Okay, hello everyone.

Good afternoon.

I am calling to order the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Today is Tuesday, October 28th, 2025.

Happy Halloween week to everyone.

Can you please take the role, Clerk?

Okay, Councilmember Kisserwani.

Here.

Taplin present.

Bartlett.

Here.

Trego.

Present.

Keith.

By the skid of my teeth.

Councilmember Blackabi is currently absent.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert here.

And Mary Ishi.

Here.

Okay.

Or Ms.

President.

Alright, very good.

Well, we're we have one item on our special agenda tonight on our and that is the Ashby BART East Lot Transit Oriented Development Request for Proposal Framework.

And so I am going to start us off with a presentation.

Actually, I'm not starting us off.

The staff are going to start us off with a presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Ishi and members of the council.

I'm pleased to introduce the topic of today's meeting, which is a study session on the Ashby East Lot RFP process.

And by the way, I'm Margot Ernst, the manager for housing and community services.

This project is a result of a nearly decade-long effort and collaboration with BART and the community to advance transit-oriented development at the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations.

I'd like to acknowledge the efforts across departments, especially HHCS, planning, city attorney's office, and the city manager's office.

Many of the staff who have contributed are here today and will assist in answering any questions you may have, including my colleagues at the table, Director Klein, who will be participating in this afternoon's presentation, and deputy city manager White, who has provided leadership and support to this project.

I'll now introduce Kirsten Dissinger with Street Level Advisors, who is managing the project and will lead today's presentation.

Thanks, Marco.

Hello, Kirsten with Street Level Advisors.

I support HHCS's work on both BART sites and some other policy matters.

I have a background in affordable housing development policy and planning.

I'm joined today by my colleague Rick Jacobis.

I'm really happy to be here to gather your input on the E slot developer selection framework as we move toward implementation and getting housing built on the E slot.

Today I will quickly review the background on the e-slot.

The focus of the presentation today is on the E-Slot developer selection framework.

The framework is included in the staff report.

I'll explain the steps we took to create the framework and the content, the e slot project requirements, goals, and the selection process.

Is it possible to pull your mic a little bit closer to you or something?

Absolutely.

Yes, thanks.

Which will be so the design guidelines, which will be embedded in the RFP.

We'll end today's discussion with an overview of the selection process and next steps.

It's the city's intention to release an RFP and NOFA early in the new year.

The schedule will be finalized once the city has completed coordination with state HCD on compliance with the surplus land act.

My goal is to keep this brief because we're expecting a really good conversation on community input today.

This is a special moment for the city of Berkeley as we advance the third transit-oriented development project on the BART site.

The city has worked in close partnership with BART, the community, and the community to develop a vision for the Ashby BART station.

There are many parallels between the city's work at North Berkeley and Ashby.

The key principles, such as a focus on affordable housing, high-density transit-oriented development, and a consideration of public open spaces are central to the vision for both stations.

Unique to the Ashby site is that BART owns two developable parcels, the larger West Lot and the nearly two-acre east slot.

Consistent with the council approved exchange agreement, the city will acquire the east lot for future development.

City ownership of the e slot is the impetus for today's working session.

Unlike the North Berkeley BART, on the West Slot or the West Lot, where BART will maintain ownership.

On the east slot, the city will be the property owner.

The city will solicit and select a development team, and the city has the opportunity and responsibility to define and implement the use of the e-slot.

Just a little bit on the background.

The city and BART have been closely collaborating over the past several years to bring transit-oriented development to both sites.

While the two stations follow similar steps, North Berkeley is ahead of Ashby.

North Berkeley developer selection began in 2022, and the development of the first phase is anticipated to begin in 2026.

Additional time was needed for the city and BART to negotiate the exchange agreement at Ashby.

So just zooming in on Ashby milestones.

Really, the work started in 2018 with the state legislation that focused on TOD and the station areas.

The City Council committed 53 million dollars to the BART sites of Housing Trust Fund dollars, of which 8 million will be available for the E-Slot.

And between 2018 and 2022, the City and BART approved an MOU and a subsequent joint vision and priorities or JVP, which establishes requirements, goals, and resources for future development.

Late last year, council and the board BART board approved the exchange agreement, a real estate agreement for Ashby BART, including project requirements for affordable housing and other community benefits.

BART has advanced work on the Ashby West Lot, issuing an RFP late in 2024 and selecting a development team over the summer.

We're here today to advance the work on the e slot.

And I just want to zoom into the e slot for just a minute to get familiar with the site.

It's behind Ed Roberts' campus.

It's just under two acres.

It's bordered by Adeline Woolsley and Tremont.

The site currently provides and will continue to provide vehicular access to the Ed Roberts campus, and currently BART owns the lot, and is operating rider parking on the lot.

This year, HHCS has begun work to advance the implementation phase for the E slot.

The next step is to solicit a development team.

We are seeking your input on the framework, which HHCS will translate into an RFP or request for proposals.

What will the RFP include?

A development RFP explains to prospective developers desired outcomes, constraints, and considerations.

It can be a lengthy document as it provides a list of information development teams must provide, such as a site plan, a financial plan, and details on their team.

It will include an overview of the selection process, spelling out timelines and steps such as interviews and public presentations.

Specific to the e-slot RFP, it will include threshold requirements, which are required project elements, and other requirements such as e-slot design standards.

And the e-slot RFP will include evaluation criteria and project goals, which signal to potential teams how proposals will be evaluated.

The e-slot is public land.

The city, through various planning efforts, has identified many goals for the e-slot.

The city's goals for the e-slot are ambitious, and to be clear, no one project could achieve all of the goals included in the framework.

The framework intends to balance the many laudable potential uses for this e-slot within the constraints of what might be feasible.

Our intent is to create a healthy competition among development teams and encourage feasible proposals that walk towards the city's goals.

The two main constraints on the e slot are space and subsidies for affordable housing.

Architects and developers will complete technical work to develop feasible proposals that must meet the project requirements and will also service the city's goals.

Next, I want to describe the steps HHCS undertook in collaboration with planning city manager and city attorney to develop the framework before you.

As a first step, we reviewed the recent plan documents, especially the exchange agreement and the JBP, both approved by council and the BART board, and both establish goals and requirements for the e-slot.

The majority of the elements in the framework come from these foundational documents.

The requirements and goals identified in the exchange agreement are binding terms.

The city committed to incorporating these.

Okay, sorry, go ahead, please.

All right.

Okay, so we're talking about what's in the exchange agreement and how those terms are binding.

So the city committed to incorporating these elements into future development of a site, and we are not anticipating further input on those today.

Other goals and aspirations identified in the community planning process, especially those detailed in the JVP, are also incorporated into the framework.

While these are not legally binding, they reflect outcomes of years of community conversation, staff work, and council agreements with the BART board.

The framework in the staff report indicates with bold font when elements originated from the exchange agreement, and with italics when they originated from the JVP.

So as a next step, we reviewed city policies, programs, and require related requirements like the housing trust fund guidelines, the housing preference policy, and the zoning code, and those were tucked into the framework.

And then we had our draft framework.

And our next step was to hold a stakeholder meeting last summer in summer of 2025.

HHCS hosted a meeting with representatives from key community groups, including the Center for Independent Living, Healthy Black Families, Black Repertory Theater, Beobab, LBA, South Berkeley Now, Great Panthers, The Lighthouse, ESPE Center for the Blind, and the host of the meeting, the Ed Roberts campus.

HHCS informed community representatives of the proposed developer selection process and timeline.

We engaged community members on the requirements and the goals for the site.

This slide identifies key themes discussed during the meeting.

The staff report includes the complete comments from the meeting.

The developer selection framework presented to you today incorporates input from this session.

Okay, we're gonna get into the actual framework itself.

So we're gonna start with the thresholds.

Those are the requirements.

They're not flexible.

And if they don't, they will not advance through the selection process.

The first is a minimum of 300 bedrooms.

The second is a minimum level of affordability of 35%.

I'm gonna do a lot of percent.

So of which 20% must be reserved for extremely low-income households, and that would mean 7% of the whole project, and then the remainder of the affordability should prioritize low and very low and average at most 60% AMI.

If anyone needs that again, I can do it again.

Next, we're gonna talk about requirements and goals.

So goals are things people are striving for within their proposal, and requirements are things they must do, and I'm gonna look at them topic by topic.

This first slide, the how the next slide, the housing commitments shows commitments that the city of Berkeley made in the exchange agreement, both around the um requirements that we just discussed, and also the exchange agreement included a few housing goals.

So, for example, on density, the requirement is 300 bedrooms, but the goal is to maximize density.

So proposers will be asked to show how they are striving towards that goal.

And the second housing commitment, again, the 35% affordability, but there is a goal of 50% affordability, and respondents will be asked to show how they could make their project 50% affordable, what additional subsidy or approach might be necessary to achieve that.

Again, these four elements all come from the exchange agreement, and so the city in previous um actions committed to including them in the RFP.

Beyond affordability levels and local and Berkeley's local preference policy, the planning process identified several potential priority households for the E slot.

The JVP and more recently, the stakeholder working group this summer identified a few different ones that are shown here.

Serving households, seniors, families, and people with physical or mental disabilities or formerly homeless people.

Prioritize housing for people with disabilities in response to the proximity of Ed Roberts campus.

We added a goal of development team having a creative approach to universal design.

And also the goal of home ownership opportunities with the goal of building equity within the homeownership.

These are not project requirements.

Proposing teams should strive to respond to these housing priorities.

While we don't expect that the E slot has the space or financial resources to achieve all of these priorities, we are challenging development experts to propose a feasible approach that incorporates requirements, site constraints, and moves towards these goals.

At the core of the work at the Ashby Bart station is Berkeley's commitment to reparations.

The exchange agreement includes a threshold requirement and goal to advance reparations.

And we've talked about this already, but the project will be required to make minimum contributions of approximately $150,000 a year to the South Berkeley Community Fund.

This is detailed in the exchange agreement, including an annual escalation and a start date of four years after, roughly four years after the housing is built.

Additionally, and this is where the goal comes in.

Teams will be asked to describe how their proposed project would address the negative impacts to African American residents, businesses, and cultural institutions displaced by the Ashby BART.

Again, this is an invitation for developers to respond to this prompt and thoughtfully meaningfully responses will be rewarded with additional points.

Next, we're going to talk about the development team.

The framework includes detail on requirements for the development team.

The requirements are a means to protect the city's investments in the east slot, including the land, the use of housing trust fund dollars, and the community planning work.

Many of the development team requirements parallel the city's long-standing requirements for use of the housing trust fund dollars.

These requirements are the city and communities' means of ensuring that housing will get built in a timely and efficient manner.

We're going to start with the 50% affordability requirement or the affordability requirement.

So at both North Berkeley and East Lot, the requirement is for 35% affordability.

And this is came from the JVP, which covered both sites.

At the West Slot, the RFP required 50%, and that was more a product of the land exchange than a changing sort of threshold.

The city has committed $8 million in housing trust fund dollars.

They'll offer a land discount for the affordable units, and the market rate housing will be required to contribute funds to support the affordable housing.

In the 35% scenario, we are able to generate a local match at amounts matching or exceeding levels that have successfully leveraged state funds.

I have to take this off.

So you can see that at 35%, we anticipate the local match would be 200 to 230,000 per affordable unit, and that is a really competitive spot for the developer to try and attract and secure those state funding necessary to get to the construction.

In contrast with the 50% affordability, the $8 million is still there from the housing trust Fund.

However, the developer market rate contribution would go down because there would be fewer market rate units.

So we're estimating that the local subsidy would be closer to 165 to 195 per unit.

That means that the developer would need to be seeking more subsidy per affordable unit and also a greater total subsidy because there'd be more affordable units needing more dollars each.

So we'll our concern with making 50% of requirement is we may create a project that developers can't finance.

We are asking development teams to use their expertise and show us how they might be able to get there and if they can get there.

And the 50% affordability goal will be heavily incentivized.

Affordable homeownership can be a valuable opportunity for households to build equity.

New construction of affordable homeownership has higher costs, it has limited subsidy sources, and it generally serves a higher income.

Usually ownership is 80 to 120.

Some programs go below that, whereas uh the goals for the um east slot range lower for the rental product.

So we don't have the federal and state programs to provide the majority of the dollars, and there are not really any other programs.

There's a the one small state program that would help home ownership at 80% AMI but or below.

We still wanted to take a closer look at this because we do believe that equity building is important.

So we imagined a project on the site where some of the affordability was achieved through rental.

There was a market rate component, and then 63 units were affordable homeownership.

And then we looked at spreading that $8 million of local subsidy and the developer contribution across both affordable buildings.

And our estimate is that there would be about $160,000 for each affordable home ownership unit, but the developer couldn't take that and try and leverage outside state sources because there aren't sources to match the way we could with the rental product.

So it would leave a gap of about $695 for $1,000 for each unit.

So in this scenario, we imagined it would be a gap of $16 million for the whole project.

For that reason, the difficulty of uh financing and developing affordable homeownership, we wanted to leave it as a goal but resists the requirement there.

Okay, and then the last goal I want to focus in on the clear stakeholder support for responding to Ed Roberts Campus and requiring accessibility.

Teams will be asked to have a creative and innovative approach to universal design, and they'll be asked to include a design team with demonstrated universal design experience and expertise.

We were concerned creating a more specific requirement could unintentionally create a conflict with density requirements, affordability requirements, or the overall financial feasibility of the project.

We don't have the technical work to kind of draw a line there.

So we're asking developers to maximize housing for disabled communities.

We're looking for proposals that are feasible, grounded in technical analysis, such as site design, cost estimates, and reviewing possible funding sources to support the development.

Again, we're in making an invitation to the teams to compete for the site.

Next, Director Klein from the planning department will present on a series of design guidelines specific to the E slot.

These design guidelines will be embedded in the future RFP.

Our approach here is similar to the approach on the west slot where the design guidelines were provided with the RFP.

Thanks, Kirsten.

Good afternoon, Council members.

For the North Berkeley MARC station, the city developed a detailed objective design standards to help shape that project.

And those were formally adopted by planning commission and city council.

And we're pursuing the same approach for the West Lot.

For the East Law, we're taking a different approach.

That's because, as you just heard from Kirsten, for the E slot, we're going to own the land.

And so we will have the opportunity to leverage our ownership of the project to shape the design.

So the design, the actual design of the project will be subject to a community process and approval.

So for the design standards, we're including just a few simple design standards in the solicitation to help complement the existing RBMU zoning.

And it's that are consistent with the years of planning efforts that we've conducted for this project.

I'm going to give you a brief overview of those design standards now.

The complete design standards are available as an attachment and staff report.

It's pretty short, it's just a three-page document.

Let's go to the next slide.

You can see here the guiding principles for these design guidelines.

So first, firstly, ensuring access and loading, not just for the project, but also for the adjacent Ed Roberts campus, supporting pedestrian-friendly streets and creating great open great new open spaces.

Maintaining neighborhood scale transitions, so transitions between the this site is obviously going to be a lot denser than the surrounding single-family homes, so trying to facilitate transitions and requiring high-quality design, but also you've heard us uh emphasize feasible delivery.

We don't want to impose any design standards that are going to render this project unable to deliver.

Next slide.

So here are a few examples of the of design standards related to site planning, open space, and streetscape.

We're going to maintain the access drive from Adeline Street to Woolsey, as you'll see on a site diagram in just a moment.

So that includes a 10-foot setback for any ground floor residential and a 15-foot step back above the fourth story.

So again, that's about creating those transitions between the dense part of the project and the single-family zones.

And here's a diagram, and you can see a lot of the uh of those standards that I just went through, pictured on this diagram, including the access drive.

The Ed Roberts campus does actually have an easement on the property for access.

So that drive provides accessibility loading and also four to six ADA loading spaces.

I'm going to turn it back over to Kirsten now.

Thanks, Jordan.

Next, I want to spend a couple minutes just talking about the process.

Once the proposals come in, how will a developer be selected?

And we are paralleling the process that was done on the West Lot.

So there will be an evaluation committee.

We're proposing that committee includes city staff with subject matter experts, staff conversant in development, planning, and affordable housing finance, a community member, and one community member, similar to the structure in the West Lot Evaluation Committee.

The proposals will be evaluated.

A subset of teams will be interviewed by the evaluation committee, and a subset of the teams will be invited to make a public presentation before a recommendation is made to the council, and the council would approve the selected developer.

We've been talking a lot about the RFP.

Just like on the other sites, we'll be pairing the RFP with a NOFA or notice of funding availability, and that will be a portion of the previously reserved $8 million dollars of housing trust fund.

Today, HHCS seeks authorization to utilize up to $500,000 of those funds to implement the exchange agreement and potentially take title of the E-slot.

This would be an allocation of a portion of the $8 million previously reserved for the East Lot.

This authorization will enable the city to require the site from BART prior to issuing the RFP, if that is deemed a necessary step to comply with state law.

As with the developer solicitations for North Berkeley and the West Lot, the RFP will also be issued with up to one million dollars to support pre-development activities.

Okay.

Let's just take a quick look at timeline and next steps, and then we can get ready for our questions and discussion.

As I said, it's the city's intention to release an RFP and NOFA early in 2026.

This could be delayed if surplus land act compliance necessitates that the city hold title to the land prior to issuing the RFP.

As you may know, the surplus land act is intended to ensure that public lands are prioritized for housing development, especially affordable housing, as is contemplated for the E slot.

Staff are coordinating closely to our Berkeley selection process aligns with statutory requirements.

It is the city's preference to delay site acquisition, enabling BART to continue to operate the site as transit rider parking until the development team is ready to begin construction.

The city will continue to coordinate closely with HCD and BART with the intention of assuring compliance and optimal project outcomes.

Okay.

So after the RFP is issued, either in the new year or shortly after that, we expect the process to take about six months before we're selecting a developer.

That's very similar to what took place for North Berkeley and the West Lot.

As I said, those steps would include interviews, public presentations, an evaluation, and then ultimately the approval of this council.

Once that's done, the developer would lead a community planning process, and also enter into negotiations with the city for the land.

So the vehicles for that would be an exclusive notiating agreement and a ground lease or sale if so desired.

That phase we're estimating to take I can't actually can't see that with my glasses on.

We're waiting for that to take a few years, which would lead into construction.

Thank you.

Oh, there you go.

We're almost done.

Okay.

So for North Berkeley, it took four years from solicitation to the anticipated first phase of construction.

For the e-slot, we may be able to achieve those same steps in a shorter period, given that the project is less complex.

It doesn't have major new infrastructure, it's a smaller site, it doesn't have to design around a BART station.

The land negotiations and entitlements will be with the city rather than city and BART.

So for those reasons, we might even be able to move a little bit faster and see housing sooner.

Staff and consultants are prepared to answer questions.

Thank you for your attention.

This is a really exciting moment for the e-slot, and we look forward to your input and comments on the framework.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate the presentation.

And thank you so much for I know you all did a lot of work on reorganizing and clarifying certain points.

So I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

And I what I want to do is I want to take questions first, but then I want to get public comments before we give our comments, because I know we have a number of folks here to speak on this.

And I want to start actually with the council members for the district, too.

Thank you.

Two is in as well.

District three, but two.

I said two, but I meant as well.

Yeah.

Thank you for a great report.

You know, I um nothing of surprise, no surprises here for me at all.

Um, I don't have any questions.

I mean, this is all very I understand your methodologies, understand the cost drags, the opportunities, timelines.

You know, I have comments we can get into later, I guess.

Um, but essentially, yeah, so one question is uh the 300 bedrooms.

Um so like how how do we arrive at that number?

And is that a plus or minus?

And what kind of range um could we could we be looking at?

So our negotiations with BART that ultimately culminated in the exchange agreement adopted by council last fall uh more lengthy, and uh BART's goal was really felt very strongly about maximizing the number of bedrooms because that will support ridership and for the lot that they'll own, it will uh it boosts the value of the land.

The 300 bedroom number um there were a few different factors that led to us landing on that.

It was informed by a capacity analysis that was studied about that to say you know understand how much could we fit in a roughly uh seven-story project, so consistent with the zoning established not not just locally but also through state law under AB 2923, and it was also informed by um some economic analysis that was conducted jointly by consultants engaged by the city of Berkeley and BART to ensure that both the city and BART were getting a fair exchange through the exchange of the air rights of the West Lot and the East Lot.

So the financial analysis and the capacity analysis both informed that number.

Okay, so it's more it's more of a just a capacity sort of um conversation.

Okay, um yeah, that's really no real questions, just comments we can get into later.

Thank you.

Are there any other qu other questions from folks?

Uh oh, sorry, Councilmember Trey Gab, I see your hand.

Thank you so much uh for the presentation.

I just had a couple of questions.

Um my staff did have uh conversations with CIL that reached out to us.

Um, and while I think all the requests um that they provided in writing are reflected in the staff report.

Can you please confirm that um the requested tasks that were mentioned in the letter from this organization are already included in the RFP or in staff's opinion?

Is there an opportunity or need to add any language to strengthen the R feet to reflect these points?

Um I had a second question, but um I will stop here.

Yeah, I can um take a I'll take a stab at answering the first question.

So the the letter and comments from CIL were um received into the record as as public comment for this meeting.

They aren't reflected in the staff report itself.

What's reflected in the staff report is the feedback that we received um through the stakeholder meeting through that process.

Um we we the the tasks they've identified are not um specifically in the RFP.

We haven't drafted the RFP, so we've only drafted the framework for the RFP and this meeting is our opportunity to get input, including public comment.

So I I anticipate that CIL will provide some public comment, but again, this was received um as public comment, and I think Kirsten, are you looking to see which which items are already in the framework?

Do you want to so we have to take a look?

We're gonna have to take a minute to review this, which we'll do during public comment and be prepared if that's acceptable.

That makes sense.

That sounds great.

Um I had another question, but I I might just um make it as part of a comment later, but I I'm wondering if um staff might consider um well.

Uh I I understand that there is um one member of the community um that is, you know, the proposal includes one member of the community um to be uh part of a advisory task force.

Um I'm curious um what if any definitions there might be around uh what constitutes a community member, for instance, um, might um pertinent lived experience be um part of um something that could be a criterion.

I don't I don't think we have that level of of specificity outlined there.

I think the criteria are I think appointed a member of the community appointed by the city manager.

I think it's I think it's that simple, but happy to take your input on whether and how that should be more specifically defined.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Oh, um, Councilmember Brockabee.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

I just had two questions and thanks to the team for the great presentation.

Sorry I was a few minutes late, was coming back from a parent teacher conference, which went well in case everyone wanted, but it was really good.

Uh sorry, two questions.

First was um on the reparation commitment, um, the South Berkeley fund.

Um I appreciated seeing this uh kind of an effort to address the negative impact historically to African-American residents.

Do you have any ideas, vision, examples?

What might this look like or what might we expect this to fund?

Do you have some examples of what I'm just curious if?

And we've had some discussions about how it's it's an unformed opportunity for the city and the council just to put a timeline on it so you understand like where we need to be in the developing the concepts.

Um I just outlined for you that it's about four years until we hit construction, and that fund won't start accruing until about four years after that, after construction is completed.

So we have some time and we'd certainly collect input here to start that process, but certainly um it wouldn't need to be incorporated in the RFP or things like that.

I've seen like CF uh CDBG type committees where communities have oversight, but the city administers that's probably a model that would make a lot of sense for this.

Um probably the proposed allocation could define some of the mechanisms as well.

So I'm not quite sure how the city will advance it, but we'd take input today.

So the developer may not prescribe necessarily what they're gonna do with the fund, they're just gonna allocate in the.

I think it's pretty clear that the developer won't determine that the expenditures.

They might determine how it's funded.

We've said it needs to be a minimum of 150.

Maybe they'll find more, or maybe they'll do it earlier than required, but it is not certainly not for the developer to expand.

Got it.

Thank you.

And the other only question was around the homeownership.

It feels kind of just from the slide and from the discussion.

Um, it feels like you're, I mean, it's a good goal, but you have you kind of lower our expectations based on the economics as to whether or not this is gonna be feasible given the way this may or may not pencil.

Is that a fair takeaway?

Again, I know you're not trying to put the thumb on the scales.

We obviously want the developers to come back with as ambitious proposals as they can.

Yeah.

You're tempering our expectations a little bit in terms of what you put here.

I think that's the intention of keeping it as a goal.

There might be a savvy developer out there that has like cracked the model on home affordable home ownership, and they're excited to do it here and they see an opportunity.

But I did have a chance to review your social housing study, and I noticed that they came to that same conclusion of like, hey, you can do affordable homeownership.

It's really, really hard, especially new construction acquisition and rehabilitation has a much lower cost, and direct assistance to homeowners has a lower cost.

So there might be an opportunity to establish affordable homeownership, but not on the site itself, but in South Berkeley and still achieve those same policy objectives.

And there might even be ways to tether it to the project, but you know, that's sort of an open question, but I think you're reading the like feasibility point really clearly.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other questions, counsel?

Okay, let's do some public comment.

Public comment.

I was expecting a rush to the podium.

How much time is it?

Um, how many people are speaking?

I think and I'd like to get a sense of how many folks do we have online as well.

Okay, so at least one, two, three, anyone else, four, four.

If you if you're interested in giving public comment, can you line up so we know how many folks are actually speaking, please?

I think I got it.

Five hands so far on the Zoom.

I think if we have more than ten, then I want to do a minute.

And yeah, okay.

So if uh there's one minute per speaker, people can yield time to speakers up to a maximum of four minutes for any one speaker.

Uh so we can start with in-person comments.

Yeah.

Dr.

Victor Paneda, executive director of the Historic Center for Independent Living.

We have had a 54-year history with the county and the city and inventing what is the modern disability rights movement, specifically on the east lot.

We have developed uh over five years of research.

My other job was for 50 years, and the faculty of UC Berkeley's department of city and regional planning.

I've advised mayors of cities around the world on how to build inclusive cities, and written two books on the topic.

I mean, as a Berkeley resident for 28 years, there is no property in the city in the county and in the state that has the potential of the East Lot to create meaningful transformative experience for the give you another minute from the audience.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so just to say that we have some uh public comments from a lot of allies for the community to basically request three very simple topics.

Number one is we feel that the community engagement of the review of the RFP should not just be one committee members, but maybe two, because we have a deep kind of connection to how this lot can unlock the potential of not only the disabled community and the African record communities, but really to create a model that is not safe for disability forward housing, and very simply put, we know how to make that financing a hundred percent affordable, and the accessibility requirements can be done at cost, and no additional cost per square footage, as you know, not accessible.

So we have the technical knowledge.

Thank you so much.

Someone else is giving you another minute.

Oh, thank you so much.

Oh, I've I've taken that.

So I think the bot the unique aspect is we can all celebrate and a public land, something that isn't just a public good, but can be a national model for disability inclusive affordable housing that is in conversation with the east Lot.

The trade-off of accessibility is not an it'll cause the technical advantages of having a developer that knows how to build disability inclusive affordable housing.

Means that the cost per square footage of an accessible, fully accessible, state-of-the-art building will not cost more than a baseline accessible housing unit if you have the right planning approach.

You save considerable money.

Up front, so some of the trade-offs that the council should look at can be addressed through a uh not only aspirational but in a very practical way by using the right partners and the right knowledge.

So CIL wants to be your thought partner.

We will not be on the RFP process, but we need to develop that land.

We just want to use our skill sets, our technical knowledge to ensure that the city has a massive legacy for the communities we serve, and to do that in a way that can be um financially feasible.

The financial stacking of these of this is complex, but other partners in the Bay Area have figured it out.

Discussion would really create a lot of value.

That but really consider more than one community partner.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jean Turretz, and I'm representing a group that you failed to mention in your uh statement.

Although we've been dealing with this project from eight years ago when it all began, and that's Friends of Adeline.

And so the little distress that we weren't important enough for the eight years of work that we have done to be included.

Um we are working together with healthy black families and the Center for Independent Living, and we are fighting for three major points to be included in the framework.

It's okay.

No, it's okay.

That is a hundred percent affordability that would enable those most threatened in our community to remain here.

We would like to see the right to return that those who have been forced out of Berkeley must be able to return.

And we want the right to full accessibility and accommodations to enable all people with special needs to be able to reside here.

Thank you.

You have one minute, so okay, this person is giving you another minute.

Okay.

I just want to say one, we heard of this thing about the what is the South Berkeley community fund?

Something created that we have no idea about.

So do we want this in the framework?

Do we know where it's going?

We do we know who's going to control it.

Why should that be in the framework without a discussion with the community?

Is the community a stakeholder?

You don't include the community as a stakeholder in this.

We feel that the community has spoken up for eight years at all stages of this project, and to be left out is a you know, is a slap in the face to all the people who have been involved in this.

I hope you can improve on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Linda O'Livenbaum, and I'm also with Friends of Adeline and fully endorse the remarks that Jean made.

The point about reparations uh that was uh mentioned today and in the written materials is extremely important.

Um, I think one of the highlights of the West Lot process was finding developers that had had experience and sensitivity to a community like South Berkeley that has been so impacted by BART for 40 years or more.

Um, and I think that's really crucial.

Um, also as far as the community evaluation team, I think since the original plan was three city, one BART, one community.

I don't see that BART needs to be at the table since they're not part of this project now.

So we there should be at least two representatives of the community, one from the disability community and one from residents of South Berkeley.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have one minute or four minutes?

One.

All right, let's get off to the races.

My name is Betsy Morris.

I'm wearing three hats.

First, as uh a member of Friends of Adeline, and as uh a leader with my co-colleader there of uh East Bay Berkeley Grey Panthers.

Um we have worked with CIL to support 100% affordable housing, whatever amount we can get, get it built quickly accountable to the community.

Uh my third hat is as uh an a community economic development researcher and consultant for 25 30 years, specializing in uh uh resident-led resident-owned uh co-housing, cooperatives, and other forms of uh social housing, affordable and resident financed social housing.

So I want to speak to the to just offer that the national co-op bank, the national co-op bank.

Nancy, I'm I'm sorry, you're actually.

Just take that down.

National co-op bank, thank you.

And the national uh business association, cooperatives.

Oh, your friends.

Okay, thank you.

Go further.

Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't practice.

I know it's tough.

I know.

I'll put it in writing.

Yes, feel free to send it to us and send us more information, Sarah Kirchner, Center for Independent Living.

Um, so just quickly to reinforce a couple points.

I do think the Kelsey who operates a building in San Francisco and San Jose that is fully disability forward and inclusive and a hundred percent affordable, could offer some interesting ideas on how to make at least 50% but closer to a hundred percent affordability work.

It's this you this is much bigger than what the Kelsey has built, but there are people who have really who I think can be helpful in that.

And I think your presentation was thoughtful, but I'm curious about what they could bring.

Um we strongly support the recommendation of equity for Black Berkeley as part of an in connection to Friends of Adeline, um, and also really do feel like the Center for Independent Living is part of the board of the Ed Roberts campus should really be a second position.

This is literally adjacent to the Ed Roberts campus, and it's more than just that corridor, like making it transit.

Thank you.

Another minute.

Um sorry, are you giving your okay?

Um, making it's more than just like unloading of four to six vans.

The whole area is gonna need to be if this is disability forward housing and inclusive housing, the whole area is gonna need to accommodate accessible transit, right?

Not just BART but vans, paratransit, and it's gonna need to be for residents, not just people who come and go from the ERC.

Um, and so I think having someone from the disability community, particularly someone who has experience with housing and development, will really inform and limit the costs while allowing you to be fully inclusive and create units that are adaptable as people age into disability.

Um, and then just uh it would be good to get a little clearer like set asides for people with disabilities through and and low income through trying to capture Section 811 vouchers and working with developers or the service manager to do that.

Bye.

Thank you.

Um, I think there's there are folks online, and our first speaker has asked for accommodation, so we're gonna give you an extra minute.

Okay.

First speaker is Makai Freeman.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good evening, absolutely.

If you my name is Makai Freeman, I am.

This is some shame death at the center for intervention.

I am also living with my partner, my son, you know, condo reactors.

That has to allow for us to have security and civility.

And now I'm to pass on to my child.

Oh my shit.

I think we support the item of issues that care today, which is disability for it.

Housing, intersectional, and deeply affordable housing.

So I sort of acknowledgement of how we have to be mindful of the damage that's done to this community.

And that's that's the goal of home.

Oh, and to be affordable, housing is that we're open, and also forward thinking and transformational, and how we create this development.

I asked for two to three community, nothing about us without us, it just hasn't developed.

It's the support of the host of your song.

That it has to have people.

Thank you.

Your comments, thank you.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Next is um Priscilla, Priscilla Hein.

Can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Thank you very much, Council and Mayor, for to allowing me to have an opportunity to speak.

Um, I'm also with the friends of Adeline, and I agree with what Jean and Linda has said before, but I also want to encourage um the taking of time to consider these goals and to think outside the box.

Um let's not fast track this, let's really try to make some of these goals happen.

It takes time, it takes a lot of creativity, and it takes talking to other members of the community, other non-profits in the community, finding out how other people have solved such daunting problems, um, and listening and just being really super creative.

So I just really really encourage um the the taking our time and coming up so that these goals can actually happen and not just be um, you know, goals that we hope to reach.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Next is uh Willamina Wilson.

Yes.

East Lot.

The opportunity to continue this work through a reparative approach must be centered.

Right to stay, right to return must be central to all considerations.

The call for affordable housing for the black families that have been displaced in the most vulnerable in our communities must be at the forefront of our minds, not only there, but also reflected in the RFP.

We must also ask how deeply can we drive equity through this process, and how do we support the most vulnerable in our communities, um, and allow them to age in place in the place where they call it home.

This means supporting disability forward housing, including community from the beginning.

And I also advocate for an additional community member to be part of this panel.

Thank you for hearing our voices and engaging us to and continuing to do this process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Willamina.

Okay, next is Teresa Clark.

Hi, everybody.

Theresa Clark with South Berkeley Now and a neighbor to the Ashby Bart station.

I think the main thing I would like to see, you know, once you get the scoring criteria, because I think that scoring criteria is kind of gonna reflect what we're prioritizing over what.

And I think, you know, how are we going?

How are how is the decision making going to be made regarding rewarding, you know, a higher number of bedrooms or higher density in relationship to these other things?

So you know that would be interesting to see.

So I think it would be very helpful for the community to really understand um how we're prioritizing things by getting a like a draft, you know, scoring criteria on how many more points.

And maybe we use the West Lot as an example and say okay, how do we want to change the West Lot scoring criteria to the East Lot and what do we want to emphasize more?

Thanks, Teresa.

Next is Kelly Hammergren.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on the number of community members that are going to be part of this.

And the token of one just feels like, oh, we can say we did it, but um, I really think you need to have three community members on this panel.

Some of you asked for two.

You certainly need to have the disability uh community represented, you need to have the organizations that are active in South Berkeley represented, and uh it's disappointing that uh the way this was described and configured that just one person.

Um additionally, you know, what what if something happens to that one person?

You know, if you have three, then you at least have two people left on um on that panel.

So that is um my total comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kelly.

Next is Deborah Matthews.

Deborah, you should be able to unmute.

There she is, she's unmuted.

Thank you so much for um to the council, to the mayor, and to uh city staff for this special meeting tonight.

I'm Deborah Matthews, real estate broker, 40 years here in Berkeley and a co-founder of South Berkeley now.

I will speak to the housing priority of home ownership, which equals reparations.

When we weaken opportunities for home ownership, this widens not narrows racial and economic divides.

Here in Berkeley, the cost of law, the the loss, the cost of lost ownership has been devastating.

A 2022 report commissioned by former mayor Jesse Aragine estimated that black ownership in Berkeley lost an average of 676,000 in wealth per household between 1960 and 2020.

The east lot of the Ashby Bart development offers an opportunity to accept the challenge to do it right to blend forward thinking housing strategies with opportunities for new ownership.

Ownership is the one of the few tools we still have left to close America's racial wealth gap.

As California leads to weight in housing reform, we must remember that ownership is equity.

And protecting ownership.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

I appreciate your comment.

Next is Willie Phillips.

Willie, I see you're unmuted.

You should be able to speak.

Willie, can you hear us?

We can come back.

Next is Brianna Morales.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Brianna Morales, and I'm the community organizer with the Housing Action Coalition.

We're a supported um nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all income levels across California.

And we're just here in support um to see this to see this uh BART station uh make room for housing.

This is a rare opportunity to deliver lasting public benefit on valuable public land, building housing, mixed income or affordable.

Um next to BART means fewer people commuting long distances, fewer cars on the road, and real climate um benefits.

Denser infill housing is one of our best tools to fight urban sprawl and emissions.

Um, and of course, this is also about the workers and families and seniors who are just trying to stay rooted in Berkeley, and this project gives them a real chance to live in a walkable connected um neighborhood in Berkeley with access to jobs, transit and schools, and not pushed out or out of the region altogether.

Um we talk a lot about our housing element goals and the fact that California is in a housing crisis.

All right, uh Brianna, your time is up.

Thank you for thank you so much.

Uh next is David Scheer.

Uh hi.

Um it's great to see the work at Ash P Bart moving forward.

Um I'm uh I'm looking at this in the context of the social housing study from a few weeks ago.

Uh I don't know if this is the time or if this is the project.

Um, but given some of what's been talked about tonight and where we are in the process, it does seem like an opportunity um potentially to pilot and experiment with uh some of the ideas around meaningful tenant governance in the administration of the building.

Um so I think that's something to think about.

Um, as far as affordability levels, the building is going to need to generate enough revenue to support its ongoing maintenance and operations.

And I hope that we are taking into account the long-term financial health of the project when we are when we are choosing um when we're when we're choosing between proposals.

We don't want building managers a few decades down the road, uh biasing towards higher income qualifying qualifying individuals because that's what they feel like they need to do to make the numbers work.

So I hope we're thinking about it that way.

Thank you.

Okay, that's the last speaker.

Uh actually, he's not on anymore.

Is there anyone else who has public comment?

Online.

No, no more hands raised.

Yep.

Okay.

Okay.

All right then.

Um, so moving on to uh council comments.

Did you want to start again?

Yeah, I'm gonna go back to Councilmember Bartlett.

Yeah, nearing the end of our Odyssey here, 10 years.

Um, excellent planning commission going through this stuff.

Uh and so this of course is uh a really wonderful chapter to be to be at.

And RFP is a really great framework.

Um, we went this before.

Uh some of my comments you'll know.

Um, but I think um uh in general though, I would like to, you know, really kind of hone in on some of the other aspects of this project and some of the elements I think should be accentuated and sort of put forward as central points um to be to be strived for in its development.

Um, in short, uh economic justice and wealth building uh should be front and center here.

Okay.

Uh we know from the again the the equitable at Berkeley, equitable Black Berkeley report.

That's a mouthful, equitable Black Berkeley report.

The redlining alone, redlining suffocation of equity in an organized basis in the city, costs as much as $700,000 in adjusted monies per household.

And that includes those who moved away and those who stayed.

So let's hone in on the district on where the site is.

And this is a rough, rough guesstimation of the area right where this was, right?

And this is a bustling economic zone, lots of houses.

Of course, was this project started in 1972.

So the year before it began, the median sale price for homes was around 26,000, maybe 27,000.

I wish it was that way right now.

And now this year in 2025, the mean sell price is about 1.3 million dollars in that exact area.

And the east lot itself, in this this instance, the east lot alone, roughly uh 55 lots, plus significant commercial corridors on either side.

Oh no, one side and one corner side, with lots of jobs, lots of stores.

This is not unlike the commercial corridor in Sacramento that they bulldoze for the Byron Rumford homes, right?

So fast forward, of course, 50 years, and you see we're living in the result of that deficit.

We see the wealth disparities, we see the poverty, etc.

We see uh, you know, people unable to buy their kids houses like their peers in this town because their parents that were robbed of this equity, and this of course is echoed everywhere.

Um so when we talk about repair, and I said this before in the West Lot, right?

Many, many times.

We love to call that repair and whatnot, and it's not, it's an apartment building.

There's there's no there's actually no correlation between repair.

It's nice.

I'm pro-housing, of course.

We love housing.

Uh, but it's not repair, not at all.

Um, and so thinking about actual repair, especially when we control the lot, I think it's very important.

Um, you know, the the corresponding and the correlation to the Ed Roberts campus is wonderful.

Support that, love Universal Design, very proud to host um the to be the home of Universal Design in this world, South Berkeley, very proud of that.

Um, and so not to say we can do one or the other, but uh it should be infused.

If we're gonna use it, it should also be infused with the economic justice of the black people who are robbed there.

My mother almost almost had a coronary when I showed her this plan.

She's like, what are you talking about?

Right.

So um let's you know, let's let's let's be here real here.

And I understand, of course, uh we know this the economic limitations of the site is pretty small, right?

Only so much we can monetize in that little area.

Um and uh, of course, housing's expensive, and there's all these issues around the cost of building and maximizing the number of people we can help with the number of uh ownership entities we can create.

Uh however, two things.

We we know that in the fires of LA, because of the LA fire, um, there is basically an arms race to bring in the new building materials, methodologies.

Let me go on, please.

Uh, methodologies into California and the country, to get California.

Um, so many of your cost projections are actively being confronted right now by the building industry, right now.

And so by the time this thing breaks ground, who knows what cost curves we can meet.

Also, different financing tools.

We know that uh ownership is the number one element being driven right now in the housing advice in a housing housing advocacy community in this country and in the state, and so many many proposals are winding its way through the different bodies to incentivize ownership to create starter home tax credits, etc.

The same things used now for um affordable housing development, but for ownership, all that's coming, and so by the time this building gets built, uh I do think we will have a stronger chance at achieving affordable home ownership, and this is by far uh what the community has asked for repeatedly the most, they want it.

We already know we know we need it, it's out of reach for everyone, but particularly again thinking about what was robbed from these people and their descendants and their associates and the neighborhood as all as a whole and the community as a whole, the city as a whole, robbed of all this vitality, and we can bring it back.

Uh, and so a quick couple points here.

Um, uh I do think uh we should have three members of the community on board here.

I've served on numerous RFP committees before I was elected, um, and they're fun, they're great for people to get involved and learn how processes work, uh, like a miniature commission, and in this instance, we have you know strong vested interests from the community that may be divergent, it's important to not be captured and to allow three different people to get in there and mix it up.

And I think we'll benefit because I want someone on there who wants ownership.

I want someone to fight as hard as they can to produce ownership on that site, or devise a mechanism to capture revenue and shift it somewhere nearby to create a new program.

We have lots of ideas for programs for ownership, lots of them out there.

Um let's do it, let's drive it forward from here.

That would be the karmic sense of development, this property demands.

Because we did not get it on the West Lot.

We didn't get it.

Okay, and that was the one to do it, that was huge.

But we but bar controlled it, we couldn't do it.

I fought for that for years, so this is our last stand, and uh let's make it count.

So I want you to consider going back in this RFP and punching up the ownership and urging the developers and they call me all the time, too.

These people are calling me all the time.

They can do this for this much cheaper, they're out there.

Uh, let's let them fight to get this contract.

The super high-profile development deal, let them fight to get it.

And on that end, this goes along with the new developers, the new ideas, the new people, which ties into our economic justice element.

Let's get some new developers in here, people who come from historically red line communities, they can't get a job.

You should see the talented black architects and developers and finance pros out there trying to get in the game, but they can't get in.

And we know this from our 2016, 2017, we passed the bin dex.

That's not my name for it.

That's they call it that.

The inclusion diversity index.

We have a pension for choosing established players, large entities that are not facilitating the on-ramp of new people and diverse money.

And now, as you see, in general, all the wealth is bound up in a few hands.

So it's almost like there's a continuation of 1972.

When you wipe out their wealth, move it up here, and keep it there.

So let's take this moment to do our part to undo the momentum and create a new momentum that's born of economic justice and access and true reparation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, and you already did this, so thank you very much for setting the stage.

I just will I I remembered that when we had had this conversation about how we were going to go through this.

One of the things we were talking about was what kinds of guidance would be helpful.

And you you've already done it in the right way, so that's great.

Um, but just in terms of discussion, these are questions here to be thinking about in terms of giving your comments and um, you know, giving feedback on we have the there are threshold requirements, and then there's framework that we've gotten from the community, and so giving feedback on what you all think are priorities is really helpful.

Um, and so that's affordable housing priorities, um, the evaluation committee is um our council member spoke to, um, but also, and actually, this wasn't on here at the end of the slides, but in the stakeholder engagement, just seeing what you all think about those pieces of it as well.

So, just to kind of uh give you some structure.

Um, council member Humbert.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, first I want to thank staff for all your really good hard work on this, and I know there's gonna be a lot of good hard work in the future.

I want to join essentially a hundred percent in council member Bartlett's comments.

Um I'm not gonna try to match him, he's a hard act to follow, but I want to thank him for his prodigious efforts uh on this process over the years, and for his really creative thinking about how we can get to where we need to go in connection with his statement, and I wrote it down.

Umic justice and wealth building should be front and center in this process.

I agree with that, as our president might say a thousand percent.

Um I'd love to see ownership, um, opportunities to help create the intergenerational wealth of which this community uh that lived around here before 1972 was clearly robbed.

So absolutely agree with council member Bartlett on that, and and that's my main comment.

Um I also want to thank our commenter Deborah Matthews, who's worked on this process for a long time.

I want to thank her for her very astute and thoughtful comments tonight as well.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Other council members.

Uh Councilmember Kessarani.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Um, thank you for the presentation.

Um, I'm just seeing these are I didn't realize you had prompts for us.

So, okay, so I I just I just generally want to thank you because I think this is generally um covering the topics that I think are important, and obviously, as the council member representing the neighborhoods around the North Berkeley Bard station and seeing that process um successfully lead to um the land use entitlement for a project that um I think the vast majority of the community is supportive of.

I'm I'm sort of looking to see how this compares to what we had at you know, for the North Berkeley Bard, and so in terms of uh I just want to say that I think the goal of 50% affordability is good and setting the minimum at 35%.

I think that aligns with what we did in North Berkeley, and I do appreciate that the um the slide on page 16 showing the trade-off there.

Obviously, if you have greater affordability, there is less of a market rate developer contribution that can go towards other benefits.

So um, so I think that is appropriate to leave that as a goal.

Um the home ownership goal.

I I think that that is also appropriate as a goal.

I I do want to recognize that there are some in my mind some significant trade-offs with this goal.

One is that it serves a higher income household of 80% area median income.

And you know, I I so I I think that's important, and I do want to just note that the um some of our other policies are trying to serve that middle income population between the 80 to 120 percent of area median income.

You know, the significant one being the middle housing ordinance accompanied with the subdivision referral that I hope that will come back to council to give people an opportunity at higher income levels to be able to buy that um starter home, and so I'm not saying that I that we shouldn't be doing this here.

I think it's a valid goal, but I I think again it's good as a goal and not as a requirement, because I think we need to um be flexible in terms of how we do that.

And I I think those are really my main um comments.

I I wanted to also just note that I thought the design guidelines, I think those appear on page 23 of the presentation, that those seemed reasonable.

Again, it was looking to how they compared to North Berkeley BART, which is also adjacent to a residential neighborhood as the east lot is, and so I think the the setbacks of five to fifteen feet that aligns with what we did in North Berkeley.

We also had upper story stepbacks.

So that also makes sense.

And I think having that the 300 minimum bedroom count, that is gonna be a requirement, correct?

So I think that's important because when we go all the way back to our joint vision and priorities, we talked about you know having a significant number, you know, not um thinking so much in percentages.

You know, for a long time we were we were talking about a hundred percent level of affordability, but um I think we've come a long way in realizing what is realistic and practical and delivering homes in a reasonable time frame, um, is also important.

You know, people can't wait 20, 30 years uh for this site to get developed.

They've already been waiting very long time.

So, you know, I just want to appreciate how far we have come and this site the the you know sort of the Ashby lots, they were much more complex uh than North Berkeley uh site, and that is why it has taken so long.

There were air rights that the city held for the Ashby station, and so the reason why we've now acquired this east lot is because we entered into negotiations with BART so that they would be able to take uh you know full responsibility of developing the West Lot, which is what we're not talking about, and then we could take responsibility for this lot.

So this is an incredible opportunity for us.

And um, I'm just looking at the last question here.

Does the evaluation process ensure robust review of proposals?

I I think so.

I um I want to make sure that in addition to the community representation that we make sure we have expertise on the panel that reviews these proposals.

Uh, because there's there's you know, in my mind, just I'm just gonna finish my thought here.

Um, just some I think there's gonna be significant technical detail in these proposals.

So I want to make sure that we are equipped to be able to evaluate each of them fairly and responsibly, and so that would be my request that we make sure that we have you know that that expertise on the panel as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Other council members.

No, go for it.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to say briefly, um, I just want to thank staff, of course, for all of the work, and I I also just really want to thank Councilmember Bartlett.

Um, plus one to everything you said, not only because you are the councilperson for this district, so that's something right there, but also you spent a huge amount of time on this, and everything you said was really reasonable and great.

So just wanted to say thank you, and and yes.

Okay, council member Lunapara.

Thank you.

Yeah, I wanted to um echo what some of my colleagues have been saying.

I also want to thank Councilmember Bartlett for all the work that he's put into this, um, and for trying to do the very difficult task of bridging all the different stakeholders, which is what makes Ashby particularly, you know, harder than um North Berkeley.

So thank you and great job.

Um I do have questions about the building form objective standards part, but this might be bigger than this project.

Um, I guess I'm curious what the goal of some of these standards are.

For example, the having the maximum continuous facade length be a hundred and seventy feet, which I guess creates the like back and forth type of building, and why it can't be more than a single or 80% of the facade be a single material.

Just I don't what are the goals of that of those standards?

Well, high-level goals that we talked about in the presentation.

One of them is to ensure that the pedestrian experience is uh is positive.

And you know, one of the examples that the maximum facade length sometimes when you're walking next to a long continuous facade, it really feels oppressive.

Um we have on the line, Chris Sensenik, who is the design professional that assisted the city in the development of these ODS.

So I want to turn it over to Chris to talk a little bit more about the thinking of the standards that you mentioned.

I think you're muted.

Yeah, Chris, you're muted.

There you go.

Sorry about that.

Uh thank you, Jordan.

Um, yeah, I think you hit it on the building length.

Um, you know, it's you know, this is facing uh a bunch of uh smaller buildings and homes and to minimize that that distance without a break to make the building feel smaller.

And the the purpose behind the materials is to really uh provide more variation and um human-scale details, and so that you don't get a hundred percent uh stucco building.

Okay, thank you.

Um I also I'm curious if the the thought process is do we think that there would be any ground floor commercial, or do we anticipate that being residential?

So I can say the ground floor uh non-residential uses are permitted, uh, but we're not requiring it in the solicitation.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um I think something if if a developer does choose to have ground floor commercial, I think it would be great for to also incorporate some of the same ideas of um right to return for some of the businesses that were displaced by the BART development also, some um or long-standing businesses in the area that are in at risk of displacement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bakhovi.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

I'll be brief.

Um, thank you, staff again, consultants for the presentation.

What I appreciate about the process is that um, you know, it we lay out clear threshold requirements, we lay out strong goals, but then we leave a lot of flexibility and creativity for the developers to come back and say here's what we think we can do.

Um, and I think um as you wrote a lot of the document, uh there's a lot of language about looking for that kind of creativity and inspiration uh to really try and wow us right um about what's possible because we don't know what's possible, but we are looking to work with partners who have uh big vision for what is possible, and that's part of the evaluation process.

So I really I like that we're not being too prescriptive.

Um we're laying out goals, but not being too prescriptive.

Um I also want to thank Councilmember Bartlett um for his leadership.

And you know, I think we all acknowledge up here that um it's it's really impossible to fully write the past wrongs, um, but we are trying to do our best to um to acknowledge and then do whatever we can do to help repair some of the damage done in this process.

Um, and again, I think it's really important for all of us to be mindful as we go through this that that's still centered, and that's kind of um a key goal of this.

It's not, of course, developing more affordable housing is an important goal, but also centering the community that has been affected and that will benefit from this work is really important.

Um, and so just to keep reminding us of that in the RFP and then to Councilmember Bartlett and the team to keep us honest um about that as we move forward.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Other council members oh, Councilmember Trekov, I see you online.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um, I wanted to also thank staff uh for not just the comprehensive presentation, but the comprehensive body of work that they have done over many years and will continue to do.

And of course, would like to thank council member Bartlett for his leadership on this project.

And I would like to thank the community members that um, you know, the um nothing about us without us is um a quote that uh rings uh still still rings uh with a clarion call in my um head as I am thinking about the public comments that we heard today.

Um I did have a question um that I have not yet asked um of staff first.

Um can you please remind me um uh I know in previous renditions um there was uh commitment to um provide um a space for the farmers market use and I understand that the farmers market has gone through uh perhaps some uh ownership or management changes since then, but I'm wondering if this is on uh the East Lot or did it move to the West lot.

So I think you're referencing uh the Berkeley Flea Market and uh yes, the flea market.

Yeah, it's it's really the West Lot project um in combination with city right of way that will be providing a future home to the flea market rather than the East Lot.

Okay.

Um yeah, I um I am clear on the trade-offs, and I think um I mean I I would like to associate myself with um comments that have been made about uh the opportunities here um that this is already an ambitious project, and I um all too keenly and um somewhat painfully recognize that uh there is perhaps no level of ambition on this project that um may truly make um the um South Berkeley residents whose ancestors were negatively impacted by um um gentrification and um displacement um starting or perhaps continuing in the 60s and 70s up to now um that it might not make everyone fully whole and yet uh this is an invitation and a challenge to all of us to think deeply through this and do the very best that we can uh to build something that is um emblematic of um Berkeley's um full vision and creativity that our community demonstrates, and it is with that in mind that if I was going to make an overarching comment and request, and this is what I'm going to do now, it is to look at um you know I heard loud and clear from the community, and even before that it seemed I understand the reason um, you know, to have five members and an advisory committee and to have perhaps the city of Berkeley um have a majority that's three um that may uh leave one member of the community, but I don't believe that that is enough, and there is no single member of the community that can authentically speak for the lived experiences of everyone in that community, and so I would really like for us to think through what it um what it what might be possible to increase the composition of community members to at least two, and if that means expanding the overall number of um committee members to seven or some other odd number, then I would fully support that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, well, look at this.

We might end on time.

Okay, other comments?

Just want to make sure.

Oh, yes.

Go ahead, Council.

Sorry, I didn't I can't remember if I mentioned this in my comment, but if I didn't, I just want to thank staff, the planning department so much.

Thank you for all of your work.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, so final comment.

Um, I of course also wanna say thank you again.

I think I said it earlier, but again, again, thank you.

Um I know this is a lot of work, and I really appreciate I know it wasn't intentional to leave out Friends of Adeline.

I know that Friends of Adeline has been involved throughout this process.

Um, and I know because we've been having conversations where you mention all these different organizations and groups and individuals that you've spoken with and all the comments and feedback.

So I just wanna make sure the community really knows that um that this team has been really listening and and worked very hard to make sure that those comments were put into this document.

So I just want to make sure folks know that.

Um I've lived in South Berkeley most of the time that I've lived in Berkeley.

I'm very connected to the South Berkeley community.

Um, and many of the folks in the audience are neighbors that I see quite regularly, literally walking down the street.

So um I I'm really grateful for you all being here and just your comments and your thoughts, and of course, to Councilmember Bartlett as well for his work and his um his passion on this topic because we do really understand that um this BART station really impacted the community, and we can't talk about this project without talking about racial justice.

So um I'm really grateful for folks bringing that into the room into this space.

Um, let's see.

So in terms of these questions, I I do really feel like this framework does show us um what the community is asking for.

It brings in, of course, the the priorities that we have.

Um, and I agree with folks that have said that I think what's gonna be challenging is figuring out which priorities are more important.

So let me tell you, I also agree that we need to increase the number of community members.

Um, I think one is just not enough.

There are so many different community members who've been engaged in this process.

And so I'd like to see us increase that number.

Um, I have a couple of questions.

Is there a reason that BART needs to be included?

That question was asked by a community member, and I I'm curious if it was a requirement.

Actually, it's not prescriptive, it was kind of a decision that this the steering committee, the team of agencies um made because BART has recently reviewed two very similar RFPs, and the staff there have a lot of expertise and sort of thinking about this master development finance.

So I think our team perceived that as a benefit and almost like um extra support for the technical staff in the city.

Absolutely, that totally makes sense.

That's why I asked the question because I figured there was some reason.

So I think that that makes a lot of sense, and given that it's above BART, there are things that will interact with each other with each other, and so I think that's important and really valuable as a perspective to bring in.

Um, as Councilmember Kessirwani mentioned, having the technical expertise is important here too.

And um the other question I wanted to ask that was brought up by a community member, which is um how will our affordable housing preference policy play into this project?

Could you speak to that?

Yeah, so the uh the city's affordable housing preference policy would apply to the affordable develop rental developments in the project.

It is specific to rental housing.

Um we we have typically um when there is other financing in the project that is not if it's not just local funds or like the BMRs that are privately financed, but if there's other state or federal funds, we typically do a um we do have to get um we do a fair housing analysis and determine the percent of units that the preference policy can be be applied to, and we have to get authorization from the state.

And I think in in the past recent projects that that we've done, it's been about 75%.

I am actually gonna defer a design.

I don't know Rick Jacobis is here and may recall if it was 75%.

Oh, okay, not sure.

I think it was I think it was 75%, but I can verify that.

Sure, that would just be helpful for the community.

I know folks were asking about right of return, and you know, this policy is similar.

So I just wanted to make sure I brought that up.

And then I know we've been talking about um home ownership, and and that piece I think is really interesting.

I think you know it's interesting that it's in there.

I think I'm concerned about the trade-offs between affordable housing and and um ownership.

So I just wanna say that.

And then the last thing that I think is really important is um the universal design piece.

So right now this is written in here as um as a priority, like as something that we're interested in having.

Um, and I just want to set the stage a little bit to say that I got a chance to visit the Kelsey, which is in San Francisco, which is a uh universal designed building, and it was amazing.

Um I think that something I want to highlight for folks is that universal design is for everyone, it's not just for folks, it's not just to be accessible for folks who have disabilities, um, and I think especially about the folks in our community who are aging.

Um we have a really large aging population rapidly um growing and um we I love that we have that in our community.

It's amazing, but we need to make sure we have housing that's that's um that's safe for people to live in, and um it also goes for for folks who you know are pregnant or you know, just generally um need need more accessible design.

So um give and given that the Ed Roberts campus programs and services are right there.

I think we really have a special and unique opportunity to have um uh complementary services and support housing and support for folks also with disabilities, and so I would like to see this as a required element in the design standards.

So um, oh, and council member Caserwani, did you want to add something?

Yes, I I um may made made an error in not thanking Councilmember Bartlett for his leadership on this uh for over uh more than a decade, so uh so I want to make sure I did that.

Thank you very much.

Not more than okay.

Well, thank you all.

Um I I think that you actually have something for us to vote on that we need to be to take action on the resolution.

Sorry, second.

We'd love you to take action on the resolution.

Um I'm just pulling up the resolution itself.

So um the action on here is to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to ex or designate to expend housing trust fund dollars to acquire real property at the Ashby Bart East Law in accordance with the exchange agreement authorized by ordinance seven nine three nine-ns.

So is someone would someone like to make that motion?

Moved by council member Bartlett.

Second, and we have someone online, so could you please take the roll?

Okay, on the motion to adopt the resolution.

Councilmember Casarwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trega, aye.

O'Keefe?

Yes, Blackaby, yes, Luna Para.

Yes, Humber, yes, and Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, staff.

Thank you so much, appreciate it.

Um, so for folks that are here for the six o'clock meeting, it is nine minutes until then, um, but we've been sitting for almost two hours.

So I want to give us a little bit more than nine minutes.

Um so we will be back in 20 minutes.

Okay, thank you everyone.

Oh, yes, we do need to actually adjourn.

Thank you.

Okay, can we have a roll, please?

Okay, to adjourn the meeting, Councilmember Kisserwani.

Wake folks, I'm sorry, we're taking a vote.

Yes, Bartlett.

Oh, I didn't know.

Yes, Trago.

Hi.

O'Keefe.

Yes, Blackbees.

Yes, Unapara.

Yes, Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

All right, meeting is adjourned.

Recording sto