Hello, good evening everyone.
I'm calling to order.
Berkeley City Council meeting today is Tuesday,
July 7th, 2026, and it is 605 p.m.
Can we start off with a roll please?
Okay, Council Member Kesterwani.
Here.
Oh, here, there you are.
All right.
And Council Member Tapplin.
What?
Council Member Tapplin.
Is.
Present.
Present.
Bartlett is absent.
Trega?
Present.
O'Keeffe?
I'm here.
Blackaby?
Here.
Unapara?
Here.
Humbert?
Present.
And Maryishi?
Here.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
So tonight is the first city council meeting of the month,
so I will read the land acknowledgement statement.
The city of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in
was built on the territory of Hu-Chun.
the ancestral and unseated land of the Trocenio-speaking Ohlone people,
the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona ban of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona ban.
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.
So, for this evening, we have two ceremonial matters.
One is an adjournment in memory for Carl Anthony,
which was requested by Councilmember Tragob,
and he will read something in a minute.
And then, also, we have a presentation from Ryan Lau
from AC Transit External,
he's the AC Transit External Affairs Representative.
So, I'm gonna start us off with our adjournment in memory
and pass it over to Councilmember Tragob.
And also I think that his grandson is here.
If you want to come up to the front here,
you can come up to the podium.
Thank you.
And anyone else who's here for the adjournment in memory.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Today we adjourn in memory of,
today we adjourn in memory of Carl Anthony,
a visionary architect, regional planner, author, educator,
and one of the nation's pioneers of environmental justice.
Carl Anthony passed away on April 4th, 2026
at the age of 87, leaving behind a legacy
that reshaped the way our country approaches
environmental stewardship, equity, and community development.
Born in Philly, Carl studied architecture
at Columbia University before making the Bay Area his home.
Berkeley became the center of his life's work,
where he advanced the belief that every community
deserves clean air, safe neighborhoods, affordable housing,
and meaningful opportunities to thrive.
As the founding director of Urban Habitat,
Carl helped build one of the nation's leading organizations
dedicated to environmental justice
and equitable regional planning.
He later served as president of the Earth Island Institute,
co-founded Breakthrough Communities
and brought together diverse leaders
to address the challenges facing cities
and regions throughout California.
Carl's influence on Berkeley was profound.
As president of the Berkeley Planning Commission,
this was before we had chairs, we had presidents.
He championed thoughtful planning
that reflected the needs of all residents
and helped shape our inclusive vision for the city's future.
At UC Berkeley, he inspired generations of students
to examine the connections between race,
place, and the environment,
encouraging many of them to pursue lives of public service
and civic leadership.
Through his writing, including the earth, the city,
and the hidden narrative of race,
Karl challenged readers to think differently
about the history of American cities
and the importance of creating communities
where everyone can succeed.
His ideas continue to guide policy makers, planners,
educators, and community leaders across the country.
Karl Anthony's legacy lives on in the institutions
he threatened, he strengthened,
the students and advocates he mentored
and the countless lives he touched.
We extend our deepest condolences
to his family, friends, colleagues,
and all who were inspired by his remarkable life.
May he rest in power, and may his enduring example
continue to inspire future generations.
Thank you to the council
for letting me say a few words about my grandfather.
My name is Mackay Sloan Anthony and I am Carl Anthony's grandson.
So Carl moved to Berkeley in the early 70s when my father was born and where I was born and raised just a little less than a mile from here actually next to San Pablo Park.
And when I think about my grandfather, it can be very difficult to pick one achievement above all others to highlight from his long and fruitful life.
For one thing, he was the only African American student at the Columbia University School
of Architecture when he first entered into the program in the 1960s.
He went on a tour of HBCUs in order to encourage African American students to enter the prestigious
architecture program and successfully increased applications from black students.
He visited Spain and West Africa in order to study traditional African architecture.
He was an assistant professor of architecture at UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design.
He co-founded Urban Habitat, which sought to create more multicultural leadership within
environmental justice programs.
He was a fellow at Harvard University and a published author.
The list goes on and on, but despite all these incredible achievements and awards, by and
large, his biggest success is the legacy he left which is carried through his son, Khalil
dope Anthony, his niece, Robin Anthony Cuyate and their respective children, myself, Mackay,
and Robin's children, and Folly and Jasmine Cuyate.
It is because of my grandfather that my father is not afraid to express his strong sense
of justice.
It is because of my grandfather that our generation has such a high standard of excellence and
a desire to spread the change that Carl fought his whole life to see.
life of fighting for change and a better tomorrow. My grandfather, Carl Kokine Anthony finally gets
to rest and reconnect with his brother, Lewis Edward Anthony Jr., their father, Lewis Edward
Anthony Sr., and their mother, Mildred Anthony. Thank you. Thank you very much for sharing stories
of your grandfather and his legacy and thank you to Councilmember Trago for requesting the
the adjournment and memory for this evening.
I will now invite Ryan up to present about AC transit.
And I believe we have a presentation.
Oh, cohort over here.
Wonderful, and just so you know,
for some reason I think like one of them has to be on
while the other one is or something.
You'll see.
I wanna start.
So good evening, I'm Steven Jones,
director of legislative affairs and community
relations at AC Transit.
And it's a real pleasure to be here today.
Thank you.
And to share with you the essential role
that AC Transit plays in the everyday lives
of people in the neighborhoods of Berkeley.
Alongside members of the AC Transit team,
we'll also directly address the current budget challenges
that, frankly, without a long-term solution,
will impact the bus network that our cities depend on every day.
But first, let's start with who we are.
Next slide, please.
The Alameda Contra Costa Transit District is not an agency of any east-based city.
We are a special district serving 13 cities and eight unincorporated communities across
Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
We span more than 364 square miles, carry more than 3 million riders each month, and
are governed by a publicly elected board of directors.
Three out of four riders are people of color, and nearly two-thirds are low-income, making
AC Transit an essential lifeline for all the communities that we serve.
It is why, for more than 65 years, we strategically operated bus facilities in Oakland, Emeryville,
Hayward, and Richmond, keeping buses close to the communities that rely on them every
day.
It's also why we're proud to have received the top honor as Outstanding Public Transportation
System in the United States in 2023.
Next slide.
Slide three.
So, okay.
So being a top transit agency translates into 40 million rides every year.
So let's unpack that number.
Since more than 140,000 riders board on a typical weekday, weekends are even busier
with more than 160,000 riders.
Each weekday, more than 9,500 commuters rely on AC Transit to cross the bay, and when school
returns at least 30,000 students will depend on us to get safely to and from class each
day.
Riders recognize our affordability and our value, and the numbers prove it.
February, March, and April delivered our first three straight months of year-over-year ridership
growth since the pandemic.
Next slide.
We're also a workforce-first employer.
AC Transit supports more than 5,100 jobs across the East Bay.
More than half of those jobs are created outside our agency.
Together, they generate over $604 million in annual wages, and they inject nearly $1
billion into the East Bay economy every year.
Every bus we operate creates jobs, supports local businesses, and strengthens our communities.
Next slide. While fueling the East Bay economy, we're also cleaning the air for over a quarter
century. AC Transit has led the nation in zero-emission buses. Today, our fleet of 58
zero-emission buses are eliminating any type of tailpipe emissions from our streets. That
leadership earned AC Transit a $40 million federal investment to launch the transit industry's
first zero-emission bus university, or ZebU. Alongside Chabot College and the Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 192, Zebu will help our employees earn associate degrees while preparing
the clean transit workforce of tomorrow.
Slide 6.
Riders recognize our value because we're making transit more affordable, faster, and safer.
Our EZ-PASS programs provide unlimited rides at deep discounts for participating employers,
colleges, and communities.
Clipper Start gives income-eligible adults half off every ride.
We redesigned 104 bus lines last summer under our real line network, cutting travel times
by up to 20 minutes, and AI-powered cameras mounted inside buses help keep bus lanes and
bus stops clear, improving safety and reliability.
Next slide.
I mentioned that three out of four AC transit riders are people of color, and nearly two-thirds
are low-income.
So let's put those numbers into perspective.
More than half earn less than $50,000 a year below the federal poverty level in one of
the nation's most expensive regions.
Many are already struggling to afford the essentials like housing and transportation,
and that helps to explain why 65 percent of our riders are transit dependent.
So any service cuts would not be just an inconvenience, they would upend the lives of those who rely
most on AC transit.
So I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague, Ryan Lau, who will share more about our deficit
projections, and potential impacts to service.
Next slide, please.
So you often hear the phrase, good stewards of public dollars.
Simply put, it means that we make every taxpayer dollar count.
And we know that when fares go unpaid, the cost just doesn't disappear.
It becomes a funding gap.
And that's why we launched, this month, the Multilingual Fair Required Fair Compliance
campaign.
The message is simple, pay the fair protective bus line.
Also, a comprehensive state audit report found that AC Transit syncs service well with East
Bay, other East Bay bus agencies.
Our collective real challenges are sustainable funding, not mismanagement.
What's more, a separate SB 63 review confirmed average annual savings of $33 million since
2020.
The commitment to making every taxpayer dollar account is why we have earned a top-tier AA-plus
credit rating.
Next slide, please.
When the cost of running our bus network rises faster than the revenue supporting it, it
results in a fiscal cliff.
What's behind it?
Federal pandemic relief is gone.
Full sales tax revenue has flattened and the fair revenue growth has slowed.
Fuel costs are up 28%.
Bus maintenance parts have increased 14%, and the cost of buying a new bus has surged 35%.
You can see, it's lopsided and it's unsustainable.
Next slide, please.
But we are not standing idle.
Instead, we're taking action.
The last fiscal year alone, we've tightened our belt by $9 million.
How do we do that?
We hired only for positions that are directly supporting service.
scaled-back temporary staffing, saving roughly $2 million annually. We brought outside professional
services in-house. We partnered with other agencies to purchase goods and services for less,
and we've even temporarily restructured payments to our pension plan to preserve cash. We're making
every taxpayer dollar count. Next slide, please. And the dollars must count because AC Transit is
projecting a $200 million deficit over the next four years. That translates to an annual funding
gap of at least $50 million beginning in 2027. Without long-term, sustainable funding,
service reductions of up to 16 percent become unavoidable, and so would the human impact,
potential layoffs affecting as many as 300 employees. As you can see, we're facing a looming
Service, workforce, and community crisis.
Next slide, please.
However, we have been thrown a lifeline.
It's not a permanent solution.
It's a state bridge loan, and it's exactly that.
A loan, not a bailout, and it must be repaid with interest.
AC Transit share is 55 million dollars,
enough to close this year's budget gap
and avoid service cuts today.
But next summer, the loan is gone,
reserves are exhausted, and the funding challenges return.
That's why HOPE now rests with the Connect Bay Area Act, or SB 63.
It's a measure that would ask five Bay Area counties to approve a 14 year,
half cent sales tax measure, or one cent in San Francisco.
If approved, it would generate an estimated $980 million annually for
various buses, trains, and ferries.
AC Transit would receive approximately $52 million each year,
helping to protect existing bus service and preventing layoffs.
Without long-term funding, our bus network remains at risk.
To show what that could mean for riders and our communities,
I'd like to invite our planning team to provide an overview.
Next slide, please.
Thanks, Ryan.
Good evening, I'm Robert Del Rosario,
Director of Service Development and Planning at AC Transit.
In these uncertain financial times, our approach is simple.
Plan for the worst and hope for the best.
That's why we developed a worst-case scenario
contingency service plan, and it's just that.
contingency and would only take effect if no new long-term funding is secured by December
of this year. If that happens, our priority is protecting as much service as possible.
The contingency plan preserves the real line routing network we launched last summer. Its
guiding principles are clear. Minimize route eliminations, protect hours of service and
maintain frequent bus service where riders depend on it most. Next slide, please.
So in the map here, you'll see these are the lines where we're showing some reduction,
either in frequency, span of service, or both frequency and span of service.
So the proposed contingency plan is designed to protect the most service for the greatest number of riders.
Its priority is preserving the backbone of the East Bay, or what AC Transit calls the primary route network.
To achieve that, service reductions are focused where ridership is lowest, minimizing impacts on the greatest number of riders.
The busiest bus lines and major travel corridors remain the highest priority.
Week day service every 15 minutes or better is preserved on key corridors including Telegraph, Broadway, San Pablo, and International.
Where reductions are necessary, the plan first reduces frequency to every 30 minutes or more, rather than eliminating service altogether.
Most routes will continue operating daily from 6 AM to 10 PM, maintaining access to work, school, healthcare, and other essential trips.
The strategy protects late evening service so riders still have a reliable way home.
More than 90% of the bus network remains intact under the proposed plan.
Next slide, please.
The city's busiest corridors will continue to receive frequent reliable service.
Lines 1-T, 6, 18, 51-A, 51-B, 52, 57, and
the 72 suite of routes on some part of a corridor will continue operating every 15 minutes or better on weekdays.
Most other Berkeley routes will continue operating from 6 AM to 10 PM with most buses arriving every 30 to 40 minutes on weekdays.
Service in the hills would operate from 7am to 7pm every 60 minutes on weekdays.
For Trans Bay, service will be eliminated on weekends for Line F, and peak period trips
will be reduced for most other Trans Bay routes.
These include Lines G, FS, and J, all traveling through Berkeley.
All nighter service would remain intact on Lines 800, 801, and 851, but low ridership
all nighter lines 802, 805, and 840 would be eliminated.
These routes would be offset by lines 40, 72, and 73, which are the daytime equivalents
to these routes, and those would begin service early at 4 a.m. to serve the period with the
highest overnight demand.
It's important to stress again that this plan would only take effect if no new long-term
funding is secured by December of 2026.
Next slide.
Here's our timeline for reviewing the plan, bringing it forward to our board for consideration.
I'll just touch on some of the key dates were expected to set a public hearing in August
and then hold the public hearing through our board of directors in October.
The key here is that we need to make a decision on a plan by the end of the year.
So we'll see what happens with election day and then come the end of the year if we need
to seek a long we were unable to secure long term revenue.
We will have to implement a plan that the board would decide on by the end of the year
And then we implement in June of 2027.
With that, I'll turn it back over to Stephen
to close us out, thank you.
Yeah, thanks.
So in closing, AC Transit wants to hear
from Berkeley residents.
And here's how we ask them to engage.
You can scan the QR code to learn more
about our contingency service plan.
And you can fill out the feedback form at that link.
You can email us at planning at actransit.org.
And as always, you can visit our website actransit.org
to learn more.
So thank you so much for your time.
We are committed to keeping Berkeley
and the East Bay moving with 40 million trips a year,
connecting riders to jobs, schools, and essential services.
So thank you again so much for your time.
Thank you so much for the presentation.
I really appreciate it.
I know it is very challenging.
And I thank you for bringing us the information.
It is really important for us to understand.
since there are so many riders,
the AC Transit riders here in our city.
I just wanna check and see
if any of my colleagues have questions.
And I'm sure also we can reach out
if folks have other more detailed follow-up questions.
I do just wanna make sure that you send us these,
if you haven't already, you may have already sent it,
but these surveys to our emails
so that we can also share them through our newsletters
and get it out to the community.
I'm also curious how you're interacting
with UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College,
which are two colleges, universities in the city
in terms of getting this out to them as well.
The survey.
Yeah, we will definitely work with them
to make sure to push those out to all of our communities,
but Berkeley is special,
so we'll make sure to provide that to them.
Thank you, yeah, I know a lot of the students
are gone for the summer,
And many Berkeley City College students are commuters,
so I wanna make sure that they're able
to take those surveys.
Great, all right, well, thank you so much.
We'll follow up if we have any other questions.
Thank you for being here and for the presentation.
Appreciate it, thank you so much.
Okay, very good, thank you all.
So now moving on to city manager comments.
No comments tonight, Madam Mayor, thank you.
Thank you, I do not see our city doctor, so.
And okay, so we'll now move on to public comment
on non-agenda matters.
Okay so this is public comment on items that are not on the agenda. I'll pick five
cards for in-person speakers and then we'll go to the first five hands raised
on the zoom and everybody will have one minute each. So the five in-person
speakers are Steven Alpert, Steve Tracy, Khadija McFall, Russell Bates, and Gina Reger. You can
come up in any order. Whoever is ready, come on up. Come on up if you heard your name called.
I just want to talk about garbage. This was distributed to us and in my neighborhood we
We try very hard to put our carts out in this order, but we live in a neighborhood where
cars routinely move the carts back under the curb because they want parking spaces.
Even if you try to move the carts back in the right position, you hang around and watch
your garbage all morning, there isn't even enough space to do it because there's so
much demand for parking.
I'm describing the 1100 block of Addison Street.
I suspect there are other neighborhoods who have this problem too, and my concern is that
we have been told eventually we will have to pay a charge if we want our garbage to
be picked up.
I think that's extremely unfair, and I hope you will take this into consideration and
look at areas where there is great demand for parking.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could you give her a card?
Thank you.
Okay.
Honorable Mayor, Council Members,
I'm here once again to talk about what's going on
in Palestine 48, especially in Gaza, the West Bank,
what's going on in Lebanon,
and congratulate the people of Iran
for what they're doing to mitigate the damage
being done by the Zionist entity in that area, also Hezbollah is doing their share.
Wars need to stop, every war needs to stop including this war going on there.
It's very, very discouraging for anybody who's a veteran of any war to see another war going on.
A war getting killed and murdered and it hurts a lot.
that makes me sick to my stomach food is going on.
Please call for a ceasefire for the people of Palestine.
Thank you.
Thank you, Russell.
Good evening.
Affordable and inclusive are targets of the city housing program.
I'm here to review what you guys did in February, which was a win.
Both affordable annex, inclusive housing, that was built on Virginia Street.
2109 Virginia Street, we had 18 units of the 55 were affordable, two categories.
Under current code, this project, Patrick Kennedy's project, qualified for a 100% density bonus.
55 units became 110 units under current code.
Three stories under current code, became eight stories under current code with the affordable housing on-site.
No trust fund where it's designed to be, affordable and inclusive.
We don't need up zoning.
We just need more of the same.
Thanks so much.
Hi, I'm Gina Rieger, I'm going to cede my minute to Stephen Alpert.
Two minutes.
I'm Dr. Stephen Alpert.
On May 19th, Mayor Ishe interrupted by public comment remarks.
The First Amendment Coalition advised that this was a violation of both the Brown Act and the First Amendment right to face speech.
For government code 54960, I forward a formal cease and desist letter requesting that henceforth,
the council will not interrupt public comment remarks by a speaker addressing statements or positions publicly made by individual council members.
The city has until tomorrow, July 8th, to provide this commitment, which must be approved by the council in an open session during a regular or special meeting as a separate agenda item.
Or I can and I will file legal action against the city as recommended by the First Amendment Coalition.
That said, this council supports the false narrative that building market rate housing will readily produce affordable units.
We will contradict this.
As shown in table one, the Buckholt study demonstrated that in our area,
it takes decades for newly built market rate housing to filter down and become affordable.
Council members also assert that building market rate payments invariably will drive down rents.
Housing data from nearby Emory refute this and the Yimby supply side ideology that you support.
As reported this April on the Emoryville Tatler, Emoryville went the Yimby way.
has the most expensive rent in the East Bay. Building more is supposed to bring cheaper rent,
what happened? Despite massive building between 2020 and 2024, any of them had a 16.3% year-over-year
increase in one-bedroom rents, the largest in the Bay Area. Our councils further to build more market
rate housing may produce a similar outcome in Berkeley without so much as addressing housing
affordability. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we'll go to the first five hands raised on zoom.
First speaker is Edie Ediskander. Ed Ediskander, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, how are you? I want to
thank the honorable mayor and the city council. I've been here before there's an issue with the
Coffee shop the behavior of the proprietor of a coffee shop on the corner of Shattuck Ave Avenue in Kittredge
I will not state his name for the legal record. I have now for almost a year been attempting to meet with
Appropriate City Council members, particularly Igor Tragub
Under whose jurisdiction that that the location of that coffee shop falls
I believe and that has been to no avail and it's really unfortunate because
I hold Mr. Tragoob as well as all City Council members in high esteem and I
want this matter approached in an appropriate manner. This person should
be actually at the end of the day should be banned from having any business in
Berkeley and I have police records and video and audio. Thank you so much for
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Alana Auerbach.
Hi there, Dr. Husam Abu Safia is a Palestinian pediatrician held in Israeli detention without
charge since December 2024.
His life is now in imminent danger.
He was beaten so badly with hammers and batons that last Thursday his attorney almost didn't
recognize him.
breathing, struggling to sit upright with fresh injuries to his head, eyes, ears, and
neck, and repeatedly on the verge of losing consciousness, Dr. Abu Safiyyah said to his
attorney, they brought me here to kill me.
I don't see myself surviving.
This is the end.
I urge you to make an emergency resolution demanding his immediate release.
Refer to the email I sent you today.
This counsel spends thousands of dollars every year commemorating the Nazi Holocaust.
again is often said at those events. Silence isn't neutrality, it's complicity. There's
a growing global outcry for his release. Will you use your voice and position to join that
chorus? Please.
Thank you, Alana, your time's up.
Next is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
In reference to what was just said by Alana, Dr. Sophia's son is urging the world, the
leaders to secure his release before it's too late, saying, Dr.
Hizam Abu Safawi needs to be released now.
You need to save his life before it's too late.
Don't let down a heroic doctor.
Please act now.
That is a quote.
So what are you going to do about it?
It's been over 555 days.
detained without charge. It's sad that you all don't care about Palestinians. You
need to change your hearts. Show some love for your community. Pay
freaking attention to when people are talking. Get off your cell phones. Thank
you. Thank you. Next is Delawuna. Yes, I wanted to suggest that the mayor's
Mayor's office called Mayor Mamdani's office and asked for any guiding tips or advice or
any like inspirations because the Mayor Mamdani has been making just amazing goals and surpassing
benchmarks in only six months.
It's truly remarkable.
And I think that, you know, any city council, the body would look up to that and these remarkable
changes.
to suggest that City of Berkeley connect with in like a mentorship way to get maybe the top 10
tips for making headway in the problems that we have here in Berkeley. Thank you. Thank you.
And the last speaker is Ted. Ted Kempf. Thank you very much. My name is Ted Kempf. As you said,
I am the assistant director of Albany Berkeley soccer club and it's come to my attention that
there's a couple city agenda items one being a bike lane a dedicated bike lane in Hopkins
which of course there's always need for bike lanes however it runs right by Martin Luther King
junior middle school and it's a very active sports use area and I'd be very concerned about the
safety of families and children trying to cross the street and get into in and out of the field
space and so I would ask that we consider other options. Secondly, as the assistant director
Albany Berkeley Soccer Club with a census of over about 2,000 players. We have been
frozen out of equitable space of use for city fields and so I'd ask that to be brought up.
Thank you so much. Thanks for your comment. Your time is up, but feel free to reach out about
the fields. That's it, that's the last question. Okay, thank you very much. We are moving on to
to our consent calendar.
So I would like, sorry?
Union public comment.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Are there any unions here this evening?
I didn't see any.
Okay.
So.
If there's any designated representatives
of city unions on the Zoom,
now would be the time to speak,
but I don't see any hands raised.
Okay, my apologies.
I didn't see any here in person, so.
Okay, very good.
So, are there any comments on the consent calendar?
And actually, before we do that,
I wanted to move the waterfront specific plan,
environmental review authorization
and near term priority adjustments.
Item number nine to consent.
Oh, Council Member Taplin.
Did you have your hands raised?
Oh, yes, thank you.
I support that.
I raise my hand because I want to refer everyone's attention
to the supplemental three my office submitted.
Oh, thank you.
Okay.
This one is just adding Councilor consumer wanting
as a co-sponsor to item.
Oh, thank you.
I think they're passing something out now.
It's item eight on action.
It's the large vehicle parking on actions.
We would need a motion to accept this.
I'm just, okay.
move to accept it. Can we take the role on that please? Okay to accept the
revision from councilmember Taplin on item number eight large vehicle parking
councilmember Kesser-Wani? Yes. Taplin? Aye. Bartlett? Yes. Tragob? Aye. O'Keeffe? Yeah. Blackaby? Yes.
Yes. Yes. And Mary Eshin. Yes. Okay. So I had just said though right before that, which is why I'm
paused, that I wanted to move item number nine to the consent calendar. So I believe that we need
unanimous consent of the entire council to do that. So do we need to take a vote? Okay. Is there any opposition? Is there any objection to moving it? Okay. Very good. Okay, thanks. Are there other comments?
from my councilmember colleagues. Yes, Councilmember Humbert. Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I'm
wondering also, and I don't know what council member Taplin thinks about this, but it occurs
to me that maybe number eight could be moved to the consent calendar as well, the large vehicle
parking regulations in the public right-of-way. It's a referral. It doesn't change. It's not an
ordinance or anything like that I would object to that you would yes okay that's
fine okay and then I want to thank Chief Sprague and the city manager's office
for item number six and all of the work that went into that and then since nine
is on the consent calendar. I want to say that, excuse me, strike that. No, I'm good.
That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Rockaby. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just a
couple of brief comments. First, I want to appreciate both the work of the police
department as well as the police accountability board in the review of the
the 2025 annual police equipment report.
Just appreciation that we've now consolidated
two reports into one, which was one of the objectives
of making the revisions earlier this year
while maintaining the Berkeley specific
reporting requirements around deployment
of less lethal, not just use,
as well as use of handheld pepper spray.
So again, and if you look at the
please kind of build a board's letter in supplemental too.
I think they were also largely in support
and appreciation of this console report.
So thank you for that.
Also just note very briefly from the report
that over the past year,
there's only 13 uses of less lethal tools
and a total of 61 deployments where you might show something
and not actually use it.
Some of those actual deployments
actually out of Berkeley and so again I appreciate the detail in the report and
also the fact that this continues to be a very rare which is as intended rare
use of these less lethal tools but I appreciate the reporting on them. The
other item I want to comment on was item four of the revenue agreements again
appreciation to the police chief and her team for seeking and obtaining these
grants which provides $80,000 for crime suppression community safety initiatives
and staffing of high-impact community events. And so with that I'd be
supporting the consent calendar. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have comments?
Okay, very good. Can we go to any public comments on consent calendar and
information items only please? And just as a reminder we moved item 9 to the
consent calendar. Anybody online? There's two hands raised. This is for public
comments on consent and information items and also item 9 the waterfront
specific plan. The first speaker is Marilyn. Madam Mayor and members of the
City Council my name is Marilyn Cleveland. I'm a resident of Berkeley and
a member of the Berkeley Society of Friends and its racial justice action
team. I am concerned to see that City Council agenda item number five for the
annual military equipment report required by state law does not appear to
include the report from the Police Accountability Board concerning its
review of the report. If that is changed since the materials that were provided
then I'm glad to hear that but the materials with the agenda report did not
included. I also note that the report does not appear to comply with state law
in several ways. I ask that the Council defer consideration of this report until
the council and public have received the PAB comments concerning this report and
the report has been brought into compliance with state law including AB
481. Thank you for your consideration. We have received materials from PABs so
So…
Yeah, the Police Accountability Board submitted their letter after the agenda packet was published.
And so it's in the Supplemental Communications packet, and it's also published with the
Police Department's item on the agenda website for this meeting.
Thank you.
And next is Kelly.
Is item 6 still on action or was it moved?
That's a public hearing on action.
Okay. I'll save my comment. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anything else? Next is Cameron.
Hello, my name is Cameron Wool. I'm a current resident
and a member of the Berkeley Art Commission, but tonight I speak only
on my behalf. Tonight I ask that the City Council
give item 3 on the consent calendar series consideration of this item in order for next
study to see if the fee for public art may continue or be adjusted to make the in lieu
fee more affordable. The current all or nothing situation is unpalatable. $100,000
of dollars for public art are lost by developers utilizing this loophole. Please help us
Support the arts. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Last hand raised for
consent information items is Cheryl Davile, a former council member. So the item for the police
on their weapons inventory is really alarming. The public should really be paying attention
to all these weapons that they can use against your constituents of the city of Berkeley.
The residents of the city of Berkeley, they don't need all this quote unquote
less than lethal single 40 millimeter launcher
or less than lethal mycore 40 millimeter multi launcher
or 40 millimeter rounds or 300 FN
or less than lethal FN 303 launcher
and associated FN rounds.
There's thousands and hundreds and thousands
of all these different equipments and their ammunitions,
rifles, it's really, really, really alarming.
And we're in the 47 era of fascism and authoritarianism.
And you should be getting these weapons
out of our police department to protect us from them.
free Palestine, free yourselves
from these isms that keep you in the way that you are.
Thank you.
There's one more hand, Wendy.
Wendy should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Wendy Outson, also with the Berkeley Friends Meeting
and on number five,
And going to the police accountability board and then seeing the item on the agenda, there's no mention in the item of the police accountability board review.
It wasn't filed by the police department or the city manager with the item originally, and it being made available only in the second, as late as the second supplemental.
When it's a required part of the process is not very helpful, at least to the public. I don't know that it's helpful to you either.
And I would just urge that you request or demand as appropriate that both be filed together when this item comes before you each year.
This is an annual process and the Police Accountability Board's information that they are communicating to you should be a part of the agenda item. Thank you.
Just to note our Police Accountability Board is made up of residence and so they're not always able to send things as expeditiously as I know they would like to.
And so I just want to comment on the fact that as our city clerk said,
when that letter was sent to us, it was added as supplemental materials.
And so, you know, we can't add something that hasn't been sent to us.
So I do want to just thank the PAB for their report and, you know,
recognize that these processes sometimes take a long time and that, you know,
that we did receive it. So thank you.
That was the last comment.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?
So moved.
Second. Second.
Can we take the roll now, please?
Okay, to approve the consent calendar,
Council Member Kessarwani. Yes.
Tapplin. Aye.
Bartlett. Yes.
Tragob. Aye.
O'Keefe. Yes.
Blackaby. Yes.
Unapara. Yes.
Humber. Yes.
And Marishii. Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Okay, thank you very much.
we're moving on to the action calendar and we're gonna start off with public
hearings. I don't know if there's a presentation on this one. I'm number six
ambulance transport fee increase. There is no presentation Madam Mayor but we do
have personnel from the fire department here if there are questions. Sounds good.
Are there any questions from my council colleagues? No questions? Is there any
public comment on this item? The number six, item number six ambulance transport
fee increase. There's one one hand raised online that's Kelly. Yes thank you. And I
wanted to pose sort of a request to our chief brig on this item for the future.
I've been looking at today at the plans for the New Sutter Hospital in Emeryville at 5300.
I believe you pronounce the street, Chiron, C-A-I-R-O-N.
And I would hope that at some point you could do a presentation to us, to Council and the
public on how transport may change with the move with the move of acute services from
Alta Bay to the new hospital and how that might impact say traffic on
at a line and what would probably be the new emergency route to this new location,
as that may impact how we look at our streets in Berkeley. So that's a request. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Kelly. That's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve?
I'll second that.
All right.
Can we take the roll now, please?
Okay.
To close the public hearing, Councilmember Kiserwani.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Aye.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trager.
Aye.
O'Kee.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Junipera.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary.
Yes.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
We're now moving on to item number seven.
to item number seven, memorandum of under-
Sorry?
You have to approve.
Oh, oh my gosh.
I'm so sorry.
Okay, sorry.
Is there a motion to approve?
I'll move to approve and I will incorporate my comments,
mistaken comments on the consent calendar,
thanking the chief and the city manager's office
by reference here, thank you.
Thank you.
Is there a second?
Second.
Okay can we take the roll please?
Okay to approve the ambulance transport fee increase.
Council member Queserwani.
Yes.
Tapplin.
Aye.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trigab.
Aye.
Ovee.
Yes.
Black.
Yes.
Unapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Maryishi.
Yes.
Okay motion carries.
Okay thank you very much.
All right opening the public hearing for item number seven,
memorandum of understanding, compendium 2026,
agreements with other law enforcement agencies
private organizations. Hi, welcome. Good evening. No presentation, but happy to
answer any questions if there's any questions. Are there any questions from
my council colleagues? Yes, go ahead, Council Member Traeger. Thank you so much. I just had a
a question. I saw that there was a decision with an MOU with BUSD. I was curious if you
could provide additional information.
Yeah, sure. So that MOU that was existing wasn't really even an MOU. It was just some
basic agreements that are over a decade old. We've been in conversation with the superintendent
over the last couple of years about how to start codifying that material, as it's not
how we operate currently with our SRO
and interact with the school district.
And it's such an old document.
I made the decision to remove it
while we work through a more official policy
to have with the school district.
Okay, other than that, just wanted to commend you
on the depth and breadth of the report.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Question from Council Member Bakabe.
Yes, hi, thank you.
And thanks Chief Lewis and Mr. Romberg for being here.
I just wanted to ask a question, actually two.
One is on the NCRIC MOU, which is number 3.12.
I note that in the MOU, it explicitly prohibits
the sharing of our ALPR and body-worn camera data
with the NCRIC.
I know there have been some recent news reports
about San Francisco,
so I just wanted to give you a chance to comment
on how our data relationship with NCRIC is different
and more restrictive in terms of how we don't share
that kind of sensitive data.
Yeah, thank you for that opportunity.
Absolutely, I know there were some recent media stories
about sharing of information that was on the NCRIC platform
or Access Point around AOPR reading.
As I've shared with counsel before in our community,
we do not share with NCRIC,
we do not provide them AOPR information.
And if you recall last summer, we limited down the agencies
we share to our local counties.
And all those agencies that we share
and cooperate with AOPR information,
sign a waiver, a testing that they will follow
both our sanctuary city policies and state law
in order for them to be someone
that we share information with.
Great, now I just want to appreciate that
because it was sort of, it is very explicit in that MOU.
It's not a general MOU.
We're very clear in terms of that maintaining
that restriction on that data.
And so I just, I wanted to appreciate that
and sort of doesn't allow us to get to a point
that we saw with San Francisco in the recent news reports.
The other question I want to talk about real quickly
was on the SARs, the suspicious activity reports.
I noticed we issued 12 of those last year
and most of those are with Nickrick as well.
Is that right?
Is that usually who we're,
I guess it could be other partner organizations.
That's exactly where those reports go to.
And just a little bit of information about how they work.
And so what we know is that a single incident that happens in one location that seems relatively
minor or small or a one-off might be something that other jurisdictions are experiencing,
might be a sign of a larger scale thing occurring or starting to occur.
And so a lot of that information then allows us to have a clearinghouse.
And it's not that you go there and look at other departments SARS and then you take action upon it.
But that allows a clearinghouse to look at all those things and say, here's a pattern.
And a perfect example is we sometimes will get anonymous bomb threats that come in via email to a school.
And I might just say BHS, something like that.
And then we're able to communicate with Nick Rick and they're like, yeah,
school districts throughout the state, throughout the country have been receiving this exact thing.
And everybody that's BHS is seeing the same email address and
we're able to kind of determine that it proves not so, right?
Or that it's a hoax email or something like that.
And so without being able to provide these individualized events that occur in our city to that,
we wouldn't have that opportunity to understand a greater impact.
or whether they might have validity or not.
Great, thank you, that's all I have.
Thank you so much, and I did just want to comment
that the Chief had sent an email about this to us
like immediately, almost after this article came out
about San Francisco, and that we were able to share it
with our sanctuary city partners who are task force partners
who were really concerned about this.
So thank you, Chief, for sending that.
And I did have a question as well, just want to check,
does anyone else have questions before I ask?
Okay, I was wondering if you could clarify a relationship
of the US Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force.
Just talk a little bit about what that looks like.
Yeah, of course.
So if we're working a local incident in our city
and we learned that the offender has fled
to a jurisdiction in another state, in another area,
the US Marshals is a resource for us
that we can let them know.
We have an authorized warrant from a judge.
Are you able to assist us with that?
For example, a case we had in Texas
is a case that we worked with the U.S. Marshals Service.
And so there was a time when we had someone
that worked on that task force,
and so if we had a local case,
they would provide resources and personnel
to help us work that case.
And then if there was a local case
in another jurisdiction near us,
then that person could go and assist with that.
That's the way you share resources and personnel power.
We currently don't have anybody that's participating
in a task force with U.S. Marshals.
Is that a capacity issue, or is that just,
like we haven't picked a new person.
Yeah, both.
Okay, just curious.
Thank you.
And then I'm also wondering,
so when we deploy mutual aid,
how do we ensure that other agencies
are adhering to Berkeley's policies,
you know, specifically around the use of force,
sanctuary city, et cetera?
So when we're going to somewhere else
to provide mutual aid or mutual aid is coming up?
Mutual aid is coming to us.
Right.
Typically what you'll see is all mutual aid
is coordinated through the county's mutual aid coordinator.
And when we have a need for mutual aid, we will communicate with Alameda County Sheriff's Department and say we have this need in our city.
Then they come and arrive, and resources arrive in our city, and we would tell them certain things like, hey, here are our specific policies.
And an example I can give you is if for a while Oakland had a very specific policy prohibiting a munition.
When we would show up to check in for that mutual aid there, they would say, here's the prohibitions we have if you are coming and operating in the city of Oakland.
If you can't abide by that, we can't accept your services.
Or we will give you a different task to do while you're in here.
So there were times when we would respond and we would do a facility protection.
Because we couldn't use tear gas in a crowd control.
So it wasn't safe for us to deploy in that manner.
So we did a different task and activity.
So we would be checking with agencies that came to us, do you have any issues complying with these specific things that are specific to Berkeley?
Yes, either thank you, we can't use your assistance,
or hey, we're going to assign you to some task
that doesn't put you in jeopardy of having to do that thing.
Thank you, that's very helpful.
Okay, is there any public comment on this item?
We are on item number seven,
the memorandum of understanding compendium, 2026,
agreements with other law enforcement agencies
and private organizations.
Is anybody online?
Two hands raised online.
1st, is Wendy. Thank you. Wendy Berkeley friends committee.
I would just note that the chief did not answer the last question in terms of mutual aid coming to Berkeley.
I know that the rate of 190 dollars for the jail to process a UC PDE arrest.
especially if that includes either medical or transport to Santa Rita, seems awfully low.
But my main point is with regard to this federal MOU that Councilmember Blackby raised,
that the language of ALPR is not extended to all of the other data gathering cameras and information that you just approved.
And it should be state all those different descriptions, you know, of community, video, and fixed cameras, and first responder drones, and all the other things that are planned to be in effect within this next year.
And there's not specific language in there that says that we will not provide the information
to the feds, you know, contrary to the sanctuary policy and state law with regard to
the First Amendment and immigration. So, I think all of those reasons mean that those
MOU should be not approved tonight, but revised slightly before they come back to you.
The data sharing aspect of them is very concerning. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. The next is Marilyn.
Thank you. My name is Marilyn Cleveland, and I'm a resident of Berkeley. I'm here to express
concern that the agreement with the Berkeley, I'm sorry, with the Northern California Regional
Information Center, NICRC, one of the many federal fusion centers set up to create more surveillance
and intelligence sharing among police agencies can lead to problems with First Amendment activity
and other activities supported by the Bill of Rights.
That information can be shared from NCRIC with other
federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, ICE,
and other subgroups of the Department of Homeland Security.
We've already seen efforts to stifle free speech and other protected activities,
including demonstrations on college campuses.
in 2025. The Berkeley Police Department submitted multiple suspicious activity reports related
to pro-Palestinian activity and other protected forms of free speech. These were reports that
were on protected First Amendment speech and other activities. So please remove the agreement
of Nick Rick and obtain further information about which agreements may lead to violation
of Protected First Amendment Actions, before considering approval of this MOU Compendium
Agreement. Thank you.
Thank you, Marilyn. I see no other comments.
Yes, thank you. Any comments from my council colleagues? I'll just say thank you. Thanks,
Chief, for answering our questions and I appreciate your answers previously to my questions and
also just the work that it takes to put this together,
because I know there's a lot of work that's involved.
So thank you very much.
Yeah, I appreciate that our department does really care
about other officers coming in and adhering to our policies.
So thank you.
That's very important to us.
Yes.
Sorry, thank you, Madam Mayor.
And apologies.
I think the parliamentarian is on the foot.
So in just listening to some of the public comments,
I had an additional question for the chief
and a question for, maybe this is for the chief as well.
I really appreciated the way in which PD and the PAB
worked closely together on the police equipment report.
I was wondering if you could describe the process.
Is the MOU Compendium something
that historically the PAB reviews,
and if so, can you describe the process
that took place this year?
And I will wait for it.
If you recall last year, we had a robust discussion
with the PAB.
there were several old MOUs or agreements that were in there.
There were, like, federal agreements that kind of described
the way you could interact with certain federal agencies.
And we knew we weren't interacting with them in that way,
but they were still in our book, and so we had a long conversation
both with Council and the PAB, and we were able to remove
a lot of those from there.
So it was very clear that those relationships didn't exist,
that recisions.
This went to PAB, I think it was 33 days, something like that.
I don't remember the exact number of days,
PAB very early for their first look at this.
In fact, there were a couple things they had questions about that we were able to answer
and work through, so it was a collaborative process.
They discussed it at the – I think at least two PAB meetings, if I'm not mistaken, and
so it's a collaborative process.
They were able to provide feedback both to us and to counsel if they so desired around
the document.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I do – Oh.
60 days.
Sixty days.
Sorry.
Thank you, and I do recall last year
it was a very interactive process,
so appreciate your clarifying.
Can you also just, you know,
I think just for the sake of the public being informed,
to speak to the relationship between these MOU compendiums
and our internal procedures around data sharing practices.
Yeah, of course, if I think I'm understanding the question
correctly in light of the public comment,
just to be clear, the policies that set forth
both our uses, collection, sharing, retention periods
are the guiding principles, are our policies
around every one of our technologies,
And those would be the things that would say when
and what we would share and in what ways we share.
Those reflect reproductive rights, immigration status,
how we interact with federal partners.
All of those things are built into every one
of our use policies to very clearly state
that we would not share in that manner.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councilmember Humbert.
Yeah, I just wanna say thank you, Chief,
and thank you, Arlo, for this report,
and thank you for answering all those questions.
So very clearly, thanks.
Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
So moved.
A second.
Second.
Thank you, can we take the roll?
Okay, to close public hearing,
Councilmember Kiserwani?
Yes.
Taplin?
Yes.
Bartlett?
Yes.
Tregus?
Aye.
O'Keeffe?
Yes.
Blackaby?
Yes.
Unapara?
Yes.
Humbert?
Yes.
Okay, closed is there a motion to prove I'm number seven
so moved
You can take the wrong now, please. Okay to prove the
Memorandum of Understanding compendium
2026 agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private
organizations councilmember kester wani
Yes, yes
Taplin Bartlett yes Trigab I okay yes Blackaby yes Luna para yes Humber yes and Mary she yes
thank you very much we're going to take a brief break between now and item number eight
just like 10 minutes thank you recording stopped recording in progress okay sorry about that
everyone. Thank you for your patience. We are moving on to item number eight, which is the
large vehicle parking regulations in the public right of way. And excuse me, council member
Taplin, are you here to present? Yes, thank you very much Madam Mayor, and good evening to everybody.
I thank my co-sponsors, council members Blackaby, Humber, and Katsarani, the members of the Health,
Life and Regiment Equity and Community Policy Committee, the Neighborhood Services Division,
in the commander's office, as well as Madam C. Attorney Brown in her office for all of their
input and guidance throughout the iterations of this item. Long-term recreational vehicle
parking to proportionately concentrate in commercial industrial neighborhoods and in
proximity to open water resources in West Berkeley is a well-known phenomenon. Additionally,
while many RVs at any given time may be used to provide shelter to community members experiencing
homelessness, it is not uncommon for vehicles either not utilized for shelter, no longer
utilized for shelter or otherwise discarded by owners to sit abandoned on the roadside indefinitely
and unabated due to a deficiency in the Berkeley Municipal Code's definition of the term abandoned
vehicle. Over the years, indefinite recreational and abandoned vehicle parking in the public right
of way has led to reported conflicts in the right of way including reports ranging from impediments
delivery access, obstruction of sidewalks and roadways, debris accumulation, the disposal of
waste in City of Berkeley storm drains, dog attacks against commercial employees,
and public health and safety hazards in the most extreme cases, including the recent outbreak of
leptospirosis. Recently, Bay Area cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, others in the region, and
even Oakland, have adopted a variety of stances toward the management of long-term large vehicle
parking and hazard abatement in the right-of-way. These approaches often pair parking restrictions
and regulations with the establishment of large-scale safe parking where land and utilities are
available enabling intake for coordinate services. This item recommends the council do the following,
refer the review of the BMC chapter 12 section 98 to ensure that the language authorizes the
abatement of hazardous and abandoned vehicles in the right-of-way, clarify the definition of
abandoned vehicle, and increase its humanities discretion in the establishment of abatement
timelines. Refer the study of recent Bay Area legislation regarding the management of long-term
large vehicle parking and receive policy and enforcement recommendations
that are regionally consistent aligned with the City of Berkeley
environmental housing and transportation priorities
reflective of the City's ability to enhance the impact and scale of its
core unit alternative housing initiatives
via participation in a county wide RV parking program or by joining a
comparable program in a neighboring jurisdiction
in which are operationally feasible. Further this item requests guidance and
clarity on how the City's encampment resolution policy intersects with the BMC in the absence
of shelter availability. And lastly, this item refers to the City Manager and City Attorney,
the drafting of an ordinance amending BMC 718 to authorize City Manager approval of contracts up
to $250,000 for the abatement of abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles pursuant
to BMC 1298-040A. With clarity and guidance provided by regional policy analysis and insight
into the organization's operational capacity, the City and Council can best determine how to
coordinate access to critical supportive health and housing services, abate hazards, and maintain
the public right-of-way in alignment with our strategic plan goals without being overwhelmed
by shifting legislative trends in the region.
I did have some minor revisions that I was going to offer and
I'm happy to do that now or after public comment, whichever is
more profitable for the for the Medicare.
Yeah, I think it would be helpful to to know what changes you were looking at.
Okay, thank you very much. I will share a screen.
Are you all able to see this? Do you see my Google Doc?
We can see it.
So the first original recommendation to D.
It's the final clause striking, including...
Could you just make it a bit bigger? I'm sorry.
Oh, yes, of course. No problem.
Oops. How's this?
Yeah, I think that's better.
So that clause at the end of that recommendation 2D clause will read, as part of the study,
include an examination of geographically targeted parketing, but it's a minor,
I had sort of a gerund there, but to not be a gerund. And then this is,
this is a surface level revision, and the I am trying to remove the underline from the hyperlink,
In the end of page 2 beginning of page 3.
If that makes sense.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, are there any questions from my council colleagues?
Okay, is there any public comment on this item?
This Republic comment on item 8 a large vehicle parking.
So if you're on the Zoom and you intend to comment on this item, please raise your hand at this time.
Come on up. Yeah. Go ahead.
Well, this is another example of coming out of a situation from the long end.
The situation being that quite a number of people have been pushed out of their hubs
and have taken refuge in RVs with no other place to go.
In addition, what you have is the, in this proposal, basically a tightening of the definitions
of an abandoned vehicle and funding to enable the city to remove them without offering or
actually providing an alternative and a distinct danger.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Hey, everybody.
One thing I've noticed lately is that the empire is crumbling right now.
The economic system is going to be taking drastic nosedives coming up,
And more and more people are going to be losing Medi-Cal, Medicaid, CalFresh, Veterans Benefits.
And that's going to enable many people to wind up on the streets.
And sometimes they'll be in RVs, and sometimes they'll need to be there.
And anybody with a conscience, the law and the older people.
And I say older because while your politics stink, I'm trying to
criminalize people who live in RVs, people who are on the street, unhoused people.
You got to think of another way.
You got to cut these people some slack.
Hurry them, criminalize them, it's not going to help, thank you.
Thanks, Russell.
Can I get a couple minutes?
Cool, thank you.
Good evening.
This report acknowledges the health risks created by inadequate sanitation.
Yet the city has repeatedly failed to provide the infrastructure necessary to address those risks.
To then cite the resulting waste as justification for
enforcement against unhoused people effectively transfers responsibility for
a predictable outcome of the city's own inaction onto the population most affected by that inaction.
This report also repeatedly says Berkeley should balance enforcement with outreach,
coordinated housing, and housing first principles, in that any future policy should be operationally feasible
and enhance alternatives, housing initiatives.
I want to point out an intersection that isn't discussed anywhere in this report.
The intersection between enforcement and the failures of our housing system itself.
I've lived in Berkeley for nearly 30 years.
Last fall, I entered coordinated entry for the second time in three years.
I scored a 96.
Outreach workers told me that if I found an apartment before receiving a housing match, they could make a voucher happen.
I did exactly what the system encourages people to do.
Through my own advocacy, I found a landlord who offered me the vacant apartment next door to my best friend.
Is happy to accept my five dogs and who actively advocated for me.
Then we discovered that the information I'd been given was false.
The organizations involved don't actually have the authority they said they did.
As a result, an extraordinary housing opportunity is about to slip away.
This report asks staff to clarify how enforcement intersects with encampment policy.
But you should also examine how enforcement intersects with the actual functioning of our housing system, because taking someone's RV is easy.
Replacing it with housing is the hard part.
Telling someone's RV while they're at work or in a nearby bathroom won't make them less harmless or make them leave the town.
It just moves them from the parking lane on to the sidewalk.
have all witnessed the indignity that people living in tents experience.
Do you really think that it will be a better visual for
all of us who currently live in vehicles to be relegated to tents on sidewalks?
Berkeley expands its ability to remove large vehicles before fixing the disconnect between outreach workers,
voucher programs, and available shelters, and enforcement will continue to outpace housing.
If we're serious about housing first, then the housing system has to work as well as the enforcement system does.
That is the only way unless you plan on arresting us for being economically disadvantaged.
Just because the Supreme Court said that you can arrest people for being homeless doesn't
mean you should.
They also overturned rule versus wait, but I don't see any of us rushing to comply with
that ruling.
Follow your conscience.
Treat others as you would want to be treated.
If the walls were suddenly reversed and you were at our mercy, do you think that we would
treat you so cruelly?
Thank you.
Thank you, Amber.
Good evening council, mayor, staff, and community.
I have one minute that's being offered, thank you.
I have money law, my personal capacity.
I'm very concerned, I'm very troubled, and I want to raise a few concerns.
We need house keys, not handcuffs on the poor people in Berkeley.
I walk by them every day, I say good morning to them as I'm on my way to work.
And I see that they're sleeping on the street, and I see they're in the cold, and I see that they have nowhere to go.
In this instance, we're asking them to shut down their RV vehicle and
have actually had the pleasure of working with the prior speaker with the Tiny Home Project.
We're giving constructive action to get people housed, including youth.
Do we have a housing space for youth in Berkeley?
The answer's no.
Do we have women's housing?
The answer's no.
Do we have domestic violence advocacy and housing for
people who are being threatened with death by their intimate partner?
The answer is no.
where are they to go?
That's my concern.
That quarter million dollars in subsection four of this item, $250,000,
you could use for vouchers, $1,000 a month times 12,
multiply that by a number of people, and place an alternative in place of a jail cell, or a park, or a doorway to sleep in.
Last night I thought it was in a dystopian situation when I left work, and
There were more unhoused people on the street as a result of our homeless project,
our program that was doing outreach being disbanded.
We're going the wrong direction and our solutions toward housing.
This is not the right way, and I would appreciate your constructive, compassionate, and
thinking approach to making a better approach to this.
I've lived in a motor home but on the road for travel and vacations, and I was fortunate enough to do that.
people are struggling on the street just to survive day to day and we've got to
find a better way and still keep the sanity the security the safety the
concerns to the water that could be addressed as well without putting people
in further harm's way. Thank you. Thank you, Moni. Carol Morassovic. I've been doing
volunteer outreach around where the Dwight and Grayson streets are and I can
As far as, there was an individual there.
He had no outreach at all into the CES system for 12 years.
And I was able to facilitate through the options encampment team housing for him.
And he is successfully in that housing now.
I haven't been able to help Amber.
And for the last four months, Amber has been so vigorously advocating, as is the landlord.
perspective, Landlord has been calling all over the county saying where she
can get this subsidy for amber. Amber has been homeless and she's 16 years old.
She's been 28 years out in the streets, basically in Berkeley. And, um,
many of the these people are all individuals and I need one more minute
for the where do we go people okay okay so um the these people are all
individuals they're all different she is really trying to is really really
tried to get this place she's found a place and she can't get in and she was
first evaluated assessed in 2022 now again in 2025 so if there was a spark
parking lot, Amber would be in it. Most of these other individuals would be in it. Are
there some people who are very difficult? Absolutely. I've been working with Amber
for about a year now. Has she tried to pull the Dwight area together? Amber has been working
with city staff on reporting abandoned vehicles that were put there by someone who lived in
Vallejo and she's done it to her own detriment to the sense that she feared
retaliation because her name was leaked as having reported it. Amber has cleaned
up the streets. Thank you. Is there any public comment online for item number
eight which is the large vehicle parking regulations in the public right away? I
have two hands raised. First is Beth Rossner. Good evening mayor and council
this is Beth Rossner, CEO of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, expressing support for item 8.
This proposal takes a balanced approach to a complex issue. Long-term and abandoned large
vehicles in the public right of way can create health and safety concerns, limit access for
customers and employees, and impact nearby businesses. We appreciate that this item
strengthens the City's ability to address these issues while also recognizing the importance of
regional coordination, outreach, and alternative housing solutions. We also support the focus on
commercial and industrial areas where safe and reliable access is essential for business
operations. This is a practical measured approach that balances compassion with the need to protect
public safety and support Berkeley's local economy. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. Next is
former council member Sheryl Davila so um you should be ashamed of yourself uh as i call him
the marionette and um Rashi you need to get off your freaking phone stop laughing because this
shit is not fucking fun just for my people's lives that you're messing with and i'm wondering
if i can get some time from somebody in the room an extra minute people are living on the street
because you guys don't have a mental health department or a mobile crisis
unit or services that go out and make relationships with people living on the
street. These commercial districts aren't even utilized as much as you think they
are and if you gave them the services like garbage pickup, shower
programs. They could make or or or tents or or nicer vehicles. You could put money
into that instead of it evictions. That's what you should be concentrating on.
Your time is up. As a reminder if you can refer to the council as a whole in your
public comments. Are there any other comments?
Uh, Christopher Kohler,
well, um, thank you. I'm one of those people that quite a few years ago now had
my RV taken on a pickup truck taken from me. And that was regardless of
what it moved on to a basis. But, um, it was really common that then we didn't
even have encampments. Um, so that was out of the question. What I've
suggested at times is that I think there's some legacy or skill on how to get by even in the
hardest of circumstances. And I've advocated that some of those skills and some of those resources
ought to be made available to people if you're going to put them in the predicament. So I'd be
happy to consult with and conclude with anybody about helping them do that and not just taking
public comment on this item.
Thank you.
I think that was the final
public comment online.
I will go to Councilmember
Humbert.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
I appreciate Councilmember
Taplin for bringing this item
and adding me as a co-sponsor.
I want to be really clear this
item has to do with abandoned
vehicles, not occupied ones.
issues with abandoned RBs parked in the city rights of way, with attendant trash surrounding
them and rat populations in connection with some, as we've seen very recently.
This is a quality of life and public health and safety issue for the housed, the unhoused,
and also the RV dwelling residents of Berkeley, and it deserves our significant attention,
staff's significant attention, and work towards resolving this complex set of issues.
And I think that council member Tapland's item
is a major step in this direction.
And it doesn't again have to do with occupied vehicles.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Tapland your hand was raised
and then council member Blackopee.
Yes, thank you very much.
And thank you to all the speakers on the,
the city has obligations to both maintain the public
right of way and abate hazards,
Public safety and health hazards in the right of way and facilitate.
Access a homeless homeless services and in order to do both the city.
Will need boundaries I share the community support for a safe parking site in order for us to have 1.
I do believe we're going to have to work with our neighboring jurisdictions.
To find real space and real infrastructure for us to be able to do that.
and of course to the requisite funding.
And with that, I move adoption of the item.
Second.
Council Member Bakkerby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I'll be brief.
I just wanted to thank Council Member Taplin
for bringing this item and adding me as a co-sponsor.
I'll say, as we've heard from speakers tonight,
we know this is a complex issue.
There are a lot of facets to it.
This is not finished policy.
what it is, is asking for staff to come back
and look at all of the various permutations
and find the sort of best solution
that accommodates all of the issues
and concerns that we're dealing with.
I'll also note that we do have a policy
for abandoned vehicles on private property,
but this is closing a gap
where we don't have a similar definition
for the public right-of-way.
So part of this is in the city's domain,
in the public right-of-way,
trying to bring some consistency to that definition.
I also appreciate the effort to sort of find
some regional consistency so that again,
we're trying to work with our neighboring jurisdictions.
We're trying to address environmental concerns,
economic development concerns
in some very important parts of our city.
And that we're trying to do it in such a way
that actually supports the transition of folks
into supportive housing resources and supportive services.
And that if we can align this with that effort,
that we'll be in a better position.
And lastly, I just say, I also appreciate the sensitivity
and thinking about this as targeted in areas
that need some attention
and where there are environmental concerns in particular.
And so again, this is not a final product.
This is not a final answer.
This is asking staff to take consideration
of all of these different elements.
Take a look at what our neighboring jurisdictions
are doing, try and find some consistency
in terms of our definition of abandoned vehicles
on private property and bring that same definition
of the public right away and find a way
to move forward here.
So I appreciate the sensitivity that the council members
brought to this item, proud to support it
and thank you for the time.
Council Member Casarwani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I also wanted to echo the thanks for Council Member Taplin
for bringing this item to us
and for allowing me to be a co-sponsor of this item.
I do think it is an appropriate time
to do what this referral is requesting,
which is to look at what other Bay Area jurisdictions
are doing around this issue.
This issue also intersects with state limitations we have found in addressing the issue of RVs on the public right of way in my district. And so I think we do need to take an exhaustive review and see.
Uh, what can be done and I, I do just want to also.
Remind us of of all the work that has gone into this issue in this city
Since I have been a council member. We have had a safe rv parking site
and then we
We transitioned into I think
What is a what I think is a more effective model, which is on second street in my district from cedar
um going north we
implemented what's called an RV buyback program
where we compensated people for their RV.
And because we received a state and cabin resolution grant,
we were able to master Lisa Motel
and offer people transitional housing.
And that was very successful in take up.
And we even had the report that was done
by the UCSF professor outlining the successes
that model, which Mayor Lurie in San Francisco also adopted after we were successful here.
My understanding is, you know, the city of Berkeley was one of the cities that San Francisco
looked to when they developed their RV ordinance. And so, you know, I just want to say that we have
done a lot of work around supporting people who are marginally housed in an RV, and I hope we can
can continue to do that work.
And I think this referral is also very important
to look at what other jurisdictions are doing
and see how we can continue to advance our rules
and regulations around this.
So thank you very much, Council Member Tapplin,
and I'm looking forward to voting.
Thank you.
Not sure if there are any other comments.
No, okay.
So I'm skeptical that this item will accomplish
part of what it intends to, we already have parking requirements now, and the challenge has been enforcement.
And I support enforcing our current parking laws, especially for abandoned vehicles that aren't people's homes.
We don't often have the people power to enforce these regulations.
And so while there are a few cities nearby that are passing new laws to address the RV parking issues,
there isn't evidence right now that they are working.
And as Councilmember Kesser-Wani just stated, our RV buyback program was successful in offering opportunities.
And also, the RV buyback program was successful,
and as was stated, there was a really great study that was done by Dr. Margo Cuchel,
who also spoke to us at the Alameda County Mayors Conference to talk about the success of the RV buyback program,
and how effective it is in moving people
from their vehicles into housing.
And we need to continue to offer strategies like that
and interim housing opportunities.
Just a note that the cities that are passing new laws
to address RV parking,
their new policies are oftentimes connected
to safe parking sites, which we don't have currently.
And so, you know, for these reasons,
I'm gonna be voting now on this item.
Did you have any comments?
Madam Mayor Feigne, or I'm not sure if you can see my hand.
I think, okay, go ahead, you can go first.
Oh, I just wanted to say,
I appreciate the mayor's skepticism.
However, what this item is asking for is
for the city attorney and the city manager
to analyze the regional policy shifts
and provide recommendations for potential actions council
can choose to or not take.
But I do think that we should make these decisions.
I think our policies should be guided by analysis and insight,
and not what this item is asking for.
And I do think that if someone abandons a vehicle
that's not being used for shelter on a Berkeley street,
we should be able to remove it.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
And I guess my point was just that we already have laws,
policies that allow us to remove abandoned vehicles
from the street.
And since we know that-
That is incorrect.
The BMC does not allow us to do that.
Council Member, if I can finish my statement.
So the other piece that I was saying is that we already know
that the RV Buy Back program has been successful.
And so my point was that I think it's more worthwhile
of our staff time to focus on implementing policies
and programs that we know are effective.
One of the recommendations is asking us to look
into how we can partner with the individual jurisdictions
to stand up a larger, more stable
regional safe parking site.
And go ahead, council member LaPara.
Thank you.
I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward
and thinking this through.
I worry that we're putting the wrong thing first.
I appreciate the sentiment of the item
and I don't agree that it should be something
that our staff should be focusing on at the moment.
That's it, thanks.
Thank you, and additionally, we also have evidence
that shows that these parking sites are questionable
in their effectiveness, and we know from having
a safe parking site at Grayson Street
that it was not as effective in getting people
out of their RVs and into homes.
So, since we already have that evidence,
again, I just feel that this is not something
that we need to have staff time used for.
but there's already a motion on the floor,
so if we could take the roll on that, please.
Okay, this is to approve the item eight,
as written by the author with the minor wording change
to recommendation 2D on the motion.
Council Member Kesser-Wani?
Yes.
Taplin?
Yes.
Bartlett?
Yes.
Draga?
Aye.
O'Keeffe?
Yes.
Blackaby?
Yes.
Unapara?
No.
Okay, we are moving on to item number nine, oh no, we are not because we moved it to consent.
We're moving on to item number 10, which is the five-year street rehabilitation and measure FF plans for fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
So I will ask the staff to come up and present.
present. All right, good evening mayor, council members, Wahida Mary, interim
director of public works. Tonight staff is presenting an integrated and
transparent five-year implementation framework. This plan maintains the city's
core paving program, begins delivery of Measure FF, which we are delighted about,
coordinates with safety, ADA, stormwater and utility work, and preserves
flexibility for biennial updates as conditions, funding, and project schedules evolve.
With me tonight are Terrence Salonga, to my right, our supervising civil engineer.
Online we have Manoj Madhavan, our MeasureFF principal program manager.
And just behind us we have the Public Works Cavalry, which started with Pejman Meherfar,
city engineer, Candice Almondroll, our measure FF program manager, and last but
not least, our pavement engineering consultant, Joel Riley. With that said, I'm
going to hand it over to Terrence to kick off the presentation and then we'll
field questions as they come in. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, members of
Council. I'm Terrence Alonga, supervising civil engineer in public works where I
oversee the streets program. I'm joined tonight on Zoom as we had mentioned by
by my colleague Manoj Madhavan,
the Measure FF principal program manager.
Tonight we're presenting two companion plans
covering fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
I will walk through the five-year street rehab plan,
Manoj will present the Measure FF plan,
and at the conclusion,
staff will ask council to adopt both.
To begin with context of the network,
the city maintains 213 centerline miles of streets.
As of the end of 2025,
the Citywide Payment Condition Index, or PCI, was 57,
which the industry classifies as at risk.
The network's replacement value was approximately
1.2 billion dollars, and the 2024 payment management
program update measured the deferred maintenance backlog
at over 330 million dollars.
What these figures reflect more than anything
is that the cost of repairing a street
rises substantially the longer the repair waits.
And I want to spend a moment on that relationship
before turning to the plan itself.
This chart is a typical pavement deterioration curve.
It plots the condition of a street over its life
with pavement condition on the vertical axis
and aging years along the horizontal.
The colored bands represent condition categories
from good at the top to failed at the bottom
and the callouts identify the treatment appropriate to each.
As the curve shows,
the newly paved streets hold its condition
for many years before it drops off steeply.
The costs multiplier shown are approximate,
but the relationship between them is what's important.
So a crack seal or other preventative maintenance apply
while a street is still in good condition
and the green band represents our baseline cost.
Left untreated, the street falls into the yellow band
where a surface seal costs roughly 10 times as much.
Continue to ignore a street and it falls into the orange band
where an overlay costs on the order
of 20 times the baseline cost.
And once the street has failed into the red band,
the only remaining option is full reconstruction
roughly 40 times the cost of the original baseline cost. Given those
escalating costs, the essential question of pavement management is how to keep
streets from declining in the first place. The baseline program applies
critical point management, often summarized as right treatment, right time,
which means we target streets near the bottom of the condition tier and treat
them before they fall into the next more expensive tier. Trading streets at
that point in their life cycle is where each pavement dollar delivers the most
important life across the network. However, an approach built on cost
efficiency means streets already in poor condition can wait a long time for their
turn, and those streets can remain in a condition that carry real impacts for
the residents who live on them. Both needs are legitimate, and the city is
addressing them through two complementary programs, the Street Rehab
Plan and Measure FF, which Manoj will discuss later in this presentation. So how
does critical point management become an actual list of streets? Street selection
rest on two inputs, condition data and the pavement policy. On condition data, the
city inspects the entire network every other year, and each street receives a
PCI score from 0 to 100. That data is fed into StreetSaver, the pavement
management software developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
and with StreetSaver staff input the dollar amount and the proprietary
optimization algorithm, which simulates the critical point management approach,
which produces an initial list of streets.
This initial list of streets is shaped by the second input,
the paving policy which canceled adopted in January 2022.
The policy directs how staff refine our lists
aligned with city's broader goals,
including prioritizing streets that overlap
with the equity zone, the bikeway network bus routes,
while also maximizing efficiency through contiguity,
which means keeping adjacent street segments
together where possible,
and ensuring compliance with dig once.
through coordination with utility and capital projects.
Resulting list of streets is what makes up the plan
we're presenting to you tonight.
Before turning to the new plan,
a brief word on what the prior plan delivered.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023,
the program averaged roughly two
to three centerline miles per year.
Once the current FY26 project is complete,
the FY24 to 28 plan will have delivered 29.2 centerline miles
over three fiscal years, roughly a four-fold increase.
Thanks in large part to the additional general fund support council provided through with the 2022 referral.
After completion of this year's FY26 payment project, the projected PCI will be 61.6 in the equity zone and 59.3 for the rest of the city.
Both improvements with the equity zone tracking ahead of the city wide average, consistent with the policy's direction.
Approximately 43% of that mileage was on bikeways, 39% in the equity zone,
21% on bus routes and 21% on high-injury streets,
delivered alongside 338 ADA curb ramp upgrades.
Turn into the fiscal year 27 to 31 street rehab plan.
This map shows the plan, color-coded by fiscal year.
It covers over 350 street segments
and approximately 55 centerline miles,
representing $88.6 million over five years,
distributed across the entire city
and funded through the city's ongoing revenue sources,
independent of Measure FF.
For this fiscal year 2731 plan, here's a snapshot of what we're delivering by category.
Bikeway streets account for 44% of the plan's mileage and 51% of its cost.
Bus routes account for roughly a quarter of the mileage and 30% of the cost.
High injury streets represent 23% of mileage and 26% of cost.
And the equity zone, which the policy directs to reach a PCI of 70 sooner than the rest of the city, accounts for about a fifth of the mileage and nearly a third of the cost.
concentrated investment relative to equity zone share mileage in the network.
Ticking together, the street rehab plan advances the city's other adopted plans, including
the Vision Zero Action Plan, the bike plan, and the pedestrian plan, consistent with the
paving policy goals.
In terms of budget, the city will have $96.3 million in total available funds over the
next five years.
$5 million of that is set aside for storm drain improvements necessitated by paving
projects, typically old shallow pipes, also known as cross culverts, that must be replaced
during paving which leaves $91.3 million available for paving.
The largest contribution is the CIP fund for the 2022 Council referral which provides $8.5
million in fiscal year 2027 and escalates with inflation each year thereafter.
The plan programs $88.6 million worth of paving which maintains roughly 2 to 3% reserve to
ensure against volatility in global oil markets as asphalt is a petroleum byproduct.
Next I want to spend some time on several major corridors, each of which staff considered
carefully when developing this plan, and each of which involves coordination with a separate
city process.
I'll also note up front that deferral from this five-year plan does not remove a street
from consideration entirely.
The plan is updated on a two-year cycle, and each of these corridors will be re-evaluated
as part of the next update.
Claremont Avenue was programmed for 2027 in the prior plan and is deferred in this one.
A fatal collision in the corridor in 2025 prompted the city to pause the repave and consider vision zero safety elements and interim measures are underway through a quick build project with rapid flashing beacons and procurement at Claremont Eaton.
The city is also coordinating closely with the Alameda County flood control district on its stormwater bypass project.
Projected to begin by the end of 2026, the project will trench the Claremont roadway to install over 4000 linear feet of large diameter stone drain pipe between Tanglewood and Mystic Street.
with completion estimated in 2031.
If any head of that work would conflict with the city's dig once policy.
Pausing pavement would also allow staff to evaluate the efficacy of the newly installed Vision Zero safety elements and
complete the measure FF funded corridor study currently programmed at 350K in fiscal year 2027.
Which will set the streets long term direction.
Telegraph Avenue between Bangkok and Dwight was a 2023 holdover in the prior plan as deferred in this current plan.
The corridor has been the subject of pedestrianization proposals for years.
Most recently, the $1.325 million referral council approved in January for car-free telegraph.
Additionally, the telegraph multimodal corridor study funded at $1.349 million is underway on the corridor south of Dwight with staff pursuing grants towards construction.
A standard repave would be premature until the city settles the corridor's future configuration,
The car limited configuration would carry substantially less heavy vehicle traffic, calling for a lighter pavement design.
Additionally, at a PCI of 33, Telegraph already requires a heavy treatment, so deferral would not add a meaningful cost.
Oxford Street and its contiguous Fulton segment were programmed for
2028 in the prior plan and are deferred here.
Council initially approved a 400K budget referral for Oxford For All in June 2025 and
amended it in December 2005 to $2.5 million in SOCIP funding for design and construction.
The fiscal year 2731, CIP also allocates 900k in UC settlement funds.
And $1 million in measure FF to advance the Oxford for all project.
Staff are deferring the repave until the project's construction timeline is clear, at which points it will be reevaluated for a future plan.
Additionally, with pavement condition in the 60s and 70s, deferral will not drop the corridor and send more expensive treatment here.
Hopkins Street was a 2023 holdover from the prior plan and is programmed in this plan for fiscal year 2028.
The corridors I just described are deferred because funded studies and projects are actively reshaping those streets.
Hopkins has no such separately funded project and its pavement condition is what drives its inclusion.
The plan carries Hopkins and standard paving costs at $6.8 million, which fund the rehab the corridor needs regardless of any additional improvements council may direct.
And it is structured to accommodate whatever direction council sets.
Hearst Street between California and MLK Way is new to the plan program for fiscal year 2027.
I want to address it directly because staff have received requests to hold the repave until a cycle track study can be completed.
The 2026 bike plan includes a cycle track study for Hearst as a tier two lower priority recommendation.
Currently that study is neither funded nor is it in the public works work plan.
Hearst measured a PCI58 in 2024, which is near the bottom of its condition tier.
Today, the street qualifies for heavy maintenance treatment for an estimated $500,000.
If paving is deferred for the several years of study and construction would require,
The paving cost alone escalates to an estimated $1.3 million, nearly three times today's cost.
Programming the paving fiscal year 2027 protects the city's investment, and
it does not preclude future bikeway improvements should cancel direct and fund them.
So how does the streets program and the measure FF program complement each other?
On the left is the five year street rehabilitation plan, which amounts to approximately $88.6 million over five years from ongoing revenues.
through street saver's weighted effectiveness ratio which buys the most pavement life per dollar across the network.
It's the right treatment, right time approach I described earlier.
Prioritizing streets at the optimal point on the deterioration curve and it is governed by the Pavement Policy Council adopted in 2022.
Because that optimization favors streets at the optimal point of the curve, it tends to deprioritize streets that have already failed.
Those long deferred streets are where measure FF comes in and for that side of the slide I will hand it to Manosh.
Thank you so much, Herons. Respected Madam Mayor and Council Members, my name is Manoj Madhav and I am the Principal Program Manager for Measure FF.
In the next 10 minutes, you will hear about how Measure FF complements the 5-year street rehab program.
I will also brief you about some of the projects in the full project list that has been provided as an attachment to the staff report.
This should help demonstrate how we are working as a team between different divisions within
Public Works to implement design and construction-ready projects along with street polling.
To start with, MeasureFF represents approximately $40 million in street investments over the
next five years from the Water Creek parcel tax, and it's directed at a different part
of the network by design.
The ballot language is explicit that the intent of the measure is to allow long-differed repairs
to be made so that streets are acceptable and safe within 14 years, ideally with no
streets below a PCI of 15.
Those are precisely the streets that a cost-effectiveness optimization tends to deprioritize.
Because the cost-to-benefit ratio is highest from pavement that is already cold, they are
also the streets where community members experience the conditions
most directly through rough rides, vehicle damage
and accessibility barriers. MeasureFF is additive
to baseline standing with its own candidate list
and its own oversight through the Safe Streets Citizens' Oversight Committee
or SSCOC. MeasureFF as you know includes three other project types besides the
streets projects. They are categorized as sidewalks,
safety, and environmental enhancements. Before we move into presenting some of the projects selected,
I thought it was important to remind all of us of the exact ballot measure language
based on which this program is being administered. Next slide, please.
First off, let's talk about the four goals for MeasureFF, which are presented on this slide and
are to raise citywide PCI to 70, which is rated as good, ideally with no streets having a PCI
under 50. Eliminate backlog of damaged sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Significantly reduce or
eliminate fuel or severe traffic crashes and achieve goals in line with current best practices
ensuring accessibility, sustainability and resiliency towards benefits for the entire
Berkeley community. Next slide please. The measure states that the approximate 15 million per year
proceeds should be allocated as follows. 60% for streets and sidewalks, a full sure off clean one
quarter will be for sidewalks and pedestrian flats until the backlog is eliminated. 30% will
be for safety improvements and 10% shall include environmental enhancements, any required fees to
the county and any permitted uses as per section 7-11-10 which we will discuss in the next slide.
Next slide please. The funding limitations listed in the ballot measure are proceeds of the tax may
be used to pay or reimburse the city for actual verifiable costs to city staff when they're
performing work including city auditor staff doing. Proceeds of the tax may be used to pay
or reimburse the city for the cost of updating the transportation element of the general plan
and the public works project delivery process once every 10 years. Proceeds of the tax may be
used for public art consistent with the section governing these expenditures and proceeds of the
tax may not be used to fund bicycle-specific safety improvements on Hopkins Street between
McGee and Gilman. Next slide please. Now let's talk about how we evaluated projects for this
election based on language from the measure. City staff ensured that every project that was
selected was consistent with at least one of the City of Berkeley's plans and policies,
and usually each project complied with more than one of these policies.
Every project which includes street repair, repaving, or reconstruction will be implementing
safety improvements concurrently through sidewalk improvements to remediate identified accessibility
violations in compliance with public right-of-way guidelines as well as include any feasible
transportation safety projects. Every project that includes safety improvements are consistent
with at least one if not several of these five City of Berkeley plans and priorities which are
vision zero, pedestrian plan, bicycle plan, complete streets and the safe routes to school.
In addition, the measure also houses to consider 17 additional plans and policies in identifying
and evaluating projects. In short, this measure is extremely complicated to implement and city staff
evaluated all selected projects extensively to meet these requirements. The next few slides will
talk about what kind of projects can be identified into the four distinct funding buckets for this
measure. Next slide please. Starting with street and sidewalk projects that are designed to restore
and upgrade the physical integrity and functionality, including all features, as required by applicable
law.
This language is specifically important as we use some of these funds in order to implement
green infrastructure requirements to comply with federal and state water quality laws.
Safety improvements is by far the most extensively defined set of projects within this measure.
Safety improvements shall mean improvements to sidewalks, streets, and highways designed
reduce collisions, injuries, and fatalities. They can include measures recommended by manuals
published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials, the Federal Highway
Administration or similar. Next slide please. Safety improvements shall also include improvements
to emergency vehicle access, which may be traffic signal controls. These improvements can also be
traffic calming measures designed to reduce vehicle speeds. Next slide please.
Environmental enhancement projects are the last bucket of project types, and may include green infrastructure, permeable surfaces, use of native plants, and tree plantings, as well as community spaces, benches, and bus shelters.
Now that we've seen what kind of projects may fall within the four project types, let's start looking at the selected projects for Measure FF. Next slide, please.
Next, a quick thank you, Terrence.
Trends already showed you this map of five year paving plan projects.
This next one, if you click again, will show you the selected measure FF projects, which
are over 53 segments and over nine centerline miles of anticipated heavy rehab at six proposed
project areas, which are based heavily on community input.
Next click, please, combined, that is over 400 street segments and near 65 centerline
miles of paving over the next five years covering all council districts of Berkeley.
Next slide, please.
In addition, Measure FF also has selected over 20 transportation safety projects as
well as green infrastructure compliance projects, keeping in mind the goals established by the
ballot measure.
The table here shows the funding allocations towards each category across each year, and
And as you can see, the total fall in line with the compliance targets of 60, 30, and
10 percent that are to be met by the end of the measure's lifecycle.
The next couple slides will demonstrate how the projects are ensuring they're being efficient
with cost and mobilization, while also meeting the requirements to implement safety projects
concurrently with street saving projects.
Next slide, please.
One of the proposed projects is the Cedar McGee Rehab Project, which includes approximately
1.4 miles of street segments along Cedar, Magee, Wine, Josephine, Eola, and Buena.
This project will be started in FY2027 with a budget of about $4.7 million and results
in the paved surfaces in the identified project area. We will also be concurrently addressing
safety by constructed sidewalk improvements that will address identified public right
of way-related ADA violations. Next slide, please.
proposed project is the Shattuck Ward Street Rehab Project, which complies with several city plans
and policies, as you can see on the slide, and will be taking into account some proximal projects
as well as implementing the Shattuck Ward pedestrian crossing refuge transportation
safety project to deliver a comprehensive project that repaves 1.5 miles while addressing over 700
reported ADA violations. Next slide, please. To really illustrate what we're hearing from
community members, I want to share two examples of these long-deferred streets that FF is targeting.
You see comments from communications to staff. On the left is McGee Avenue between Cedar and Rose.
McGee had a measured PCI of 10 in 2024, likely in the single digits today, last paved in 1992.
On the right is Ward's Street, with new Fulton and Ellsworth. Ward had a measured PCI of 12 in
2024, again likely in the single digits today, also last paved in 1992. Both of these streets
have been selected for paving in the next five years under measure FF program. They're exactly
the long deferred repairs the ballot measure describes. We presented the entire project list
to SSCOC last month and I've heard and addressed every concern raised so far. When council passed
the budget last month, all these projects were included. Council also took action to move
four of the transportation safety projects to an unfunded list pending further action,
which we will discuss in the next slide. Next slide, please. These are those four projects
and the next steps towards how we're proceeding, which includes staff working with the city
attorney's office for legal interpretation. Per the council direction, staff will also
bring these projects back to SSCOC along with the city attorney's feedback. After these steps,
we will return to council for consideration of feedback and recommendations.
Now we'll hand the mic back to Terrence to take us through how both these programs
affect the overall pavement condition convex for Berkeley.
During plan development, staff examined whether directing all of the funding, including measure
The measure of F through the same critical point management method as a five year street rehab plan would produce a substantially better citywide outcome than street selection based on targeting long different streets.
This graph compares both approaches by projecting PCI over a 12 year period through 2038.
Both lines assume the same total funding.
The only difference is how the measure of F streets are chosen.
Selected by the same method as a street rehab plan, citywide PCI reaches 63 by 2038.
It's projected at long deferred streets consistent with a ballot measure.
It reaches 62.
The citywide outcome is not materially different, which means the city can deliver,
sorry, can deliver on the ballot measure stated intent at essentially no cost to the citywide trajectory.
Neither line reaches a PCI of 70 and the next slide addresses what reaching 70 would require.
This graph also shows 12 year projections of PCI through 2038.
Citywide PCI is projected at 59 after this summer's painting, which is the starting point for each line.
The bottom purple line is the baseline plan alone.
Citywide PCI declines modestly to approximately 56 by 2038.
Largely due to construction costs escalating at an estimated 3% per year.
While revenues grow at only an estimated 2%, a gap that compounds to an over 11% loss in buying power over that period.
The middle blue line adds measure FF.
And together, the program has improved citywide PCI to approximately 62 by 2038, as shown in the previous slide.
The top red line shows what reaching a PCI of 70, the level the industry characterized as good, would require.
An additional $8 million per year on average, approximately $37.6 million through year 12, and
roughly $25 million per year thereafter to maintain a PCI of 70.
and buying programs do not reach 70,
but they are the difference
between a declining trajectory and an improving one.
And to close staff requests
that the city council adopt a resolution adopting
the five years treat your abilitation plan
and measure FF plan for fiscal years,
2027 through 2031.
Thank you, happy to take questions.
Thank you all so much.
Are there any questions from my council colleagues?
Starting with council member Taplin.
Thank you very much.
Uh, we we've received this presentation of our kinds of fights and I appreciate the opportunity to see it again and ask more questions. I'm wondering if we can.
As I understand the made a recommendation that South do not recommend. I'm wondering if South can speak to the rationale.
Yeah, the recommended that we include Clamont Oxford and Telegraph.
And I believe we address that during the presentation, but to recap each of those.
are going along. They're separate city processes. They are budgeted for designing construction
for Oxford For All. Telegraph is budgeted for design for, yeah, long-range development.
And I believe Claremont were complying with the big ones policy there because of the conflict
with the Alameda County Flood Control District project,
which starts by the end of the year.
In parallel to that, we are,
we have just installed a quick build safety elements,
which we are evaluating currently,
and there's gonna be a complete street study done
in the next few years.
And I can add for Claremont Council members,
also part of the proposal for Measure FF
under fiscal year 27.
As we met with the community members
regarding the flood control project,
we're very clear that although we are following our policy,
coordinating closely, we're not gonna wait
till the flood control project is done.
We are initiating our assessment as of fiscal year 27
once it gets adopted.
They'll also give us an opportunity
to be able to study the quick build
that's already gone in there
that I've been communicating with Council Member Humbert
a few weeks here and there, and it's taking shape.
So it gives us a good opportunity
to study what we've implemented
To be able to fine tune the design for permitted infrastructure and that's part of the fiscal year 27.
Thank you very much. So you mentioned that these streets are on a.
Separate parallel city process. Can you illuminate or rather re illuminate for the.
Public and the council what that process is and walk us through.
What the process looks like typically you have streets that get a street repave.
And you have these other streets that call for more of a complete street style project, which is more involved.
It typically takes a more involved public input process.
The delivery timeline for a complete street project is a minimum three years, three to five years.
I think, for example, Southside was ten years at the extreme end.
For our standard repave, I mean, we can kick off a design in June of one year and have
it in construction during the next year, so it's a very short timeline.
That's why the paving plan typically only programs streets that we know we're going
to pave in the next one or two years.
Anything beyond that, we want to make sure that we evaluate it in the next five-year
Plan cycle. That's kind of why these are these are floating out there. And for these three streets,
like I said, deferring them now doesn't mean we are never going to pay them. We'll reevaluate
them in the next five year plan cycle in two years. Thank you very much. And so these streets
require a level of treatment that is so extensive as to require any public engagement process and
additional infrastructural resources. I'm just wondering, can we see the draft map again? Sorry,
I should have requested that be pulled up earlier. No, the fire, let's see which map is this.
I believe that may have been the... Was it on the slide 21 that has more information?
But it's this 1, thank you very much. Yeah, I mean, I'm just wondering.
Because this is a very long extensive.
Segment of Hopkins and I imagine that's more than just a surface every servicing. So I'm wondering why that's on the schedule. Whereas the, after the previous streets, we mentioned or not.
Sure, I can take that question council member as we presented in fights and many other opportunities to explain this.
That the whole intent of carrying Hopkins on this is to carry over the funds, as I've explained in previous presentations.
That we know Hopkins is not just going to get asphalt that council is reviewing.
And once staff gets direction as far as what infrastructure, what multimodal features will go into that corridor, then that's what we'll activate.
And we didn't want to put in other corridors,
other streets that would not really move forward
to again, be transparent with the community.
But as we discussed during the fights,
the plan is to even once this goes to solicitation
is to be able to advertise it to the contractors
to indicate that this is a whole.
So once we get clear direction from council,
as far as what features will go with the Hopkins design,
We will pull that and we'll be in a separate standalone contract that will be more appropriate
to the complete street school or projects that we have aligned under Measure FF.
Thank you.
That's a little, I'm, I think I understand what you're saying.
I think it's challenging for the community and the public.
It is a little opaque to have one set of criteria and processes another set of criteria processes be evaluating a draft documents that include the street that is being it included as it as a placeholder and then maybe if things go a certain way it will then be put into a separate track.
Even though we would be adopting a 5 year plan that included that's real on this track.
I am just having a lot of trouble.
Thinking through how I'm going to communicate that.
To the public, I think if we, if we adopt a draft plan, people are going to assume that the streets on that plan are the streets that we've.
We'll be moving forward with, and then I imagine there would be some confusion and frustration where that list of streets or those that schedule projects be changed after adoption.
Yes, council, you're absolutely correct. And that's why.
We don't want to substitute a number of streets under the 6 million dollar allocation for Hopkins and then that.
It does not occur, so to your point, that's the whole intent,
is to be able to identify that this is for Hopkins, but be very clear up front that this is not just for pavement and asphalt.
It's a carryover of the funds, and then it'll be separated into a more complete streets or
multimodal corridor approach initiative, whatever the direction is from council.
So I agree with you, yes, that's the main reason why we didn't want to put a handful of other streets.
It would occupy the 6 million and it would never occur because that would be, again, to your point, a frustrating.
Event for the community members who actually live on that street.
Thank you for that those are my questions. I'll have more to say in the 2nd round, but I appreciate.
Having the chance to question this.
Absolutely and again, if you have any community engagement sessions, we'll be happy to support you and be able to explain.
I'll rationale and take feedback.
Thank you.
I'm going to go Councilmember Bartlett, and then Trey Gove, and then Blackaby is online.
Thank you for this diligent work.
We've met numerous times about this, and I'm really impressed with how you've woven
together all these disparate interests here.
And so I'm curious though, because it appears as if the plan is, it's a five-year plan,
but really it's good for two years honestly, right?
Yes.
And so, and so, you know, one of my, one of my streets, Stewart, Tween McGee, Tween MLK
and Sacramento, they're incredibly nonplussed because they were on the list and now they're
or not, and their street is a gravel road, right?
And so I guess I'm curious,
what can I communicate to them as to,
they're on their list for years, right?
We did this years ago, right?
And so what can I tell them about relief for their street
that's damaging their cars and their bikes
and causing accidents and whatnot?
And then I guess the second question would be,
The other neighbors, too, are fearful now that they'll be removed.
The ones that made it onto the list are fearful they'll be removed, as well.
Then I can communicate with them, as well, that they'll stay on this list past May 28th.
Sure, and we understand the frustration, Council Member.
And as you mentioned, I've been in community meetings with those residents,
community members, that have a valid point.
They pay their taxes, but their streets get kicked out.
some streets as to Terrence's presentation,
has PCI of single digits, we understand.
And as I've emailed some of our community members,
the good news is this is why I think as Manoj
and our team members mentioned that MeasureFF
complements our baseline public works
five year of pay reinvibilitation.
What that means in the perspective I've used
in the language is the 360 lens
where it complements where originally if we kept the baseline policy those streets would
very likely get kicked out, but the way measure of that has been written and I appreciate in the
news going through the verbatim you know black and white letter by letter that the ballot measure
says we have programmed it where those streets who which have been deferred and deferred and deferred
have a real fighting chance to actually get repaved.
So although it's unfortunate for Stuart, I do feel it is positive that Measure FF is in place.
And whether Stuart or other segments or whatever that also have low PCI and
would not meet the criteria really have a good opportunity not to be able to be carried on with Measure FF.
If it's not through this round, it could be very real through the next opportunity.
So again, that's what I would recommend you share.
That this is the best of both worlds.
And that's how staff diligently has programmed
and drafted it.
So that way, we're not looking at
just specific aspects of our network.
This gives us an opportunity to be able to implement
benefits, reconstruct, improvement, safety,
throughout the city's network as a whole,
and not just targeted.
And again, as I've offered to Council Member Taplin,
and you know this very well,
you and I have been in many of these meetings.
We'll be happy to support you
if there are community meetings.
I would love for our team to show up, express,
and go into details as well as with opportunities
because we hear them.
I'm the first advocate, as you know.
If you're paying your taxes, this gives an opportunity
for everyone to be able to benefit
and not get skipped for decades and decades.
Thank you, and some neighbors are interested in pursuing self-help.
Is there any guidance on that front you could offer?
Can you go a little bit deeper as far as self-help?
Well, they're prepared to hire a paver and paver themselves.
We'll be happy to work with them through the City Attorney's Office and
the City Manager's Office to see what that looks like.
I know that we have a long list of unincorporated streets that our city
city engineer behind me, and I have met with council member
Blackaby that we're incorporating a framework and a policy.
And again, we'll be more than happy to look at
what that looks like.
But again, we can do that from a technical perspective.
I look on my colleagues from the city attorney's office,
and the managers for direction and guidance.
Great, thank you.
Thank you, council member Tracob.
Thank you so much.
So, advanced warning, I do have a number of questions.
I wonder if they will play out.
Yeah, I'll cover as many as I can in my time.
I note that the majority of FF streets
tend to be east-west travel.
Can you speak to whether that was intentional?
I don't believe it was intentional.
Can you speak to if or how schools
or other sensitive areas of interest were considered
in developing these two plans?
Yeah, when we select our streets,
one of the things we look at is the equity zone.
We prioritize streets within that equity zone
by adding a score.
So what we're seeing is that our street selection reflects
that are mileage and are paving dollars
as a comparison to their actual share of total mileage
is essentially a concentrated investment in those areas.
On Table 1c of the report,
it seems that there is kind of a lumpiness
in the allocation for each year
between streets and sidewalks.
It's about 10 million, one year, eight million, the next.
Can you just in general talk about how you're thinking
through the funding allocation projections?
See for some other categories,
there's a drop off within different categories.
That's the measure FF table.
I'm sorry.
The ones don't have it.
It's the measure FF table.
Okay.
So I'll start and I'll hand it over to Manu.
So measure FF is a bit unique
as far as our revenue.
As you might know, the cash flow varies for fiscal year 26.
It includes about 18 months worth of revenue
that's been collected since January of 2025.
So that gives us approximately $22.5 million
to kick those off.
With that, I'm gonna hand over Manoj,
if you wanna go into the details as far as the table.
Yeah, I think that basically explains it, Raheed.
I think we also talked about some of the complications
that we have to take into account
and we're making a string measure of that.
The funding buckets specifically of the 60, 30 and 10,
60% being for streets and sidewalks.
And then that again is split up into a 45 and 15 bucket.
So we're taking all of that into account as well in the map
when we're actually calculating all these numbers
across the five years.
And it is very complicated to actually get a project
complete like when we select streets or sidewalks to actually ensure that we are going and mobilizing
at the exact same locations, and also meet these funding requirements. That's basically
why you're seeing some what you call lumpiness, but it's actually really well thought out
in terms of like trying to meet these all these requirements and the cash flow. We don't
I want to spend more than what we actually get yearly.
Sounds fairly reasonable.
Thank you.
My next two questions cover points raised
in the letter we received on this past Thursday
from Walk bike Berkeley.
First question is what would be the implications
of combining FF funding with other paving funds
to align paving efforts and allow
for an integrated citywide paving plan
in the matter suggested by walk by Park Lane, their letter.
Yeah, I believe when we, in our second to last slide,
or it might've been third to last slide,
we cover what the trajectories might look like
if we use measure of funds as basically an extension
of the street rehab plan.
We reach a PCI of 63 by 2038 versus 62
if we were to go with our current approach,
which is along deferred streets.
And to reiterate, we don't believe
that's a material difference.
We believe the benefit that we see from alleviating the impacts
to some of these community members that live on these streets
or travel on these streets is worth it as a trade off.
And this gives us the opportunity
to be able to service streets like Stewart
and other court orders and segments
that have been skipped for 20, 30 years.
Thank you. What coordination is this plan making with the newly adopted bike plan?
So, whenever we select streets, we are looking at how it overlaps with our bike network and specifically with the proposed and existing bike networks in the bike plan.
And similar to the equity zone, we are prioritizing those streets when we select them.
We're giving them a boost in its prioritization.
And then to add to that, once we move forward with the design of those projects,
we're coordinating with our transportation colleagues to implement some of the safety measures that are recommended in the bike plan.
Things like traffic calming, traffic circles, things that improve things for bike users.
Thank you. Are there any corridors? You've touched on a few. Are there any other corridors
where resorfacing is intentionally being paired with Vision Zero improvement?
Not intentionally. We do overweight arterials and collectors. That's where we see most of
our high injury streets. So we don't necessarily prioritize based on Vision Zero, but we do
to implement recommendations made through the Vision Zero Action Plan.
That is our goal, to act as an implementation vehicle.
Okay, thank you, actually I'm almost done with my questions.
If a street deteriorates significantly during the five year period, but
is not currently scheduled for rehabilitation, my district has a few of them.
I think that's true for every district.
process exists to get it on the program and or move it up and actually
specifically what the answer change if utility work when you buy construction
activity causes unexpected damage to adjacent task I would say two things I
would say first off if possible I would call through one one to ensure that the
road is made safe immediately in terms of trying to get it on the pavement plan
I would recommend that they reach out to council members and advocate for their street.
That was something we would consider as part of the Measure FF process.
The street rehab program is kind of independent of the input we receive for community.
It's based on our payment policy.
It's based on condition.
So it's not as sensitive to the community input as Measure FF is currently.
Additionally, if I can add one more thing for Measure FF is we are supposed to go and
and do outreach with the community once every three years,
which will start next year.
So we're supposed to go through different parts of Berkeley
and talk about the next set of projects
that are actually being evaluated and selected
and get input as well.
Thank you.
And I look forward to just receiving more information
at the appropriate time about the next outreach process.
Do we have established processes for two-way communication with agencies and utilities
such as East Bay MUD and PG&E to ensure that plan street work, infrastructure projects
and multi-year plans are shared with us well in advance?
Yeah, we have a quarterly coordination meeting with PG&E, AT&T, all of the telecom.
Separately we have a quarterly meeting with EBMOD where we share our projects.
have recently gained access to PG&E's GIS maps that show their capital projects, so
we get a live update whenever they shift schedules. So it is something we are actively coordinating
with, and we're also getting that information through GIS.
Thank you. What, if anything, has caused delays to plan implementation in the past, and what
can be done to minimize those delays in the future?
I'd say the major delay is in the procurement process, either contract execution, and we
often see bid protest holding up the process.
Typically, you'll have a little bidder and then the second little bidder who just misses
out on winning the project will try to intervene and win that project by filing a bid protest
that can set the contract back anywhere from four to six weeks, even longer, that potentially
delays it into the wet weather season and we want to target anywhere from late summer
to early fall in order to get the best optimal weather for paving. So right now that's the
main risk I see now. And for reference, we just had a reason for fiscal year 26 contract.
We experienced exactly what Terrence was mentioning and thanks to our city attorney's office,
we're working through those logistics. Thank you. Sorry, can you repeat that last part?
I mentioned that per tenuous' feedback, we're actually going through the same bit protest
issue with the fiscal year 26 package that will work with the City Attorney's Office
to be able to resolve and move forward.
So again, it happens more than we'd like, but it's a process that has to be played out
and thanks to our City Attorney's Office, we try to maneuver it as swiftly as we can.
Thank you so much.
My final question, so I do understand and appreciate
the thought that has, well, gone into this whole presentation
and it's no secret, I have been advocating for Oxford
for all, I understand why it's currently not in the plan
because it's on a parallel track, no pun intended.
If for whatever reason, there is a delay
in implementation of that separate process.
Can you speak to what consideration can be given
to at a future point, putting Oxford back on the plan?
And I think that's probably,
I will ask the same question for the other two initiatives
it for mention is moving on a separate trajectory.
Sure, I can start.
I think we already have Oxford for all,
not under, I'm sorry, Oxford Complete Streets
under measure FF for fiscal year 2030 or 31,
Manush, which one is it, 30 or 31?
30, I believe, but I am checking, sorry.
So to your point, Council Member,
so so it doesn't come through for Oxford for all, that will be the next opportunity for staff to
grab it and hopefully move into design in a more comprehensive corridor complete streets approach.
Does that answer your question? Yes, thank you so much.
Thank you. Councilmember Bockabee and then Councilmember Kesserwani. Great.
Councilmember Bockabee, we can't cue you very well.
Hello. Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you better.
Sorry. Okay.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. I wanted to thank Interim Director Amiri, Mr. Salonga and Mr. Madavan for all their work.
And as much dealing with all of us as we advocate for the projects in our districts, I know that there's a lot to balance here.
And later in my remarks, I will be doing more of that advocacy, so fair warning.
But I really appreciate all the effort that's gotten us to that point.
Just a few questions for clarification purposes, the criteria for prioritizing kind of what gets
resources for second and third, that's really something that's set, that's a policy decision
that's set by council, right? You're pretty much just, you're carrying out and fulfilling that
vision, but the prioritization and kind of the, you know, the order and the criteria,
you're really kind of taking that direction from council and making the best plan given that input,
What is that fair to say?
Correct, correct.
Thank you.
Okay, is it possible offline, not now,
but could you share, you know,
over the next kind of period of months
and as we head into this cycle,
I'd love to sort of just go deeper
into how the criteria work.
And is it possible just to sort of get like the, you know,
how that process works and all the criteria.
I know there's a lot,
there's kind of all the various plans that you talked about.
There's the equity zone piece of this.
but to the extent that if we wanted to reprioritize
or bump something up or something down,
would it be possible for us to just see that
so we could spend a little time as a body looking at that
and then making assignments as needed?
Not a problem.
Okay, great.
Appreciate also the thought that you went into
with kind of the core rehabilitation plan
as separate from measure FF
and kind of applying two different lenses to it.
I thought that's a really smart way
of kind of doing the, you know,
how do you maximize pavement life per dollar
by focusing at that optimal point
in the deterioration curve,
doing that with the core budget?
And then with Measure FF,
you're focusing dollars on streets
at the bottom of the curve
and trying to sort of lift everything back up.
Is it possible to flip back a couple of charts
where you just look at the Measure FF kind of map?
Is that possible in the presentation?
You got it.
we're pulling it up now. Okay. Thanks. My question here is almost just the FF chart.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah. Just the FF chart. Just the FF chart. Okay. Yeah.
This is not coming back into my district six. Okay. So district six advocacy. So my question
So, you know, we have like other districts, we have a lot of streets with sub PCI 50.
And in my remarks later, I've been kind of crunching some data.
I know that we don't have any streets currently in the five-year plan that are scheduled to
be funded by FF.
Is that because our streets aren't also part of another one of those citywide plans like
the bike plan or like the Vision Zero plan?
I think there was like multiple things happening here that gets a project onto the FF list.
It's not just PCI below 50, but it's PCI 50 or below plus some other factor.
So my question is, I think District 7 is in this boat, District 8 is in this boat, District
4 is even in this boat.
How do we get more of those sub-50 PCI streets onto the measure FF plan if the intent is
to pave streets of sub PCI 50?
Oh, I'll start Minosh and I know this is a measure of half question, but.
Currently, there is no policy for measure F F, which states we have to, you know, advance these other city plans.
Like the notice stated in his in his presentation.
It's relying upon community input.
And in subsequent years, we plan to hold community meetings to gather more community input and boost some of these long deferred streets up in our plan.
Okay, that sounds good. I'm gonna come back to some of our marks later
But again, this is all not to take away at all from the great work that you've done
And I am super excited just I think the public should also know we're talking about
Paving 65 miles of streets over the next five years, which is double what we did over the previous five years
So we're gonna be paving twice as many streets
Over the next five years as we did the previous five
Which is a huge accomplishment a lot of the discussion debate is just about how we prioritize those scarce dollars
But there's no question this is going to make a huge impact of huge positive impact quality of transportation quality of life safety in the city. And so I just wanted to thank you for doing all this work, even while we continue to harass you about the particular prioritization details. So, thank you.
Thank you. Councilman, because they're wanting.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
And I want to thank interim director and Mary. Mr. Solonga and Mr. for.
for the presentation and this is just such a tremendous improvement. I know I
talk a lot about where we were you know at the start of my council tenure where
we had a budget that was requiring us to not invest enough in our street paving
and it would lead us to a pavement condition on average that was lower at
at the end of the five year period than higher.
And so to see where we are now
with the baseline funding that's over 80 million
and then the measure FF funding that adds over 40,
I think it's 42.1 million,
this is just really exciting.
And I do wanna say as I am moving around our city already,
I'm seeing the result of Council's action previously
to add in the eight and a half million more
from general fund, you know,
the capital improvement plan funding for streets.
I'm seeing streets in,
all over the city in district six and district one
and elsewhere that are getting the treatment that they need.
So I just want to appreciate that.
And I think council member Blackaby already talked about
what I wanted to highlight,
which is this use of what you call
report the weighted effectiveness ratio to rank streets by the I believe it's the pavement life
gained per dollar spent and using this you know quote unquote critical point management strategy
to target streets right before they drop into a more extra expensive treatment tier. So I think
that's really great because I think you showed that that cost curve that when we wait and we
prolong the treatment it can cost I think it's 8x then then what it would otherwise cost if we
do the treatment earlier so I want to express support for that I think that makes a lot of
sense and then to have Measure FF come in and address the deferred maintenance address the
streets that need the full reconstruction I think that makes a lot of sense and I do think that
I mean, looking at the map of what is going to be done by 6 or not by 6 by measure FF. I do see councilor blacked B's point, you know, certain districts are not receiving the benefit.
With with what we're proposing here and so.
I know we have more time with FF and so I know and I know there are other streets in need. So I think hopefully we can.
Um, sort of spread the love there and get to more streets that are below 50 pavement condition.
Um, as that measure continues to provide us resources and I do want to thank.
The public for supporting that item and thank the advocates who.
You know, collected signatures for that.
Um, so we can actually get to a place as as our as director of Mary was explaining, you know, where we can see a city wide average pavement condition.
That's in the 60s. So, um, so I'm just really pleased to see where we are. I also wanted to, you know, because I was here when we developed the policies that you're now implementing.
Around the equity zone, and I just want to say that I, I think that that's really important because.
Before we had this equity zone, we were doing the exact same street miles in each district.
And, and as we know, you know, when you are exactly equal, you end up not being equitable. And so, you know, we had our auditor.
Put out our rocky road streets audit that showed, in fact, when we do an equal number of streets in each district, and we under invest overall.
We were seeing the pavement condition going down.
By a greater number in the equity zone than in other zones, because the equity zone does get heavier truck.
truck traffic and greater use.
So I think it's really satisfying to see,
to see us effectuate that concept
of trying to allocate these dollars equitably.
And so, I wanted to express my appreciation for that.
And I hear from my colleagues, I know not everyone,
I know not every street is getting what it deserves.
I see those emails as well, the frustration of people.
And so I just want to reassure the public that we do have these resources now.
And so I do hope and expect that streets that need to get the reconstruction will be able to get it over the 14 years that we have Measure FF in place.
So, thank you again for this presentation and looking forward to seeing us spend these dollars.
Thank you. Council Member Humber, did you have a question?
I'm sorry, I know we keep coming back to this.
So I hear what you're saying about that they're deferred.
But I think what I'm saying is that I'm trying to understand that there's a lot of things that I'm trying to understand now that we've passed the budget on the major corridor status slide, which is slide 11.
I'm sorry, I know we keep coming back to this.
But I think what I'm struggling with is that a couple of things, it says that this, the
telegraph multimodal corridor study is underway, and that $1.349 million, that's funding that
already is towards that?
The $1.325 is from the language development plan that was part of the adopted plan.
The 1.349, that's below it, that's the next bullet line.
That's a multimodal corridor study, south of Dwight.
That's the telegraph multimodal.
The point to South City.
Yeah, that one is a separate project
from the segment we're looking at for caving.
That's just in there to show how much of the corridor
is gonna change in the next few years.
Okay.
The telegraph multimodal is from Dwight
going towards Oakland border.
Right.
design that's fully funded and then the Carfrae Telegraph is again going towards
bankrupt and this is that point the second that this one point three to five
though for a Carfrae Telegraph budget referral in January 27 was the referral
but then at Council we approved funding from the LDP correct it's just it's not
it's just not listed on here is that right yeah maybe we forgot to update
Yeah, my apologies. Okay. No, that's okay. I just want to make sure
Somewhere it's confirmed that that exists. And and I guess what I'm also trying to understand is
You know why this why telegraph and Oxford are being deferred if we set aside funding for them in the LRDP in Sosip
I believe that funding is for the preliminary phases of the projects. It doesn't fund paving. Uh-huh
like I said that for projects like this complete street studies
We're looking at a three to five year horizon. Yeah, I guess it's just two years
When when we know more about the direction of where these with these projects going to take
We can we evaluate them for inclusion in the five-year plan, but at the current state
It seems like it's too far out to include I see I guess I guess I'm just confused by this slide
And I think maybe in future
Yeah, it would just it would just be helpful in future
I think to to state like where it's at because I think one of the things that gets very confusing to folks is like
Okay, it's all right. I get it. It's not being actually paved in the current five-year plan
and also I think somewhere it would would be helpful to show that
It's sort of in process with this, you know, the study that's being done just so we can understand that better
Got it good. I was going to keep
Okay
All right. I think that was my only question
Is there a public comment on this? We are on item number 10 which is the five-year street
rehabilitation and measure FF plans for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. I think there's a couple
of folks that are online. First is Charles Siegel. I'd like to see whether I have two
minutes or will have two minutes. So I'm speaking on behalf of walk through the school plan. I'd
I'd like to ask you to edit funding for a Hearst Avenue complete street study.
And, you know, Hearst Avenue between California and Milbia is a complete street study,
complete street study corridor in the Black Plan. Normally, when the street is paved,
the complete street study is done first. But in this case, as we've seen, it's
deteriorating quickly, and we have to pave it in 2027, or else the cost of paving will go away.
But it's also possible to do the complete street study afterwards,
and whatever improvements in safety we can make, we can do as retrofits after the paving.
And I think the way to do that, my specific ask is that, you know, staff said they have to
come back with four issues for end-to-end spending which are of dubious legality and that they have
to get a leave in the future. And I'd like to ask the council when you come back with
those four items ask them also to come back with an estimate of the cost of our Hirst Avenue
complete street study. And the reason Hirst Avenue is important is because it's the
final link in the Ohlone Greenway, we've approved the Ohlone Greenway in northwest of the BART
station, we're going to open through the BART station, that doesn't do much good if you get
through the BART station and you just have a dangerous stretch of history and this would
actually complete the Ohlone Greenway as a major regional facility leading all the way from
City to the north to downtown Berkeley and to the campus.
So please do include that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Kelly.
Can you hear me OK?
Yes.
Yes.
All right.
So I've been listening all night and, of course,
listening to this and spending my day immersed
and looking at Hopkins and the bicycle
plans since 2017. And when I walk around this city, I don't see people using the bicycle
infrastructure to any real degree. And we paid $367,451 for the update of the bicycle
plan and we did not get a bicycle count to show how things are being utilized, how this
infrastructures being utilized and we don't have a baseline for the next infrastructure of how
all this spending on bicycle infrastructures is being utilized from 2026 forward.
It just seems like Walkback Berkeley is running the city and South Berkeley is getting screwed again
With a street that is gravel.
And isn't being fixed and we're putting all this energy into Hopkins where there are multiples of problems.
So, I would, I appreciate what is being done on trying to put a 5 year plan together and recognizing how staff are being pressured.
But I really think that some of this needs to be reevaluated,
especially when it comes to Hopkins.
I understand that's going to come to us on the 28th and it's not ready.
So I'm running out of time,
but I could talk a lot more.
Thanks, Kelly. Council Member Humber, you have comments?
Yes.
I do, Madame Mayor.
There has been some amount of discussion about sort of siloing the FF paving funds versus
the other, the five year, general five year paving plan.
And I understand we're dealing here with sort of not an embarrassment of riches,
but many more resources than we had before, and that's a wonderful thing.
And I think this was a rational way to handle it.
I know there probably are other ways to handle it, but
I'd echo Councilmember Kesirwani's comments and
I think Councilmember Blackaby's comments if he said this.
I hope he did, that this kind of allocation makes sense, so I wanted to make that point.
I want to thank Public Works Interim Director Wahida Miri for all of his work,
and Mr. Salonga, and Mr. Manavan, and their staff for a huge lift here.
It's really hard and complex work that went into the five-year paving plan and measure FF plan for these fiscal years.
I'd like to also thank the Transportation Infrastructure Commission for its input.
These plans are going to make our city streets and sidewalks and
bike and pedestrian facilities much better and much safer.
And so I'm really happy about all this, and I'm really happy that hopefully we're going to move forward with this program.
I appreciate the confirmation by Mr. Salonga.
I think it was that the traffic signal study in certain technology related infrastructure items and
the transportation nexus study which council directed be moved to the unfunded need category are removed in this item.
from the spending plan pending further review by staff,
so the attorney's office, the FF oversight commission,
and then ultimately back to council.
And for a belt and suspenders approach,
I'm gonna maybe later add some language
to the resolution that kind of nails those things down.
But I really do wanna thank staff
for all this really good work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Comments from Council Member Chaplin.
Thank you.
I would like to also thank Public Works and everyone.
And I'm really proud of our equity zone policy
and very proud of Council's general fund commitment
to paving and I want to thank Council Member Casa-Roni
for who did you go on that.
There are a lot, there are a lot of things in this draft plan that I really appreciate.
I, I continue to grapple with the concept of adopting a five year plan that we know will change really soon.
Um, uh, it feels, it, uh, it's, it feels like, um, I know that we adopt the five year plan in that segment of time.
I know that things can change, I would prefer having a clear view of the final product,
we would be ultimately adopting, and I recognize we don't have that, and I am, I do want to
be cognizant of our need to get things out to bid in a manageable timeline for anything
move forward, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my unresolved questions and concerns
around the discrepancy between the way Hopkins and the other complete streets are being treated.
That is creating a kind of confusion. I am struggling to think through towards
Potential clarifications for my, for my constituents.
Um, but I just wanted to share that for now.
Councilmember Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor. Um, and again, just to thank the public work staff for all their great work, um, the transportation infrastructure committee, um, for their review of this as well.
Um, I, and I'm proud to support this plan. It's going to, you know, move the city forward measurably.
I do want to share a couple of things just for consideration for next time, just as we're
kind of coming back in the next two years.
This is based on my own kind of number crunching from the plan, and just to kind of put this
all in context about how this is kind of play out across the city.
Again, there's 213 miles of pavement, as we've talked about, across the city, centerline
miles.
We're going to touch 65 miles, which is amazing, over the next five years, which leaves about
138 miles untreated.
This is how it sort of breaks out by district, which again, is not the only view, but again,
I'm not being a good advocate for District 6 if I don't at least take a look at this.
So I just want to at least acknowledge the fact that in D6, we represent about 17% of
the total street miles in the city.
getting 12% of the treatment over the next five years. It's the biggest disparity in
terms of, you know, we're 17% of the miles and 12% of the treatment in particular, what's
left over after the five year plan is we have the most street miles of sub 50 and sub 30
PCI streets in the city by a fair margin. So my concern about again, how we're allocating
FF dollars is all from this perspective.
Like my district has a lot of streets in poor condition
like many of us do,
but we're gonna have the most streets in poor condition
relative to other districts in the city.
We also are a part of the city where in many places
we don't have sidewalks.
So the quality of the street is the quality of the sidewalk
for many residents in district six.
So again, I'm fully supportive.
we're taking an unleashing an enormous amount of paving
and safety improvements in the city.
And I'm very, very pleased about that.
That is really great news.
We all use in district six,
we all use resources and transportation infrastructure
in all parts of the city.
So we're gonna appreciate having stuff done that's downtown.
We're gonna appreciate things
that are done in North Berkeley.
We're gonna appreciate all of this investment
that's happening all across the city.
But I do think as we move forward
and come back again in a couple of years,
I just think we need to narrow a few of these gaps because I feel like, you know, we, I think we need to see more of these benefits more quickly as we move forward. But again, this is not to minimize staff's work staff as follows following the policy directions of the council and they're making the best use of those scarce resources.
I totally appreciate that I just think we may need to look at some policy adjustments just to make sure that we're, we're treating all parts of the city fairly as we move forward. But again, I'm proud to support the overall plan and look forward to the results that come from this.
so thank you thank you okay councilmember tregg up thank you madam mayor I'd like to first think
the public works department for their incredible work on this item in particular acting director
of merely mr. Salonga and mr. Madam one the annual increase in miles plan for rehabilitation
truly demonstrates the department's commitment
to improving conditions citywide
into the long-term maintenance
of our street infrastructure
minor fluctuations in
percentage spent per mile
in each district notwithstanding.
I'm also glad to see that we're coordinating
the five-year street rehabilitation plan
with measure FF funding,
And I really appreciate your explanation
around the methodology used for each of this.
I think that's gonna be very helpful
as I attempt to explain this to my constituents.
And together, this truly allows for sidewalk
and pedestrian path accessibility improvements,
safety projects, and environmental enhancements.
I'm so proud of the work that has already been done
in my district.
That's, these are streets I walk by every day
on my way to City Hall.
And I know that that will accelerate with FF.
And I appreciate the public works is doing a lot
to incorporate utility coordination,
Big ones, opportunities, vision zero, priorities,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
ED and prologue accessibility and storm water requirements
as they do this work.
As the city continues to solicit input
from all segments of the community,
it will be important that due attention is given
to soliciting and closely considering the input
of differently abled community members,
such as those for blind or deaf,
as I create the plan, since by the time
it's fully scoped out, it is often too late.
Just responding to a few communications that we received
and comments that have been made,
I'm very open to continuing to revisit,
or to revisiting the ordering of funding
within the first corridor between California and MLK
while it is not in my district many of my constituents
do use that particular corridor to be able to bike,
and I think there is an, and I have used it as well,
and there is an interest in making sure that when they do,
when I do, if we're able to transit it safely.
I look forward to continued collaboration with staff
around future community engagement opportunities in general,
as well as in my district.
And I want to note that this process is just the beginning.
And as well, I look forward to continuing
our longstanding partnership to effectuate our Oxford
for all referral.
And with that, I am very excited to support this plan.
Council member Linopara.
Thank you.
And thank you for being here today.
I share a lot of the concerns
that council member Taplin laid out.
I really, I really wish
that all of these streets were on one list
and they were all in the five year paving plan together.
I don't think it makes sense to treat
Hopkins complete street as any different
from any of the other complete streets.
I think they should all be on the five year
paving plan together.
I've said that it fights too, and it's also what,
I'm disappointed that that's also what TIC recommended
and it was not incorporated into this version.
So I know that we need to pass this tonight
and I'm happy to do that.
But I also think that we need to come back soon
and revisit it because I think that this system
makes it much more complicated.
And it's also a new system.
The previous complete streets treatments that we've done,
including Novia and the Southside streets
were on the paving plan and received paving plan dollars
to do the asphalt piece in addition
to dollar transportation dollars from other sources.
And I don't think we should be siloing
the pots of money like that.
As we wrote and put forward Measure FF,
the goal was to enhance the amount
that the city had to fund these projects
to fund this paving and to do it in a way that was that was aligned with our other plans
and aligned with our priorities of safe streets. And I this this approach was not what was
envisioned and I it's not the way that I think we should do it and I hope that we can
come back and address those issues. Thanks. Thank you. Vice Mayor Keith. That's right.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, keep forgetting.
So yeah, I just want to echo the thanks.
I want to give my own thanks to all of you, Acting Director Amiri, Mr. Slonga, Mr. Madhavan.
Thank you so much and all of your people you work with.
This is so much work.
And actually, I want to start by saying that I, as somebody who spends a lot of time thinking
about algorithms I'm just really in awe of what a complicated algorithm you've
been implementing and and that's exactly what it is it's this is a you
you're required due to the nature of you know tax dollars and equity to be as
methodical as possible to create to be as equitable as possible and there's
just so many factors that go into it and so much so many considerations and I
I really want to appreciate that and just, you know, it's not perfect and obviously not everyone's happy and I acknowledge the comments of some of my colleagues are valid.
But that said, you guys did a really good job on a really, really difficult problem and I just I really appreciate it.
And I specifically want to thank you just from a District 5 perspective, which is my perspective.
I want to really thank you for adding, including McGee and Shattuck North of Vine are two small segments that are really,
really desperate need of paving in my district and those are, I believe, covered by FF. And then,
of course, I have to mention, thank you very much, I'm very grateful that Hopkins is being identified
as a street that will be paved in 28. It's, you know, been often on the paving plan for quite some
time, it is in terrible shape, it is a major street, it's probably the worst major street
in the city. And it has major safety problems. So I'm just so grateful that it is finally
getting paved. And of course, we will talk about the specifics of that in a few weeks.
So I do want to say one thing about that, though. It's about this and about that. I
want to invite my colleagues right now, while we're sort of looking at this paving plan
situation in its totality, I think we should all just really appreciate how unforgivably
zero sum this is.
Every single street that's on here is another street that's not on here.
Every dollar we spend is not getting spent somewhere else where it's needed.
And I want us to think about that because in a few weeks when we look at Hopkins Street,
we are going to choose between a treatment that is either unbelievably expensive or a
a treatment that is twice as expensive
as the unbelievably expensive treatment.
So, just, you know, I'm not gonna go into that more.
We're gonna do that next, you know, in two weeks,
but I just, this is, every dollar counts,
and let's be really careful and smart
with how we spend these dollars,
because it's a very difficult problem to solve,
and thanks again.
Thank you.
Councilmember Humbert.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I mentioned before that I'd like to make a motion
and add some language to the staff recommendation and the resolution.
I'd like to add a whereas clause,
one whereas clause and one therefore clause to the resolution,
and otherwise move the staff recommendation.
Whereas at its June 23rd,
2026 meeting, Council identified the traffic signal master plan,
transportation fiber optic network,
traffic signal modernization project and transportation nexus study is
unfunded needs requiring further review by the safe street citizens citizen
oversight committee SS COC imprints and City Council therefore it be resolved
that the Berkeley City Council directs staff to note the traffic signal master
plan transportation fiber optic network traffic signal modernization project in
Transportation Nexus Study, our preliminary Measure FF safety projects, and are subject
to subsequent review and approval by the Safe Streets Citizen Oversight Committee, SSCOC,
and the City Council.
And otherwise, I'd like to, with these slide amendments, move the item pursuant to the
staff recommendation.
Councilmember and maybe staff also, just to confirm, that would mean that just as we agreed
And then in the review, too, or
we discussed at the CIP
conversation that those pieces
would go to the Measure FF
Committee and they would take a
look at it and then if approved
it would be added on to?
To speak.
Correct.
I think part of that is also
City Chair's review and then if
it passes that review then we
would present it to the
oversight.
Great.
Can I, sorry, may I interrupt
and just say that the four
Council Member Humber just mentioned,
there's one that's slightly off.
We're talking about the Vision Zero Action Plan update,
based implementation rule, that was unfunded.
Oh, right, we have that too, I'm sorry.
So there are four, there's a fifth one you mentioned,
which is not on that list.
Yeah, there's a fifth one as well,
that was the Transportation Design Element Plan,
that as part of the CIP that was also asked for the review.
So, just so they're actually five, not four there are only four.
You mentioned another 1 right now council member that is not on that unfunded project list that was passed during budget.
We'll, we'll share the slide on what I can see the slide is that the transportation.
Fiber optic network correct. I think that's the 1 that you mentioned that is actually not unfunded.
Okay, I would like to make this five then, and that should likewise be unfunded and subject
to the same process as the other four.
Sorry, I'm just checking this slide.
I think just for clarity, I think we can just say the same ones that we talked about at
the CIP conversation.
Is that right?
Right, but I think we did talk about the fiber optic network at the CIP.
Sure, that's fine.
I just want to make sure that we're all saying the same thing.
Okay, all right, very good.
So what's being added?
There's the transportation fiber optic network.
To the list that's on page 26 of the slide deck.
Is anything changing in the whereas or the resolve clause?
Yes, I guess to add, just which one did I miss?
The vision zero action phase implementation roadmap should be in the motion.
Okay.
Thank you.
I also just want to add my thanks so much to city staff.
There's just so much work that goes into this, and I understand how complicated this is.
And we have so many miles of streets to go through.
So I really just want to appreciate all of you
for the work that you've done to put this together
and to present it to us this evening.
And I know you've also had to present it
in many different iterations to many different bodies.
So thank you for that as well.
And of course, thank you to the public work staff
who actually do the implementation
and work to make this happen.
So one of my policy priority areas is infrastructure.
And I know that our street sidewalks infrastructure
are really in need of a lot of care and work.
And I'm really happy to see the supportive Measure FF funds
that are being used to address the backlog
of low PCI streets
as well as implementing green infrastructure projects.
And also just generally happy to see us doing so much work
towards making Berkeley a safer place,
especially looking at ADA improvements, repaving streets
on preparing sidewalks, bike lanes, et cetera,
all these complete street projects, thank you,
for all of that work.
And just to the public, I really wanna remind everyone
that we have nearly $2 billion
in unfunded infrastructure needs,
and that's really why we put this infrastructure bond
on the ballot for November, because there's so much need
that we still have as a city,
and that that bond would really help out,
especially with the sidewalk repair.
We've been talking about the 50-50 program,
which is such a long backlog,
and then other pedestrian safety improvements.
So I just want to thank you all again for the work
and remind us that even though we've got lots to do,
we're making good progress.
So thank you all very much.
So I think there is...
Was there a seconder?
Was there a seconder for your motion?
I will second.
Very good.
Okay, can we take a roll, please?
Okay.
To adopt the five year street rehabilitation plan
and the measure FF five-year CIP plan,
adding the whereas clause and the resolve clause
introduced by Councilmember Humbert
with the addition of the Vision Zero
phased implementation roadmap
into both of those new clauses in the resolution.
So on that motion, Councilmember Kesser-Wani.
Yes.
Taplin. Yes.
Bartlett. Yes.
Traga?
Aye.
O'Keefe?
Yes.
Blackaby?
Yes.
Unapara?
Yes.
Humbert?
Yes.
And Mary Shee?
Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Saf.
Okay, so, yeah, so we are now moving on to item A.
I'm gonna give us five minutes to do a little shift over,
so our staff can circle out and rent board staff can come up.
So we will go back in five-ish minutes.
Recording stopped.
Recording in progress.
Hi, everyone.
Thank you again for your patience.
I know it's getting late, so they're late for us.
All right, we're on item A,
placing an ordinance amending the run stabilization ordinance
on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot,
which was continued from June 30th, 2026.
and I am going to pass it over to Councilmember Luna Parr.
Thank you. I have a presentation, if it's okay to pull it up.
Also, I'm sick and not feeling great, so apologies for any
issues. You don't need to apologize for being sick and not feeling great.
Thank you. Okay. Good evening. As the co-chair of the 4x4, I am presenting
the rent civilization ordinance amendments introduced by the rent board. The rent
civilization ordinance was passed by voters in 1980 which means that any changes to the ordinance
must be approved by the voters. Since the Berkeley tenant protection and right to organize act was
passed in 2024 we have seen several issues and needs for revision pop up and these amendments
are meant to clean up the ordinance and address these. The revisions needed include typos,
clarifications and inefficiencies, an avenue for fee waivers for 501c3 nonprofits, a change
to the removal of rights provision, a cap on banked annual general adjustment rent increases
on fully covered units to match protections for partially covered units, and lowering
the right to organized threshold from 10 or more units to 5 or more units to align with
other policies.
Sorry, my notes are, um,
these revisions passed by the rent board and the 4x4 joint task force committee on housing unanimously.
And in consultation with the Berkeley property owners association, we have submitted supplemental material to address their concerns and this presentation matches that material.
We also have been in close communication with the city attorney's office and thank them thoroughly for their collaboration.
These changes can be very complicated. So I'm trying to go through them 1 by 1 to make them as as.
comprehensible as possible. In the city of Berkeley, if a landlord chooses not to
increase rent on a rent control tenant, the annual general adjustments may
compound. These banked rent increases can add up indefinitely for fully covered
units. We have seen this be an issue most commonly during landlord turnover, where
a tenant who might have had a unique situation with their landlord now
finds himself with a new landlord who is willing to increase their rent 50% at a
time. This standard is inconsistent with state law protecting partially covered units as AB 1482
caps all increases at 10 per cent per year regardless of banked increases over time.
Our solution here is to apply this protection enjoyed by partially covered tenants to fully
covered tenants prohibiting over a 10 per cent increase in a given year. To clarify this means
that landlords did not lose banked AGAs but may not necessarily impose them all in one year.
Originally, we had tied this percent to any changes in state law, but we removed that section in the spirit of compromise and predictability for small landlords.
With the new tenant right to organize provision of the rent stabilization ordinance, we have come across two issues.
There has been a situation where a qualified building with a property management company forms a tenant association,
and then the property management company is disbanded in an attempt to thwart the recognized union.
We have clarified that a tenant association remains valid after a property management
company no longer manages the property.
Additionally, organizers have found that 10-plus units is an arbitrary number for the threshold
for tenant associations and lowering the threshold to 5-plus units better aligns with the goal
of the provision to exempt small landlords.
Currently, tenants may face and this is the note rights of removal changes.
A current issue is that tenants may face the unexpected loss of protections in the middle
of their tenancy.
This is most common during a turnover in ownership where the new landlord is looking to maximize
profits.
This change means that sitting tenants are protected and will continue to enjoy rent
control and eviction protections with exemptions applying as normal to future tendencies as
as long as the unit continues to meet requirements
for exemption.
On the non-profits piece,
the current problem is that the 2024 RSO changes,
non-profit units are fully covered
by the rent stabilization ordinance
and their tenants enjoy some of the services
of the rent board.
However, inadvertently, this has created
a large financial burden for non-profit housing providers
who now must pay the full fees.
Therefore, these changes would authorize the rent board
to adopt regulations to waive or reduce fees
for fully covered nonprofit units while ensuring
affordable housing tenants can continue
to enjoy rent board services.
There are a list of, a long list of typos,
language clarifications, and relatively non-substantive edits.
Some of the sections of the amendments
correct typographic errors,
which are highlighted in red here.
These sections in blue address current inefficiencies
and streamline deadline changes to better align
with rent board practices.
Oh, I'm missing one of them and then the sections in orange are clarifications and non substantive edits, including clarifying definitions, striking obsolete sections, removing outdated requirements and allowing new developments to include right stabilize units.
If agreed by both the city and the developer in the Humbert keselwani supplemental, the author is brought up a potential misunderstanding of what is meant by replacement units in the stabilization movements to clarify.
with no substantive change I'd like to replace the existing language with design designated as
replacement units in a housing development project as defined in SB 330 to the motion
to this following section. And I can bring this back up also if that's helpful later.
I'm happy to answer any questions and rent board staff are here to respond as well.
Thank you. Thank you. It might be helpful actually if council member Kesserwani or Humbert if you
You wanted to present, I know that there have been some maybe changes.
Sure, thank you Madam Mayor, and yes, it's been a moving target.
I want to thank council members, Luna Parra and Trego Bennu, Mayor Ishii, for bringing this item forward.
I want to thank the rent board and for all of you, for
all the hard work of making the fixes and improving clarity.
I especially want to thank Councilmember Lunapara and her staff who have been thinking really deeply about these issues.
And from what I've seen in the supplementals and the presentation are working extremely hard to be fair to both sides, tenants and landlords, and build consensus.
I was very pleased to note that after I submitted our own supplemental yesterday,
Councilmember Lunapara had also submitted a supplemental which addressed really my biggest
substantive issue with the proposal which was golden duplexes.
They're out of it and I appreciate it.
Well, I agree that even mom and pop landlords with golden duplexes should, as a matter of good practice,
be providing notices to their tenants of the special provisions governing golden duplexes.
So tenants know what the rights are.
I was not prepared to accept a remedy that brought such units under the jurisdiction of the rent board.
I recognize there are students and others who may not be fully aware of tenant landlord rights and responsibilities, and how these are affected by different housing types.
But I don't think that would have been solved well by creating situations where soured tenant landlord relationships drag on.
I think that increased outreach in education by the rent board is the way to go.
And I appreciate that the rent board already has a social media presence that they could potentially build upon in this regard.
This is now moot, given council members are supplemental, so I'm very glad that we're moving toward consensus.
As far as the question of waiving fees for non-profits, Council Member Kessarwani and
I and our supplemental thought it would be cleaner just to exempt non-profits.
But as I think as long as we can adjust the language to make it even more clear that regs and
the resulting waivers would be standards-based and non-discretionary, I could support that.
And I understand there may be some particular nuances that I wasn't aware of having to do with the language in that regard.
With regard to our language and our supplemental about SB 3330 projects,
at least for me, I'm not sure whether it's satisfactory to Council Member Casarwani.
But for me that it, I think Council Member Luna Parra has addressed this and more cleanly than I did my supplemental.
So I think I'm fine with that version under subsection B1.
I think the city attorney asked about this as well, and I wonder if the city attorney
believes this resolves any minor ambiguity that may have existed.
The version that Councilmember Leno-Para just read, is that you?
Yes, that's correct.
Yes.
Okay, it has your imprimatur on it, is that right?
Thank you, Madam City Attorney.
Those are my comments for now, thank you.
Thank you very much, Council Member Cussawonni.
Did you have a question or a comment?
Yes, I had some questions,
and I do want to do all the same thank yous
that Council Member Humbert has done.
Thank you to the authors of this proposal,
and I've looked at your latest supplemental,
and so it sounds like the golden duplex issue
now moot. Is Mr. Brown the legal representative for the rent board on the call to answer questions?
Matt Brown? They're here in the room. Yeah, yes. Oh, okay. Wonderful. I'm sorry. I couldn't see who's
at the table. Thank you to the representatives at the table as well. Okay, I see. I see you now.
I didn't see you before. So um so I just want to make sure I
I understand um there's there's two paragraphs. I just
want to get clarity of my understanding of the intent of them.
So when I'm I'm in the Council Member Luna Pada
um sup to the 28 page pdf and I'm on page nine of the pdf and page
two of the proposed ordinance changes and it shows
This, you know, this language around as set forth in California Civil Code section, 1954.52b,
and I was, you know, tracking all of those code references, and it looks like it relates to
single-family homes that may be, oh, okay, no. So can somebody at the table just explain in layperson's
language, that that paragraph happily, Sally Albert, chair of the board, 1954.52 is the
only section of state law I can cite by memory. It's been my little pet project for the past
six years now. Essentially, this is a provision of Costa Hawkins that allows for a landlord
or developer and a city or other agency to agree by contract to allow a new what would
otherwise be exempt from rent control as new construction or single-family home to
be colored, but only by contract. So what this section does, it says, if you. Okay. So it is, so it is
about single-family homes in some regard, but, but, but also other, other types of
housing. Yeah, so this same section is. Okay, okay, that's what I thought. So I just
wanted to confirm my understanding. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, Mr.
I just, I was just trying to get, so, oh.
It was just going to clarify that it only allows the city to create such a program.
It doesn't direct anything to be created.
So if the city were to decide to create some kind of incentive program,
giving some kind of density bonus or real financial interest in exchange for the application of rent control,
it would be allowed, but it wouldn't provide for that to be created.
Okay, so is it fair to say this paragraph doesn't have any current implication, then?
Okay, so it is anticipating some future possibility that doesn't cover those things.
I guess what I would say is that there are some circumstances very narrowly where ZAB has an exchange for some kind of zoning variance,
and Councilmember Trigo I know has voted on some of these himself,
where ZAB has an exchange for a zoning variance required that the landlord or
developer agree to the application of rent control.
And in previous instances where that has occurred, those properties have benefited from kind of fake rent control.
Where they have the rules of rent control, but none of the services of the board.
Because they're not technically allowed under our rules.
And so what this would allow would be, if the landlord wanted to agree to it in exchange for some kind of zoning variance,
one-off circumstances could come under the ordinance, and then it would also enable the
Council to create some kind of density program or other program to do that on a larger scale.
Okay. All right, so that was one of the paragraphs I want to understand. So it looks like it appears
twice, and it's the same thing, right? So it's on page two of the ordinance and then page three.
So I'm going to go on, and so there was one other thing I just wanted to talk through,
which was, so this is page five of the ordinance or page 12 of 28 of the pdf,
so the paragraph d around no removal of rights previously established, so this is saying no
exemption articulated in subsection c shall apply when the current tendency commenced prior to the
date of the the date the unit met all elements of the exemption. This subsection shall not apply to
any rental unit deemed exempt prior to November 3rd, 2026. So after a lot of sort of thinking this
through, my sense here, well, maybe I'll have Mr. Brown just confirm. So this is related to any two
unit situation, right? So it could be a main unit and an ADU or a golden duplex, right. It's sort of
like when you have a two unit situation that's exempt because the property owner is on site,
it seems like, basically I was trying to understand the implications of this paragraph for
The 2 unit exempt situation so.
I guess to use an example, a main unit, like, you know, a main house and an 80 you.
And let's say it, it starts as exempt because the property owner lives in 1 of the 2 units and has rented out the other unit.
And, and then if you have a situation where.
That property owner moves abroad for a year, let's say a sabbatical.
Can you just clarify, Mr. Brown,
does that tenant who remains there,
who started the tenancy when the property owner
was living there, that tenant remains exempt, correct?
Or you can tell me if I'm wrong there.
Good evening, Council Member Castro-Roni.
Thank you for the questions.
I think it's important to distinguish a little bit
between the two scenarios that you pose.
The one being Golden Duplex in which you have to answer.
Two questions, yes, in order for the exemption to attach.
The first question being, was there an owner principally
occupying any unit on the property on December 31st, 1979?
And the second, is there a current 50% owner
principally occupying the unit?
And if you can answer yes to both of those questions,
then yes, the other unit that's occupied by a tenancy
would be completely exempt from any provision
of the ordinance, including just cause eviction protections.
The second scenario that you asked about
is one in which, which is clearly defined in the ordinance
where there is a single family home with a principal unit
and an ADU, which was built after 1980.
And that, in that situation,
there is a golden duplex-like exemption.
However, in the event that the owner moves out of, let's say, the principal unit and the tenant remains,
the tenant would not be rent controlled because that's a newer unit, so it would be partially covered by the ordinance anyway.
So in the situation that is proposed by the board and
adopted by the four by four in front of you today,
The tenants that start out in a nonfully exempt situation would retain whatever rights they had in that situation in the event that an owner moved in when they were not there before.
And just to clarify to your point, based on the language of when the tenancy commenced, right, it's only for those tenancies that at the inception of the tenancy, the tenant was exempt partially, had some number of rights.
some number of rights. So if a tenant is moving into a fully exempt situation, then there's
a disruption in that exemption because the owner moves out. But then the owner returns,
this section would not apply. So the exemption would reapply to that tenant, and they would
not be rent or eviction control. And that was something we had a similar question from
the Berkeley Properties Owner Association, and we gave them clarifying language or email
as well to that effect.
That was unstable, but I'm still here listening so okay, so it sounds like right so I guess mr
Brown so there's actually like three different permutations of this there's the golden duplex situation that you
Described and you give an answer to there's the 80 you situation
I guess like an older 80 you but pre 1980 where there's partially exempted
And then I was sort of thinking more of these like really new 80 use
I guess their post is it post 2018 that they're fully exist based on that value 19 pre 1980
accessory units would not be considered a to use under the way that they're defined in the ordinance because they exist as of
1980 and they would be considered a duplex
A newly constructed adu is exempt if there is an owner in occupancy in one of the unit
Right, right. So and and mr. Alpert. I think the newly constructed I believe that that date is based on a different ballot measure
I believe it's
You know the November 2018 date I believe right so okay
So this is a little more complicated than than I initially thought so it's maybe there's there's four different types of two unit
Situations with varying levels of exemption perhaps but you're saying what this language is essentially saying is whatever you started
with is what you keep, regardless of a change in situation of whether the
property owner is there or not. I guess the golden duplex is a little nuanced and
different though, essentially. Correct, yeah. If you started out as a controlled or a
partially covered tenancy and an owner moves in, then your right to a controlled
or partially covered tenancy is not removed. In the event you do not start out that way,
but they're a transient occupancy by a principal owner than a rather principal occupancy by a 50%
owner then those units can go in and out of exemption. The exemption, rather, the coverage
only attaches based on what the unit commenced at. Your time is up, so does someone want to give her
some of their time. Councilmember Humbert. Okay, I have one one additional question on this point.
This is my this is my only set of questions, Mayor. I don't have further questions. So is this
representing this paragraph D, is it clarifying sort of your existing interpretation or is it a
new policy? This is new policy and primarily it's designed to protect tenants when there's a change
ownership. So currently, the situation that we've seen is, for example, take a
golden duplex where you have a golden eligible property. So it's a duplex that
would be a golden duplex if it was owner occupied, but both units are being
rented. Both tenants have rent control and eviction control. A new owner purchases
the property. They can owner move and evict one of the tenants. That tenant gets
relocation benefits. They get, you know, protections. The owner moves in. Suddenly
The second tenant is stripped of all rights because the new owner makes it a golden duplex.
And so the two tenants are treated differently for arbitrary reasons.
So this is particularly designed to protect that kind of situation.
Okay.
Okay.
And then this is my last question about this.
Can you help me understand this after November 3rd thing?
So are you planning to treat tendencies?
Is this going to be like prospective?
like you're so you're you're basically like as tenancies commence after
November 3rd this is going to kick in is that what you're intending here and so
if somebody does this owner move in that you just described before November 3rd
that that other tenant is going to lose their rights we're not particularly
worried about that situation the design of the date there is not to change the
status quo for a landlord tenant relationship that already exists so say
had someone who moved into a golden duplex,
they did have protections.
Then they lost those protections
because the landlord moved into the other unit.
We're not going to now impose protections on the landlord.
It's only going forward when people know that these rules.
So this is designed to make sure that everyone understands.
OK, thank you.
I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.
Are there other questions?
Is there any public comment on this item?
We are on item A, placing an ordinance,
amending the rent stabilization ordinance
on November 3rd, 2026 ballot.
It's okay, if you want to let someone go before you,
if you need some time, or are you ready?
Okay.
Okay, yeah, I'm Terry Garrets,
and I'm a Golden Duplex owner,
and I want to thank you for deciding
to grab the language on the Golden Duplex.
But I want to press upon you,
however, this increased regulation
in modifying the RAT stabilization ordinance
Every two years is crazy making.
It makes possible landlords who I like to call housing providers very likely to enter the rental market.
We don't have enough housing.
Stop restricting it with increased regulations.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Angela Cavanaugh with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates.
We have almost 1,200 affordable units in the city of Berkeley.
And we support the amendment as written by Councilmember Loonavarra and just appreciate all the work and consideration that the Council has done and the Rent Board too.
They were great to work with this whole time and we think that it meets a good balance in preserving tenants rights as well as helping us to maintain our well-needed services at our buildings.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, Council.
I'm Courtney Powell.
I'm the policy manager with Resources for Community
Development here again to support the Clean Amendment
amendments to the rent stabilization ordinance
on the November ballot, and particularly the amendment
that Angela talked about regarding the rent board
fees for nonprofit affordable housing providers.
We're in support of the original language
that Councilmember Luna Parra proposed.
We really appreciated working with the rent board, with the four by four, with the city council to come to this proposed solution that balances legal considerations with tenant's rights, with the needs of affordable housing providers.
And so we are really grateful for all the work that's been done and
look forward to hopefully seeing this on the November ballot for the voters to decide.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carol Marassovic, pleased about the changes in terms of the golden duplex.
That the exemption remains and how the nuances were addressed here.
Today, we need to be focusing on larger multi-unit buildings and
not small landlords that only have, of which there's only a few golden duplexes in the community anyway, or a small number.
Second, I believe that the discretionary nature of
waiving the fees for non-profits should stand, because there may be a situation where they're out of compliance and you want to be able to have that leverage.
For example, the elevator ordinance, many,
some non-profits reportedly have not been in compliance with that, have also some market rate buildings.
First I want to say that in terms of the voluntary agreement with, that would developers would
be able to enter into, it seems as if there should be clearer language on that in terms
of the incentives so that it's more transparent.
The language as is seems very convoluted.
It's really not clear what's being proposed here, and it seems before the voters to fairly
consider it, it should be clear what an incentive program could be for transparency purposes.
Thank you.
Thanks, Carol.
I think there are a few folks online.
Yes, first speaker is Karen Chenoy.
Thank you. Yeah, I was like, I think you're standing for a reason. Okay, there you go.
All right, two minutes.
Thank you. Thank you, Krista. Good evening, council. I just have to say the irony here
is hard to ignore. We're being told that nonprofit landlords need an exemption from rent stabilization
board fees because they can't simply raise rents to absorb those costs. In other words,
the Rent Board is acknowledging that these fees
and regulations increase rents across the city.
This is further proof that the constant tightening
of Berkeley's rent stabilization ordinance
is little more than lip service
to the problem of housing affordability.
This measure is an admission
that rent control increases rents.
The result isn't greater affordability,
it actually limits available housing
to only the wealthiest of tenants.
Now we appreciate the willingness
to remove the proposed changes
to the golden duplex exemption
that would have harmed seniors and longtime homeowners
who live alongside their tenants.
But one problem remains, that's section 13.76.050d.
Every time this council tinkers with exemptions
and puts something on the ballot,
it sends yet another message to homeowners.
Don't build that ADU.
Don't create that duplex.
Don't invest in more housing
because the rules can change
after you've already made the investment.
You can streamline permits
and pass zoning reform all you want.
But none of it matters if homeowners don't trust
that the rules they build under today
will still exist tomorrow.
Please remove section 13.76.050D
and move this measure forward
without these unnecessary amendments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ken.
Next is Tony Mester.
Good evening.
I'm the owner of a golden duplex.
I used to be a landlady
when they started to threaten,
when the rent board started to threaten my exemption,
I went out of business.
I stopped renting.
And I think that's what a lot of people will do
when rent control becomes so onerous
and so complicated that members of the city council,
like Council Member, Kessa Whiting,
who I think is a very smart lady,
gets very confused by it.
acknowledge Rasha your confusion believe me it is such a pain to try to
figure out what the rent board is going to do next but wherever you have
exemptions that's fine make more exemptions more exemptions means more
housing that's basically the bottom line people will build when they're exempt
for rent control period. Full stop. Thanks Tony. Next is Stefan Elgstrom. Hi good
evening mayor and council members this is Stefan Elgstrom rent board
commissioner. Good to be back at the council meeting even though I'm just here
virtually. I wanted just to provide some additional background as to how we got
here. Before this item went to the 4x4 the full rent board there was an
ad hoc committee which I served on to develop this measure. We really went into the weeds and I
wanted to have a proposal that provided a faultful and balanced approach that incorporates the best
practices and builds upon measure BB that was approved by Berkeley voters back in 2024. I just
wanted to say that I appreciate the the input of the council and stakeholders to further refine
And I think we're getting to a very good place. So I hope that you will place this this item on the on the ballot and to let the voters had the final say on this. Thank you. And have a good evening.
Thank you. Nice to hear your voice. Stefan. Next speaker is Sophia DeWitt.
Hello, Mayor and council members, Reverend Sophia DeWitt, Chief Program Officer with ABBO, here to support Councilwoman Luna Parra's memo and hope that you will put these changes to the rent ordinance on the ballot.
Particularly those that provide an exemption for affordable housing providers to the rent board fees.
And we appreciate the work that the committee and the 4 by 4 and the rent board did with stakeholders to put this approach forward and thanks so much for your work.
Thank you very much.
I think that was our final comment.
Do I have any comments from my council colleagues?
Oh, I do.
Council Member Trico.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I would like to appreciate Council Member Luna Power
and her staff, the WAN Board, and the four by four
for all of the work that has gone into this item.
I also want to acknowledge the thoughtful efforts
to address stakeholder feedback.
And the item that is in front of us tonight,
to be very clear, incorporates changes
that have been made in close collaboration
with advocates and stakeholders,
including both the Renter community
and the Berkeley Property Orders Association.
These comments have been reflected in the updated language
As a former Ramport Commissioner and current member of the 4x4 Committee, I feel strongly
that this ballot measure, if placed on the ballot by the Council and adopted by voters
this November, would modernize the administration of the Ramport ordinance by the Ramport, such
as through allowance for paperless billing, increase the number of renters who could avail
themselves of the right to organize and enhance transparency provided to prospective renters.
I was particularly pleased to support language providing the rent board with discretion to waive
or reduce fees for residential properties leased or controlled by non-profit affordable housing
providers. And to be very clear given some of the public comments that have been made,
this is something that I felt very strongly about when it came to non-profit housing providers
because these non-profits already provide an important public service to the community
And tend to already be under stringent federal requirements
to provide an affordable, habitable place
for renters to live, so they are already regulated.
And so the point was to ensure that
as they are already regulated,
that those fees be used to address habitability concerns
and make sure the renters have a hospitable,
habitable place to move there that is affordable.
The provision related to SB 340 addresses
an ambiguity that I faced many times
as a former member of the zoning adjustments board.
I believe my colleague, Council Member O'Keefe,
was in a similar boat.
I am supportive of changes that have been made
consultation with the BPOA to remove noticing requirements related to the
treatment of related to golden duplexes or housing types that map onto the
golden duplex framework. Looking ahead though, I encourage us as a city to
prioritize education and outreach on that point. This is something, the
The noticing piece is something for which I have advocated since 2018, and I will continue to do so.
This is a topic that would benefit from clear guidance and will help property owners as well as renters understand their rights under the law.
And I look forward to still seeing how such a noticing provision could be incorporated into the ordinance.
at the minimum how we could support
a consorted educational efforts.
Perhaps along the lines of what the BPOA already provides
in its model lease, and perhaps that framework
could be used to provide that same information
to those who currently do not have access to it.
I also just really want to appreciate how
just the careful, deliberate way in which this provision has made it, continue to make
it easier to subdivide ADUs where appropriate to create new housing opportunities while
ensuring that sitting tenants can avail themselves of the same rights with which they started.
And with that, I will make a motion
to support the Councilmember Luna Parra item,
which I'm proud to co-sponsor.
Thank you.
A second from Councilmember Bartlett.
Okay, I'm so sorry, I think I just accidentally hit reset,
but I believe that Councilmember Humbert was next on the queue.
Did you have comments?
No, I don't.
Okay, did anyone else have comments?
Okay, all right, very good.
There's a motion, there's a second, no other comments?
You have comments?
Sorry, can I just ask that we incorporate the language
that I brought forward in the presentation
because that was not in our supplemental
about the replacement units?
Yes, as incorporated in the presentation
made on the dyes tonight.
And I'll send it.
I'll send it.
Does that go in the ordinance?
You'll have a citation as to exactly where that.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
And that's okay with you, Council Member Bartlett
as well as the seconder.
Yes, okay, thank you.
Anything else?
Okay, all right, well I do just
wanna thank you very much so
much for all of your work.
I know that this was a lot to go
through and I really do
appreciate you meeting with
folks, especially those who have
reached out and, you know,
coming to a place where, you
know, we could agree on things.
I also see, sorry, Council
Member Blackaby has his hand up.
So I wanna be brief, I wanna
thank Council Member Luna Parra
for bringing this forward. I share some of the feedback we've heard from the community tonight.
Like, you know, I do want to get to a point where I hope we can all be encouraging folks to come
into the market. I do worry that we, as we continue to make changes and amend the rent
stabilization, the ordinance, that the continued changes do create some instability. And I think
think we need to do a better job of encouraging small landlords, many of
whom live in District 6, to come into the market and there needs to be more
education, more outreach, and we need to sort of be building bridges and not sort
of dividing the tenant and landlord relationship. So again, I support this
measure mostly because it addresses a really important loophole on the
nonprofit side. This was a real issue and a real challenge that needed to be
addressed, but I do think we all need to do a better job of trying to make this a
place where people should want to be marketing small units to tenants.
We have a housing crisis in this city and we need to protect current tenants.
We also need to protect future tenants.
Part of protecting future tenants is making sure we have more supply of rental
housing on the market, which is also supporting people who have housing
and are just not currently putting on the market.
So again, I hope we can do more of that as well.
That's something I'm committed to in the months ahead.
I hear it all the time from people in my district.
we need to do a better job of encouraging
that kind of activity and not penalizing
that kind of activity.
But again, I support this measure.
I want to thank Council Member Lutepara
and Council Member Tragedo
for helping to try and thread the needle here.
Thank you.
Yes, so just thanking Council Member Lutepara,
the rent board and rent board staff,
our city attorney's office, her staff.
I know we've talked to a lot of different folks
over the past, I can't remember now,
couple weeks or so.
But yeah, just want to say that these cleanup items
here in the state that we're
not going to get it out there
under necessary and I support
them going to voters for
approval.
I'm also very supportive of the
waiver option for the 501c3
non-profits providing
affordable housing.
Thank you all so much for being
here and speaking in support of
this as well.
These clean up items and
clarifications will be
beneficial to tenants as well as
to landlords.
So thank you all very much.
And with that, let's take the
vote.
I was just wondering if you
could speak to what Council
member Liddell-Plan wants to
speak to.
I just wanted to thank my
colleagues, folks at the rent
board, the city attorney's
office and the folks at BPOA
who all put in a lot of effort
into getting this done and so I
just really want to thank
everyone.
And I'm happy to volunteer for
the, to write the ballot
argument.
I'm hearing a lot of folks or I'm hearing folks say that, you know, us returning to the voters over two years is disruptive, and I'm recognizing the need to to be doing that now to clean up some mistakes from the from the last cycle.
some mistakes from the last cycle
and I'm wondering whether we can avoid the need
for continuous cleanups and successive iterations
of this measure by taking more time to do a deeper,
wider, more comprehensive review of the ordinance
involving the various stakeholders
so that when we do go back next time.
I know the report has done that,
but I'm thinking about like,
And replicating the process that created original measure in the 80s, like a big,
massive citywide process that involves all of us, so that we, when we do these
measures, we can do them in less frequently.
Nope.
I'm sorry.
I can't hear anything, so if...
I'm so sorry.
No, no, no.
Did you want to take the role?
Do you want to designate the authors
to write the argument in favor?
Yes, I think that Council Member Lenapara
has already offered to assist, but that is anyone else
want to join?
Yes.
OK.
Council Member Traeger will join,
and I'm happy to join as well, even though I imagine that you
have something in mind already.
OK.
Thank you very much.
That's what I was asking about, Mark.
OK.
OK.
So on the motion to place the measure on the ballot
as written in the supplemental from Councilmember Lunapara,
including the changes to the resolution
and the ballot question and the text of the measure
with the further amendment regarding replacement units
and to designate Councilmember Lunapara,
Councilmember Tregov and Mayor Yishi
to author the argument in favor on that motion.
Councilmember Kesser-Wani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traga.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Unapara.
Yes.
Humber.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishi.
Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
All right, motion carries.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, everyone.
Okay, so now moving on to public comment
for items not listed on the agenda.
Is there any other public comment this evening?
So I always hope that we can find common ground on issues, and Councilmember Taplin,
I want to advise you that Amber Whitson had contacted city staff last week.
She generally copies me on emails that she sends out about
a person who has moved in recently, who has brought in unscrupulous people and
has blocked the sidewalks with stolen bicycles.
And she was unfortunately advised that she should just call the police when she says this happened.
But for an unhoused person to do that, they're very physically vulnerable.
And that's why she's going to the city and saying, can you do something about this so that my name doesn't have to be involved.
And I also want to add, I'm again showing how there is common ground here and you are
aligned on some matters.
And on an unrelated matter she texted me, Harrison is horrible, I hope they don't bring
their shit here.
So I just wanted you to know that you do have common ground.
Remember was at the spark lot on Grayson, but she was housing assessed.
But almost four years later, she doesn't have housing.
And for her, if she were able to secure the apartment that the landlord,
prospective landlord promised her four months ago, but is now put out on the market.
It would be cheaper than the cost of being in a motel.
At the time that our motel conversions are in jeopardy anyway, and may not lead to permanent housing, that would be a lower cost for her if only someone could facilitate it through the system. Thank you.
Thanks Carol. I think there's 1 person online.
Just, uh, somebody listed as Zoom user.
Hi, it's me. Oh, it's Moni Law. I just wanted to invite everyone as a closure here for the fact that we have a landlord's welcome.
and a huge workshop with all of the organizations
that service property owners in Berkeley
being hosted at the Berkeley rent board offices
in two weeks time.
So check out your social media
and we will be there providing information
and guidance and all the clarity
that people have been talking about
the last few minutes on this last item.
So Landlords Workshop opening with all the groups
that are there in one space from room to room
and they will be able to interact
and get a lot of education about how things go
to be encouraged to enter that marketplace to provide housing if they have not started to do so.
So I just want to make sure everybody puts that on their calendar. I believe it's July 22nd,
yeah, it's Wednesday, and it's from 10 to 1130, I believe. But check your Instagram, your Facebook,
our website, all the details are there. Thank you. Thank you. One more with the
caller with a phone number ending in 211.
to the breaking or rules or rules. Are you worried about not myself? I don't care. I live long enough
about you, my family, your family, everybody else, really I would love to hear from you soon
and you have my number. I want zero eight four eight five thousand. Thank you and have a good night.
Thank you.
That's all. Okay is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Can we take them all on that please?
thank you. Who seconder Mark
Okay, uh, to adjourn the
meeting, Council member
Kessarwani. Gone. Council
member Tapplin. Bartlett. Yes.
Yes. I O. Keith. Yes. Black
Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone. Meeting is adjourned.