree that 100 signatures
seems like a reasonable amount
and that 400 signatures would prevent
any landmark proposal from being put forward.
So I hope that you'll consider the two and a half years
on the LAPS applications, thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Moni.
Good evening, Mayor, Council and community members.
I am speaking to support the 100 signatures
as a reasonable member.
That is much more difficult for a small group like Baja,
which is quite a formidable organization,
but small versus multi-millionaire developers.
Secondly, the five-year period kind of stalling landmarks
and making it very unclear
whether we're gonna protect our history
is harmful, counterproductive,
and not essential to the growth of this city
in a beautiful way that it should,
which is to preserve our historic buildings.
I've been to a meeting for a historic landmark
of a building on my street.
I didn't know its history
until the Landmark Commission went through the fact
that it was a Chinese community
that was around the corner from where I live.
And there are all this historic aspects to that property,
which were protected as a result of our legislation.
So I urge you to ensure that the Julia Morgan buildings
and Mabecs and all the others that are so special
and Berkeley are protected and not to develop.
Thank you.
Next is a phone number ending in 211.
As I mentioned before, it's been Berkeley for 60 years.
Our beautiful old city of Berkeley is dead, it is dead.
All the mobiles here are gone, all the city hall
and run by a bunch of corrupt mega landlords,
private equity firms and money making machine.
All of this new building build very cheap.
I have PhD in nuclear engineering,
mechanical engineering as well.
This building all going to collapse
in seven plus magnitude earthquake.
Wake up everybody.
We don't really have a good situation at all.
Not just the landmarks.
All landmarks are gone.
All the movie sets are gone.
What the hell is going on with the city hall?
Corruption and incompetence.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Next is Rebecca Mervish.
What up council?
I don't know what the right number of signatures is,
but I have a feeling it's probably easier to get signatures
like not during this exact season, election season
where there's lots of people getting signatures.
That is just my guess.
Thank you.
Thanks, Rebecca.
That's it, that's the last speaker.
Okay, all right, thank you.
Thank you very much to all of the public commenters.
So I will now open it up for my colleagues.
Okay, go ahead, Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
My button doesn't work for some reason.
And my comments are somewhat lengthy.
I'll try to get through them as quickly as I can.
I wanna thank Council Member Kesarwani
for bringing this forward to begin with.
I think these are overdue reforms
to help prevent abuse of the landmarking process,
encourage housing development, and help
conserve city resources.
There have been multiple recent instances
where landmark initiations have come before Council,
where I believe the most basic criteria for a landmark
were not met.
And it was clear that the initiations only
took place as a response to proposed housing development.
And we heard about the percentage
from the planning director and department earlier,
one out of three recently, over the past few years.
I strongly believe that landmark preservation should
be about broadly shared public benefits,
not the preferences of a narrow group
or purely for the sake of the buildings themselves.
When we landmark a building, it should
be an expression of the high value
we collectively place in that historic resource
and the way it contributes to our city.
Right now, roughly the same group of 50 people
that's equivalent to 0.04% of the city's population
can initiate landmarks, forcing the Landmarks Preservation
Commission, staff, the city council,
and the people trying to build homes into a protracted process.
I think that's anti-democratic.
I think it undermines the city's housing production goals
and it, frankly, cheapens the entire concept of landmarking
and what it's supposed to represent.
And even with council member Kesserwani's proposal,
we're still talking about 0.3% of the city's population
being able to initiate a landmark.
Put another way, even under 400 signature threshold,
and I'm not necessarily wedded to that number,
this means that only one in roughly every 300 people
in Berkeley needs to think a building
is worth land marking to initiate it.
And this is before we consider that the LPC and City Council
can themselves initiate landmarks.
If even 100 people attended an LPC meeting
to ask a certain building be landmarked,
I think the LPC would at least look into it.
And I guess I would ask Chair Holmam-Gumbry,
if you got that kind of a response
would the LPC itself consider initiating a landmark application?
Yeah. So if we had a hundred people who were really excited about a building I
think there's a there's a ready route even after if we pass this to to achieve
landmark status or at least to get the process going. So that the notion that
this proposal is somehow foreclosing a public process doesn't seem correct to
me and nothing about this proposal fundamentally decreases the
opportunities for public involvement or input. With respect to the exception to
the landmark initiation project following the submittal of an SB 330
application, I appreciated the feedback that we received from the LPC and from
Mr. Warshour and Baja and we took some of those things into account and
put them in our supplemental. Looking over councilmember Tragube's multiple
supplementals. I think I now have an understanding of his approach but I would
still tend to favor the approach I put forward with Councilmember Kesserwani. I
would prefer to grant a longer local exception period because I know that
economic cycles can at times significantly delay movement on a project.
We've seen that lately and it's kind of an unhappy result but it happens. And
because I would also like the local protections for proposed projects beyond
five years to be tied to the actual submittal of a formal application. And, you know, for
smaller developers, for mom and pops, you know, who aren't used to dealing with city
procedures and permitting, you know, things take, things can take a long time. And so
I don't think five years is unreasonable at all. I think that Councilmember Trigob's approach
is also broadly reasonable, but I'm disfavored toward it partially because it would automatically
We have the protection lapse at the 30 month mark,
two and a half years, Madam Mayor,
regardless of the state of the entitlements.
For example, if the staff and ZAB granted an extension,
it seems a protection would still lapse
under Vice Mayor Tragoob's version,
whereas our under hours of protection
would last as long as the entitlement.
Anything less, I think,
would be actually preempted by state law.
So under the Tragoob version,
we would still potentially see staff
needing to process landmark applications that could not
actually be enforced.
I also understand the inclination
to align the exception period to the length of time.
I just have another paragraph that the pre-application
remains valid.
But I generally prefer to leave the longer protection,
especially to account for smaller missing middle projects,
for example, where the applicants may be mom and pops,
as I mentioned.
I think that having the full five-year protection
from a pre-app, it'd be a one time per property exception,
helps both to give people adequate time
and to discourage people from game playing
and using frivolous SB 330 pre-applications
to prevent a worthy landmarking.
So that's where I come down, thank you.
Thank you, yes, going to Vice Mayor Trager.
Thank you, I'm gonna try to share screen.
and then just so you know, Council Member Bartlett,
I see you as well.
Okay, so this is for additional discussion
with the city attorney.
I would like to introduce into the record
the additional two words in red
suggested by the city attorney,
so it would now say, yeah, how is this?
Yeah, that's pretty good.
And I will read it into the record
just so that everyone is on the same page.
So exception, any such designation shall not be processed
following the receipt of a preliminary development
application under SB 330 by the city of Berkeley,
unless initiated by the property owner of record.
This exception shall expire A,
if the preliminary development application is withdrawn
or expires or B, 30 months after the final approval
of the housing development project
for which the preliminary development application
was submitted.
I think on this dais and in general,
I do my best to balance the three P's of housing,
production, protection, preservation.
And yes, we can argue preservation
of naturally occurring affordable housing,
what that means, but I digress.
I think I am most comfortable with the,
and by the way, I appreciate Council Member Humbert
and Casarwani's efforts to try to find
the appropriate balance, and I broadly agree
with the thrust of, the rest of their proposal,
including limiting the exception to one time.
I do believe that going beyond alignment with the confines of SB 330 introduces some risk
and introduces some additional subjectivity.
It also may make the work of staff harder.
It may be marginally harder, but trying
to keep track of the different timelines, one provided
by the state and another provided by us locally,
may challenge the effort to try to objectively administer
this ordinance.
I'm sympathetic to how long it takes
to move a preliminary application to a full SB 330
application.
But again, this is a balancing act,
and I feel quite comfortable with the language introduced
that was amended at the suggestion of the city
of Tarny's office, which would be what you see on the screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Bartlett, I can't see you anymore,
but I know you had your hand up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you, my colleagues, for these really interesting
and thoughtful suggestions.
You know, it is a balancing act and I, for one,
and curious about the signature piece.
So can the signatures be gathered electronically?
Can anyone tell me that?
No.
Okay, so here's the issue.
So I grew up as an organizer and I've collected signatures
and done things like that throughout my entire life.
And I see that being overly burdensome
once you had passed 100 persons or 125 or so,
like my neighbor's house is beautiful.
It's from the 1800s.
It's a wonderful, incredible structure.
And, you know, I can't see these little ladies over here
going around getting, you know, going door to door,
like street soldiers and organizers to get these signatures
once you get past a certain number.
And I think it kind of towards democracy in many ways.
And again, there's a balancing act
because it has been abused.
We know this, we've covered this together as a body before.
But I'm leaning towards a softer number
around 100 signatures, 125, 100.
And the development timeline,
looking at the realistic economic outlook
around for the near future and the credit markets, et cetera,
it seems sort of ill-advised to rush
the development timeline on these very expensive projects.
So I tend to agree with the five-year mark
that I heard from Humber and Kestrowani.
Those are my thoughts, thank you.
Thank you.
Also, we have Council Member Little-Para.
I have a question for Council Member Trigga.
Do you mind pulling up your language again quickly?
Sorry.
Thank you.
Shouldn't we have, shouldn't there be a clause
that says which of the two is favored?
For like, this exception shall expire,
A, if this, or B, if this, whichever is sooner or later,
because, or is it just, how does the planning department
decide which one of these satisfies this requirement?
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I have no problem with adding that,
but I wanted to defer to the city attorney.
I think it would be either, if either occurs,
is that right?
Yes, I'm seeing nods.
In that case, I'm wondering if we can add
whichever is later to avoid
what Councilmember Humbert was talking about
is if the application is extended by ZAB,
then it can still be covered under this exception?
Up to five years, I would be open to that
to try to have a pathway to some commonality here.
OK, thanks.
OK, any other comments from my council colleagues?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure.
I'm completely clear on, you were saying so B instead
of 30 months would be five years after the final approval
or is there something you had mentioned earlier
about two and a half years and then something for Zab?
I just want to make sure I understand.
It's a question for me, yeah.
The probably the clearest way to deal with this is
to say whichever is sooner just in the language.
I've been thinking about how to make this
align with the five years proposed by
in council member Humbert's referral
and I'm not finding a way to do that.
But if someone has ideas, I'm open.
Okay, all right, so it doesn't sound like you have
a particular time frame in mind then.
Is that correct?
No, I think she was talking about modifying.
Is this what you meant?
I mean, I did, I was wondering if we could clarify.
I would prefer for it to say whichever is later,
but I did want to just be clear
about which way we would be favoring that this is.
See some movement at the staff table. Yeah, I think I think it might be helpful to give you a little bit of background about
the SB 330 preliminary application versus complete application process because I
Think a and B in these cases are kind of might be mutually
exclusive actually
Yes, so the preliminary development
application
Is what vests the rights for the project what we receive is the application and effectively a project concept?
Once that information is submitted and it's consistent with the submittal checklist,
we issue a letter that identifies the vesting date for which we've received all the materials.
From that date, the applicant has 180 days to file the formal application,
which is the fully developed application that would go before the Zoning Adjustments Board.
That obviously has a longer timeline because there's more exhaustive review,
into agency coordination, conditions of approval,
and that there's more variability
in terms of that timeline processing.
And just to clarify, can you speak to
where does this two and a half, five years fall
in this process?
Yeah, so I think, correct me if I'm wrong,
Council Member Tragu, but I think you're identifying
the two and a half years from the date of the,
what would be the formal application approval,
is that correct?
So the government code establishes once you,
so you have 180 days after the preliminary application
to submit the complete application,
then it's kind of an indeterminate number
between that point and when the project is approved
or receives its entitlement.
That starts the 30-month clock by which the permit
needs to be exercised beyond which the vested rights expire.
Got it, or five years, depending on which we agree on.
Right, that 30 months is actually
from the government code under SB 330.
And so Council Member Chargaev's proposal
is to match the time period guaranteed under state law.
The Kesir-Wani Harbor proposal is to extend that
to five years from the date of the preliminary application,
but then also extending through the life
of the entitlement, I believe.
Yeah.
Thank you, I think that was helpful.
Okay, in that case,
so I would really love for someone to make a motions
that we can work off of something here.
I'd like to move this conversation forward
and kind of get clarity
because I know there are a few different areas of contention.
Sorry, Council Member Chaplin,
did you have your hand raised?
Sure, for the purpose of the discussion,
happy to move the Casarwani Humber supplemental,
but I was hoping to ask a question.
Sure, thank you.
I'll second.
Thank you.
Okay, go ahead.
What was your question?
And thank you all so much.
I was just wondering if someone could restate
what benefit there would be to having
a shorter window of protection than the established by state law.
I mean, that's a question for Vice Mayor Trigob.
Correct.
The benefits of a shorter time period.
There's no shorter level of protection than what is established in state law.
Under my item, it completely matches state law.
Right. But could you speak to why you'd want it to
state with state law as opposed to five years? To reduce the ability of someone
to game the system and just submit a preliminary SV 330 application then
exercise the final application but deliberate and I'm not talking about
about having challenges in financing a project.
I'm talking about just deliberately using that
to foreclose the opportunity to landmark the property
in the future.
And no, but then not build a residential project on it.
Okay, did that answer your question Council Member Taplin?
partially, it's just not clear what our mechanism would be
to address some of the market reality
that council members Bartlett and Humbert spoke to earlier.
Okay, thank you.
I have council member Humbert
and then I have council member Kiserwani.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
It's a clarification question to council member Taplin
moved the Humber Kesserwani supplemental. My question is, did you mean to move the
Humber Kesserwani alternative in the in the staff proposal along with our
supplemental, along with the additional language that I read into the record to
prevent game playing? Yes. And was that also what you were seconding? Okay, all
Thank you. All right. Thank
you very much. Councilmember
kisser one. Thank you very
much, Madam Mayor. I want to
thank the planning staff for
bringing the response to this
referral back relatively
quickly. And thank you to the
public commenters. I think the
fact that a third of the
landmark initiations have been
just tighten up this process.
We did review some of these applications
and with a threshold of 50 signatures,
we were seeing almost the same group of people
for a number of these applications.
And so that is why we looked at increasing the signature
threshold.
I do want to remind folks that gathering signatures is not
the only way to initiate landmarking.
the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as has been noted,
can initiate a landmarking themselves.
If a particular site comes to their attention,
the city council can do so.
If, for instance, there's a site or a property
in a district and the council member becomes aware
of the need to landmark it, they can do it that way.
And also the property owner,
importantly, the property owner can also initiate it.
What we are trying to guard against is a group of residents,
relatively small group right now with 50, initiating it.
And then initiating a lot of staff work and staff time
that ultimately with some of those applications
that came before the council were in conflict
with the vested rights under SB 330
and we couldn't actually enforce the landmarking
even if they warranted a landmarking,
which I think in both cases they did not.
So I just wanted to offer that perspective.
Having said that, I know council member O'Keefe
sort of asked the question,
how many signatures is a good one?
And I did hear council member Bartlett
sort of say that even getting 125 signatures
can be difficult.
So, I recognize with council member Tapland's motion,
it is locking in all of the keserwani signature concepts
and the Cassaroni-Humber supplemental.
So I am open to hearing from more colleagues
about the signature thresholds in particular
as we land this.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yeah, I would also like for us to kind of get,
let's just narrow down what we're gonna do
with the signatures and then we can talk about
this two and a half versus five years piece.
I will say that for myself,
I understand that there are many different ways
to initiate this process, and it doesn't
have to be through signature gathering.
I also heard what folks were saying
about this being a democratic process
and this being the city of Berkeley appreciating that.
So I understand that.
I do feel like this 200 to 400 is quite high,
but I would be amenable to something along the lines of 150
and 300 or something like that, because it's interesting.
Rebecca, who called in earlier, she does signature gathering.
that's a huge part of the work she's doing.
And she knows how challenging it is,
and also with no time constraints,
there is the ability to gather signatures.
I understand that that can be hard,
but I'm just gonna say I would be favorable
of 150 to 300.
And just to clarify, that's 150 with support
from the property owner and 300 without.
Okay, so council member Traka, you're next.
Thank you.
If we're going to separate out the discussion between timeline
and signatures, which I support, I will say,
I do have a little bit of misgiving
around having a dual track for signature numbers.
I feel like anything that introduces additional requirements
for staff time, now staff has to monitor
to see whether the property owner is supportive or not,
I would support a number closer to 100 or 150.
I don't do as much signature gathering as Rebecca,
But I do enough signature gathering
to be sympathetic to the challenges of collecting
even 100 signatures.
I do believe that 50 is too few.
I think 100 or 150 is probably the right number.
And I think with the SB 330 application, which
we will talk about in a little bit.
I think it's just going to reduce the concerns
that led to probably, you know,
the council having to act on this to begin with.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member O'Keeffe.
Okay, thank you.
And thank you Council Member Tregub for saying that
because I was gonna say the same thing,
but for different reasoning.
So let me, I'll just articulate my position.
I actually really do wanna have one number of signatures
also, I don't, I'm not interested in differentiating
between owner consent and my reasoning.
I appreciated your reasoning, but my reasoning is sort of
like if we step back and think about the theory
of what we're doing, like the legal theory,
historic resources are a public good.
It's not really about ownership,
it's something that's for all of us.
And so if you look at it that way,
doesn't really make sense to let the owner basically
count for 200 signatures.
They're just one other person.
Yeah, they get limited, but I don't know.
It's a public good.
So I actually am more comfortable
with one single number.
I don't want to bargain over 50 here and there.
I think 200 is fine.
That's what I would propose if I was queen for a day.
And I hear the arguments that it's high,
but I do take the points,
two points have been made that address that.
One is that there are other ways,
I think I appreciated Council Member Humbert's point
that if they're get close, but not quite,
that indicates a strong public interest
and the process can be initiated other ways.
And also that there's no time limit.
I think if you have enough time,
you can get 200 signatures.
It's not as onerous as thinking about doing that
within a certain amount of time,
which is what we're used to
with things that go on the ballot,
things like that. So I really want to see one number and I would say 200 but if people
want to do 150 or something, that's fine. That is, as I said before, I don't really
know what the right numbers. Thank you. Councilmember Blackaby. Thank you. I just want to echo
one number and I'm in the 150 to 200 range, one number across the board. Okay. Where are
we? Sorry. Councilmember Humbert. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilmember O'Keefe makes
a legitimate point it you know this is for the public good but it's for the
public good that imposes a private cost on the the owner of the property and so
that's that's a different kettle of fish than if there are different situations
where the owner agrees versus where the owner fails to agree and in response to
Councilmember Vice Mayor Tragoob's point that it's difficult to to determine
whether the owner can sense. I don't think that's true. I think all you need
is an attestation or the owner's signature so that's that's easy enough.
I don't think it's a problem for administration and I would tend to agree
I agree with the mayor's suggestion of 150 and 300.
That makes sense to me.
I think that moderating our proposed figures
in that regard makes a lot of sense.
Okay, thank you.
Council member Lenapia.
Thank you.
I agree with council member Triggev
and council member O'Keefe on the two different numbers,
but for different reasons than both of you.
I think the owner can initiate a landmark on their own.
They don't need to gather signatures.
So I don't really think that there's a point
in having this whole other number
if the owner can initiate it on their own.
And in terms of the number of signatures,
I would like, I'm indifferent from 200 to 400,
but would like to see at least 200.
Okay, so, I wanted to address this point
of two different things.
So two different numbers.
And so yes, it's true.
One of the things I was struggling with this afternoon morning
was that yes, it's true that someone
who's the owner could initiate,
but that also involves work on their behalf.
And so to me, the reason for two is actually to say,
I acknowledge that I'm going to have to have
an additional burden of maintaining this property
keeping it up and so you know I'm consenting to acknowledging that that's
gonna be a piece of it and and also I as a landowner may not have the ability to
go through the whole process myself and therefore it should be easier so that
that's why I'm okay with the two different numbers just to clarify and
then there are folks online so I'm gonna go councilmember Taplan Kesawani and
then back to Humbert again. Thank you I would like to amend my motion such that
the signature threshold is 200 across whether there is owner consent or not to
other signatures across period. And I accept that. And I don't you know I
don't love imposing additional costs but that seems like a logical way to
what I think I'm hearing on the dais.
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Keselrawny.
Thank you very much.
So I really appreciate hearing everyone's
various perspectives on this.
You know, I just wanna bring it back
to the referral that I authored.
We included a number of case studies there
in which we deemed that the attempt to landmark
was done in bad faith.
One of those attempts was somebody's single family home
that they wanted to remodel
so that they had space for their elderly mom.
And they had their neighbors initiate a landmarking
that was unwarranted with 50 signatures.
So I don't think it is appropriate to have the same number.
We cannot have a group of neighbors
who are upset about a remodel,
gather signatures and prevent somebody
from being able to house their elderly mom.
That is the motivation
for having a differentiated signature threshold
when you can't get the property owner's consent.
So, you know, I would respectfully request
that we go to what the mayor had proposed,
which is 300 signatures.
If you cannot get that property owner's consent
and 150 if you can.
And the thing is, I hear what people are saying
that the property owner can go ahead and do it on their own.
They may not want to.
They may not believe that their home
is worthy of landmarking,
but when the neighbors suggest that it is,
and they decide, oh, okay, I'm okay with it,
I think we should have a lower threshold then.
If a bunch of neighbors decide,
hey, we think your house is worthy of landmarking
because we don't like the remodel you've proposed,
I think they should have to go and get more signatures,
double the number than if the property owner was supportive.
That is the motivation.
So I just wanna respectfully request that my colleagues
think about that and consider the 150,
if you can't get the property owner's consent and 300,
I'm sorry, 150 if you can,
if you can get the property owner's consent
and 300 if you cannot.
Okay, thank you.
So we're coming back here to council member Humbert
and then council member O'Keeffe.
I'm gonna reset this again.
I think it's not working.
Yeah, I'm gonna defer to council member O'Keeffe
and let her go first.
But I put a jolly beat on my belt thinking I wasn't ready.
I just wanna respond quickly to council member Kesterwani.
I appreciate that argument.
It's certainly a compelling scenario.
I just wanna remind us that we're raising it from 50,
which is pretty easy to do to 200,
which has already been at least considered
as possibly too high a threshold,
even under normal circumstances.
So I think that it's a compelling argument,
but I'm gonna personally stick with the 200 threshold
because it's just hard for me to imagine
finding 200 people to be so vindictive
as to use it in such bad faith as was described.
You know, if it was 50,
that's a reasonable thing to imagine.
And of course it did happen,
but 200 is high enough that I think
we're really preventing the sort of bad faith weaponization.
I think it meets that goal.
Thank you.
I wanna let council member Bartlett speak
and then I'll come back to council member Humbert.
He hasn't weighed in yet on the signature numbers.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Question, when we talk about the property owners consent,
are we making consideration as to whether the property owner
is like a normal person or business entity.
I think it doesn't matter either way.
I think it's worthy of consideration.
Sorry, you were saying you think
that should be a consideration?
Yeah.
Yeah, so I think that's a worthy consideration
because I mean the chances of some Chinese owned LLC
that's buying up all the block,
consenting to this is gonna be nil, right?
But my neighbor, who's a sweet lady,
she might be into it, right?
So I'm wondering in terms of just, you know,
market realities and also, you know,
our policy of creating, you know, local ownership, right?
I think that should be a consideration in this topic.
And I still say that, you know,
a proper number for an ordinary person
to succeed with work at getting signatures
is in that, you know, 100 to 150 range,
possibly 200 with unlimited timetable
It's true passion, but 200 is gonna be really hard as well.
Okay, Council Member Humbert.
Sure, that's fine.
Yeah, so just taking a look at what everyone has said,
it seems that there's some coalescing
around this 200 number across whether someone is,
whether you have the consent from the property owner or not,
So I'm gonna just say that out loud.
I understand that that's what's also on the motion.
I would like to address this two and a half
versus five years piece as well.
So if we could quickly go through that
just because it's 934 and I know we can get this done.
So who would like to speak on that?
We already know where you stand, council member Tracob.
You're looking at me?
You wanna know what I think?
Oh shit, I had, sorry.
I had thoughts about this, and they've left my brain.
I know I was leaning towards, they're
both reasonable approaches to solve the same problem,
so it's hard to sort of pick one.
I was leaning towards the Humbert-Kessarwani proposal
because I did get kind of called out.
Give me a minute.
I don't wanna do that.
Sure, that's fine.
I'm in awe.
Let me think.
Anyone else on address?
Okay, Council Member Bartlett.
I'm sorry, was my hand still raised?
Sorry about that.
Okay, yes.
Council Member Taplin.
Yeah, thank you.
I would support the five years.
I think this phenomenon we're seeing is very real
where the economic winds shift
and people get their rug pulled out
and projects stall and things escalate.
And with the scale of projects we're likely to see with these, I had more confidence
and faith that we'll be seeing good faith builders.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council Member Keefe, back to you.
Yeah.
I didn't have a really groundbreaking reason.
I think it just the sort of the one time aspect of it, I think solved the problem.
and I appreciated that it was a little more forgiving.
I think I was moved by Council Member Humbert's argument
that weird things happen
and we should try to make space.
Make it as, we don't want people to have it time out early
and the five years seems fine to me
and I think they have to solve the problem
that we're looking to solve in a different way.
So if I have to pick, I pick that one.
Although Vice Mayor Triggs is also very good.
okay. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Kesser-Wanyi.
Yes. So I just, I want to say that, you know, I wanted to give my rationale for the differentiation
on whether you have the property owner or not, but I can live with the 200, you know,
because I want us to land something and be able to have some dessert or a drink and go
to bed. So I just wanted to say that. And I, of course, I support my five years and
the city council member. And I
if I might ask council member Taplin to accept a friendly amendment to have you
know if we're gonna it sounds like we're heading for a result here whether to
have staff report back in a year about our experience with the administration
of the new or modifications to the ordinance. Yes I will accept that. I will
We'll also accept that.
Thank you.
Very good, okay.
Council Member Tracob or Vice Mayor Tracob.
Thank you.
I appreciate all the erudite work that has been done
and to try to get closer to consensus on this.
I can accept the five years
with the one-time proviso on the property.
I continue and I recognize that it was,
in fact, my referral that suggested 200 across the board,
albeit that was in response to the original item.
Based on the testimony that I've heard today
I continue to feel, or I no longer feel comfortable with 200. I feel much more
comfortable with something like 150. I respect if my colleagues want to stay at
200, I will just not be able to vote for this. Thank you. Thank you very much. And
then also for the motion makers, I know that there was some language that
Councilmember Tragov had brought up that the city attorney had recommended so I
just want to make sure that besides the numbers themselves because I know we're
not talking about the 30 months we're talking about five years but I just want
to make sure that that would be included. I don't think so because it doesn't fit
into our language. I guess I'd ask Councilmember Kessarwani. Okay I'm sorry
don't worry about it that's fine okay all right there is a motion on the floor
are there any other comments okay all right can we take the role please okay
so this is the staff recommendation with the supplemental changes from
councilmember Kestero Kester why in Humbert and also including the language
introduced by councilmember Humbert this evening with the change to have it be
200 signatures as a single standard and a request for a report in one year on
the status of the of the new regulations. So that's the motion that we have
councilmember Kesserwani? Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Bartlett? Yes.
abstain. O'Keeffe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Munepara. Yes. Humber. Yes. And Mayor Ishi. Yes. Okay motion
carries. Okay thank you all so much. I know that was a lot of sausage-making. I really appreciate
all of you very much staff and then of course our chair. Thank you very much for being here and for
the public comment. Okay so that was our final action item but we will take public comment on
items not listed on the agenda.
Starting with Carol.
So speaking of signature gathering,
today I saw a signature gatherer for a petition.
Gathering signatures on the side of the Chase Bank,
I looked at by recruiting people,
by giving them energy drinks and similar other drinks
that were lined up on the table.
This has gotten some media attention.
I looked at the text which seemed to be very annoyed
by my reading review in the text.
It appeared to be the competing proposition
for the billionaires tax.
This is illegal.
I mean, the penal code states money or valuable compensation.
Obviously to receive a signature,
you're not gonna give somebody a suitcase,
a briefcase with $50,000 in it,
you're gonna give them a four or $5 energy drink.
So I did go to the city clerk's office.
They referred me to the DA.
I went to the police department and the police department
said, if it's not money, they're not gonna go there.
I thought we should have.
Thank you.
The city should get the documentation.
Thanks, Carol.
Appreciate you bringing that.
Hello?
Kelly Hamigrin again.
I found the comment at the beginning of the evening
from our fire department and our union's very concerning.
And I know we have a budget deficit
and I took a quick scan of what's going to come
to the budget committee on Thursday.
And I have mentioned before and I'd like to mention again
that when I attended the planning department,
planning commission meeting and Jordan Klein
as the director of planning department spoke
and explained the goals of the department.
He said how the planning department
didn't have to work with the constraints
of the rest of the city because of the way
we have handled their budget is that we have,
that 74% of their budget goes to permits
and that comes to them directly.
So they don't have the constraints
and they can hire as they wish
where the rest of the city that depends
on the general fund has to pay attention
and has to come under those constraints.
And I think it's time that we reevaluate
how the Planning Department is budgeted
and that they face the same constraints
as the rest of the city and that we are not sacrificing
our emergency services for a department
that says they don't have to abide by the constraints
of the rest of the city.
And so they may have,
I think they almost forgot that I was in the audience
because I was the only person that stayed
to the end of the meeting.
But those were the comments.
And I ask all of you that you start paying attention.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any public comments on items
not listed on the agenda online?
There's one hand raised.
That's phone number ending in 211.
Call her or throw a number in 2-1-1, you should be able to unmute.
Hi, now I need to talk about this horrible situation we have in Iran.
Iran is a great country, ancient civilization, 5 years, 5,000 years of civilization.
Obrated as Trump said, that is a war crime, that's a criminal.
They were semantically referred to language.
John Hopkins University made the DNA study in Israelis and Palestinians.
came zero to two old Hebrews, Palestinian came 78% who need peace. Netanyahu is a
criminal. He's been dreaming to bomb Iran for three years. He's a thief, he's a criminal,
and no difference to kill people because of the religion than to kill them because of
their color. Imagine the Palestinian are black and the Israelis are killing him because they're
black. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are brother language, a brother religion, and the
fairytales mention Egypt. There are fairytales. There's no God. You guys are just getting
good by everybody. Have a good night. Thank you. That's all. Okay. Is there a motion to
adjourn? So moved. Second. Can we take the roll, please? Okay. To adjourn. Council member
yes yes aye yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
We're adjourned. Thanks everyone.