Good to go.

Yes, we are ready.

All right, very good.

I'm going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, January, excuse me, January 20th, 2026.

And I'd like to start off with a roll, please.

Okay.

Calling the role, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Here.

Taplin.

Bartlett.

Trago.

O'Keefe.

Here.

Blackaby.

Here.

Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert.

Present.

And Mayor Ishii.

Here.

Okay, all present.

Thank you very much.

So it is the first meeting backed after our uh winter council recess.

And we have been taking turns saying the land acknowledgement statement.

So I'm beginning the year.

I'm going to start us off.

So the City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of Huchun, the ancestral and unceded lands of the Chochenyo speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.

This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.

As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the Alone 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 unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.

As stewards of the law regulating the city of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Aloney people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.

The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lishan tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.

Thank you.

Now moving on to our ceremonial items.

So for our ceremonial items this evening, we have the presentation of Berkeley's uh poet laureates.

So tonight we recognize Aya de Leon, Berkeley's 2024 to 2025 Poet Laureate, and thank her for her.

Where are you?

Oh, there you are.

There we go.

And thank her for her extraordinary service to the city.

Aya's work has powerfully uplifted poetry as a tool for justice, storytelling, and community connection.

I had the honor of having her present a poem at my inauguration ceremony a little over a year ago.

I thank her for her leadership, generosity, and vision, which have strengthened the Berkeley's literary arts community in lasting ways.

And we are deeply grateful for her contributions to our community.

We are also honored to welcome Hanan Mazri.

Ah.

As Berkeley's next poet laureate, Hanana is a long-time Berkeley educator, poet, and cultural worker whose practice centers land, ancestry, and intergenerational learning.

Her work reflects a deep commitment to youth, community, and creative stewardship.

And we are excited for the voice and also the mentorship that she will bring to the city in this role.

At this time, I'm pleased to invite Aya de Leon and Hanan Mazri forward for the ceremonial passing of the laurel.

I do want to acknowledge that we have Berkeley's first poet laureate in the House as well.

So this was supposed to be a ceremonial passing of the laurel, but because I'm always doing too much, we have an actual laurel.

Hanan Masri, I'm overjoyed today to pass on the mantle of Berkeley's Poet Laureate to you tonight.

As many of you know, I am no fan of royalty, as my multiple No King's line dances will attest.

But I want to actually crown you tonight, not with gold or jewels, but with a garland of olive branches.

Representing olive trees, which are so important to your people's homeland of Palestine, and as symbols of peace, which is so desperately needed in these times.

I look forward to working with you during your term as cultural workers together in the fight against authoritarianism and injustice everywhere to support and inspire our movements for democracy and liberation, which are growing in our commitment and capacity to win.

Beware of if I'm not an experienced world myself.

Yeah, you've got there we go.

Wow.

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you, Berkeley, for this honor.

Uh what greats before and ahead.

But maybe it's not a line of succession.

Maybe we're all standing in a circle and facing one another from all our star points.

Thank you, Aya, already for your encouragement and blessings.

You are one of my aspirants, and to be relating as we are, is a dream in its rose stage.

Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, the city's first and a member of my chosen family that I have just uh come to understand.

Thank you for your work which reorients my heart when it is lost.

I carry one of your poems with me this eve to give me courage.

There are so many people and places that are sacred to me, many of them rooted in this city.

To Berkwood Hedge, the first racially integrated school in Berkeley, the place of my teaching grounds for nearly three decades.

Thank you, Jane Friedman, Betsy Wilson, Marty Mogenson, Deanne Burke, and Donna Mickelson for taking a chance on a teacher in her embryonic stage and giving her ample guidance and room to grow.

Laura Farha, Hiba Numer, Dunya Alwan, Zappo Dickinson, Patricia West.

I am alive because of you, and I mean that.

High Road Scholars, my dream camp.

Let's keep packing up suitcases and keep uncovering the resplendance of this world.

And to my moose, my beloved, my life Valentine Samantha.

I am with you and I am for you.

Remember that.

And this poem is called Green.

Oh, Berkeley, you gorgeous Bohem, with your Tibetan bling and your cracked pepper fill-fil-falafil, you know, the center, crispy and green, because I know you got that parsley from the Arab Spring.

Berkeley healed my heart.

It was here that I met her.

My heart leapt out of my chest like a hawthorn tree in winter.

We listened to Al Green, foraged for city sorrel, stuffed that verdant tang in dough, and called it dinner.

Ample make this bed.

I trace my finger across this map, past wars and gardens, Azores and Emeralds from Hu Chien to here.

A love note nestled between ancient humps of breast stone.

Beirut city's green line.

There are no grenades.

Instead, sages, mint, thyme, marjoram, the shepherds keep a pinch of Zatza in their pockets, steady the nerves, so Mac brightens the blood and olives stain our DNA.

Five hours, and I'm not sure when I'm going to leave this room, all of us there, midnight's children.

How do you make your grass grow?

Show us your W-2s.

Do you pledge allegiance to any flag with a band of green?

In between the minutes, I think of you, Berkeley, your placard-filled windows, your justice unhushed.

California poppies blooming in your front yards will never put you to sleep.

I think of something I wish my mother had said as Saturn's rings began to fade from around her neck.

We tender rascals of women, electric wires of green, red splashes.

We will make our own incisions.

We will never beg for thread.

Find the loudest people in the room and make friends with them.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, everyone, for that beautiful moment.

Um I'm guessing so many of you are here to support them, so thank you all so much for coming as well to see the ceremonial passing on and physical passing of the of the laurel.

Um so we are now moving on to the rest of our meeting.

Um oh, one thing I want to say uh is that um we have a new vice mayor.

So Vice Mayor Lunapara is uh is going to be the vice mayor for this next uh how many months is it?

I forget, but anyway, for the next few months, quarter, next quarter.

Yeah, so welcome to your new role.

Thank you so much.

And um, and so the next thing on our agenda is our city manager comments.

City manager, do you have any comments?

I don't, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, so now I will take public comment on non-agenda matters.

So, okay, we'll draw five cards for the in-person speakers, and then uh have one minute each and then go to the speakers on participating remotely, okay.

There's five speakers for in-person public comments.

Uh, read your names.

You can come up in any order.

We have Diana, Vender, Louis Cunio, Steve Tracy, Betsy Morris, and Willie G.

So come up in order.

I know you're excited, but I'm gonna ask that you continue your conversations outside, please.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, especially to our young visitors.

Okay, if you heard your name.

Please come on up to the front, and uh whoever's up first can go.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Betsy Morris.

I'm uh speaking here as a member of the East Bay Grey Panthers, and a member of the statewide affordable California coalition.

About a hundred, seemingly a hundred, but it might have been fewer, went up to Sacramento last week, and uh six, eight Grey Panthers, some of us hobbling like very slowly, uh testified in support of AB 11 uh 57, which was brought forward to the judicial committee committee.

Four Democrats voted for it, three Republicans voted against it, and four Democrats simply did not show up for this measure which would have lowered the cap and lessened the risk of homelessness and immiseration among our seniors and disabled members of our California community.

Thank you.

Thanks, Betsy.

Thanks for being here.

Okay, we have video beat this evening.

We broadcast every meeting.

Oh, okay.

I can see it up there.

I just give it a slide.

Uh happy new year.

Steve Tracy here.

Um we're halfway through an old year.

Um, the budget year.

Um I'm wondering how we're doing.

Are we on target for balanced budget?

Um lots of fun programs like a poet laureate, but um they gotta be rooted in in living within our means.

Last year, 27 million dollar deficit.

Has that been paid back to the pension fund and the workers' compensation fund?

Paid back?

Not paid back.

Anybody know?

Are we still we've still borrowed the 27 million?

And what's this year doing?

Hey.

Thank you.

Look for ways.

Thanks for your comments.

Who's who else is on?

Yes.

Come on up.

Um, we've represents the.

Go ahead and move the uh mic down so we can hear you.

Okay, here we go.

Okay.

Hello, City Council members.

How are you?

My name is Kelly, and I have been a vendor out on telegram.

Pardon me, yeah, with Diana.

We're together.

Diana and Kelly.

These are the other vendors that are here.

Yeah, there were some.

There's Lewis.

That's Diana.

Both of your minutes.

To me.

Should I start over?

Okay, yeah, go ahead and start over.

So sorry, sorry, just to clarify, can you pause it really quickly?

Okay, so whose names were called?

The two people who are sitting, is that correct?

Okay, and they're giving both of their minutes to you.

It's all of us together.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you.

Hello.

Hello, City Council members.

My name is Kelly, and I have been working out on telegraph for about 16 years, huh?

Every weekend.

I am here representing not only the merchants, but also the vendors.

I'm not sure if you're aware that they changed the coding on the vendors to business licenses.

The problem is with that is the fact that the business license that you guys are handing out now are competing with our merchants.

That has never happened.

We have rules out there that we all must abide by to make it a smooth operation.

And the reasons for this situation for our merchants is the example I'm gonna give you.

We have Anastasia's closet, we have Dorothy's closet, and we have all these clothing stores.

But when you guys change the code, you allowed all people to be able to vend.

That cannot happen because it competes the vendors with the merchants.

So you take Anasthesia's closet, and here they are used clothing store.

You give a business license to another person who is a vendor to sell clothes, which has always been unlawful to do.

Because if you give them the business license, you know, they set up in front of Anastasia closets.

One pays $8,000 in rent, the other one's paying $55.

This causes conflict.

I am here today to ask you to reinstate the code that says you can only sell on Telegraph Avenue with handmade goods.

And it's it's hard to negotiate out there as I have for the last seven years, which is just asking people, have you gotten your license yet?

And usually people will answer you, yes or no, and they go back.

The city of Berkeley has always defended us because oh, am I done?

Yeah, thank you.

But I do hope that you'll write us and let us uh send us more information if you have to.

Yeah, I'm not even sure if you guys know that the they changed the code.

Yeah, thank thank you.

I'm sorry, your time's up, but feel free to write us and give us more information.

Um, you want to come?

Anyone, do we have any other names that Willie G.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Andre Special and uh Willie G has given me his time.

Um one minute's kind of short, but um I operate the Cannabis Buyers Club of Berkeley, which is America's oldest dispensary.

We're about to celebrate 30 years of operations, and I'm here to ask that the council consider bringing back the cannabis commission, take away the city cannabis tax, allow consumption, including smoking at the dispensaries, and allow only licensed Berkeley cannabis entities to deliver within the city of Berkeley.

We are currently surrounded by businesses that don't charge tax for their cannabis sales, such as psychedelic churches, smoke shops, hemp shops, and businesses like a chain of CBD stores whose ownership is based out of Florida that sell many of the same products that we do without but without the 30% tax.

Another example of this hardship is that San Francisco recently did away with its 5% tax.

They don't allow businesses from out of the city of San Francisco to deliver there, but they can come here and deliver in Berkeley for five percent less than we can.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so now we'll go to non-agenda comments from people participating remotely, and we'll call on the first five hands.

So if you'd like to speak to non-agenda public comment, and you're participating remotely, now is the time to raise your hand.

Uh the first speaker is Cheryl Davill, a former council member.

Thank you.

Um, so Berkeley City Council, that was the longest break.

Other councils in the area have returned already within the last couple of weeks.

Um, so happy new year, 2026, no more tricks.

Let's fix.

You should be ashamed.

Today's day number 832 of the freaking genocide.

Olive trees.

Yes, that represents Palestine.

But you don't give a flying flick of a flea about Palestine.

Or the babies that are freezing to death and starving to death.

And um it's just really shameful.

And please keep the tear gas ban in place.

That passed unanimously with my friendly amendment when Jesse was trying to just ban it for a short period of time.

It needs to stay in place and shame on you.

Next is Maria.

Maria.

Hi there.

It's uh Mariah.

Sorry.

Um, my name is Mariah Yates, and I live in District One.

And um uh I was relieved to see the proposal by District One Council Member Kessarwani to repeal Berkeley's ban on tear gas removed from today's agenda, and I applaud whatever prompted this course correction, and I hope that we have a permanent and not temporary reprieve from the proposal.

Um thank you, former councilmember Davila.

As former mayor and current California Senator Ericine said at the time, tear gas is banned in warfare and should not be used in our streets or in our protests.

And I did note that my email expressing my objection to the pro-tear gas agenda item is missing from the correspondence list in this agenda, in addition to any email on that topic, and I honestly I don't understand which correspondences get make it into the agenda.

Um, but uh I was disappointed to not receive a response from any member here and not to see it noted there.

Um I guess I'm not sure how that works.

But again, I wish to express my gratitude to whomever's responsible for getting this item removed from our agenda.

I hope the council's attention can remain more clear.

Thanks, Mara.

Thank you for your comment.

Uh next is uh caller with a phone number ending in 211.

Hi, good evening.

So our business manager handed you something paper today.

Please uh read it carefully.

Second, when we settle for if the city could lease, I guess for us anyway in the city of Berkeley.

Not only think about that, think about tens of thousands, hundreds of Berkeley and need our business.

As far as I'm gonna thirsty in the White House, no way to describe it.

It is not.

This man is a Russian Rosen horse.

We are losing our country in real time, and I never have expressed fascism to talk about the country, especially.

Quickly, we have all to stand up, immigrants built this country, immigrants during the French administration.

1.2 million Americans died from COVID because they nodded.

Both um Moderna and the other wiser PO's War One was Greek American, one of those um Lebanese American.

This is the end not only of America, end of civilization, because he has the bottom of the nuclear war, and he will do it.

Thank you.

Thank you, and have a good evening.

Thanks for your comment.

Okay, last hand raise is Madeline Roberts Rich.

Hello everybody.

Um, my name is Madeline.

Hello again, I should say, because you've heard from me before.

I'm calling once again about the urgency that I feel about reviving the downtown Berkeley corner on Showdock Avenue.

You heard me and many many others fight to preserve cinematic um facilities on Chatterk Avenue as specified and accounted for in the downtown area specific plan.

There are no operating those on Chat Avenue.

There's one remaining in Berkeley that being the realtor on page.

I really encourage you to collaborate with developers.

If you've got a way to get some chips off the table in the public's favor from the developers, because developers budget for this, the budget for providing um what is it called?

Professors and approval.

Some creative fashion.

Your time is up, but thank you for your comment.

Okay, that's all the speakers online.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone, for your public comment.

Um, it is the first regular meeting of the month, and so I want to see if there's there are any employee unions that would like to speak today.

Employee unions here or online.

There's no hand raised.

Okay.

I'm just want to give them a little bit of time.

Nobody?

Okay.

All right.

We will move on then to the consent calendar.

Um can I start first with um any council member comments, please?

Councilmember Humbert.

Wow, I delayed a little bit in pushing the button, but I just have a few comments on the consent calendar.

Um with respect to consent item nine, I want to say this is a really good thing.

We keep the restrictions against riding bikes on sidewalks, except for kids, but eliminate unnecessary and pass a bike permitting registration and licensing requirements.

So all in favor of that.

And with respect to um consent item number 17, Caminos El Exito.

Um a hundred and fifty dollars.

I'd like to contribute from our D8 account for this very worthy program.

I read a little bit about it.

It sounds like a really important program.

Um with respect to item consent item nineteen.

Um referral to the city manager to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible accessory dwelling units.

Um I want to thank Councilmember Kessarwani and her staff for this creative and timely measure.

Tiny homes on wheels are much easier to put in place in ADUs on foundations, and they can work very well for individuals in very small families.

This is just a referral, and city staff will clearly work out all the safety and logistical issues.

Um, with respect to item number 20, council consent item number 20, which is the city council employee recognition program.

Um, thank you to Councilmember Blackaby and the co-sponsors for this very thoughtful item.

Uh we have such a wonderful group of city employees, and this will allow us to bestow our praise um on them when it's warranted, which will be very often, I think.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

Uh moving on to Vice Mayor Minapara.

Thank you.

Um, I am really excited that item eight to allow the retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District is becoming law after two readings with unanimous support from council, so and the planning commission.

Thank you so much to Director Klein and his staff for making it a reality.

Um also excited to donate two hundred and fifty dollars for my budget to Caminos Alexito at the multi- and the multicultural center.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, for allowing me co-sponsor, and thanks to your staff, Joseph for who worked on this item.

Thanks.

Yes, thank you very much.

Um, Councilmember Blackby.

Thanks, madam mayor.

Um, it's good to see everyone.

Happy New Year.

Um just a couple of brief comments on item 17.

Uh, we'd also like to um contribute 250 dollars from our office holder account.

Um and on item 20, I appreciate um the support of my colleagues in particular, uh Mayor Ishii, Councilmember Luna Parr and Councilmember Kessarwani for co-sponsoring it.

Um it was important to me, and I think during my time on the police accountability board, when you're thinking about um, you know, often we are critical in thinking about you know ways we can improve um performance.

Um, but it's also equally important to uplift examples of where people are doing really good work.

Uh we see that in our police department.

I think we see that in our city staff.

Um, and I'd say, especially in a time when we know we're going into some challenging budget conditions.

Um, the more that we can do to again um recognize the amazing work that our staff is doing, and in many cases, we'll be doing more work, potentially with a little less as we tighten our belts.

Just felt like in a really important time um to do that.

Um so again, I appreciate the support, and I I do think it's it's gonna be a nice way to recognize uh one employee a month and have us all participate in the process of of doing that work.

So um thanks to the city manager and HR team for their um input as well, and I'm um hopeful and looking forward to working with the mayor's office to implement that in the months ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I just check in really quick on our Zoom situation?

Well, the case, I think the zoom is fine, but all the monitors are on.

Um, you should take the brain and restart the system.

Okay.

I'm very sorry, folks.

We are going to take a break and restart our system, and I am very hopeful that it will work so we can come back and finish our meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, Mayor, we can continue.

Okay, I think we're back on everyone.

Yay!

Yes, okay.

Very happy.

Um, all right, we are on our consent calendar right now, and we just heard council member Blackabi's comments, I believe, and we're moving on to Councilmember Tragub.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh I want to uh express my enthusiasm uh in particular for item six, which will expand the throne lab portable toilet pilot program.

Uh my district has one of the two uh thrones.

It is in Civic Center Park, and it has gotten rave reviews and has been uh um uh has been popular uh and I really appreciate uh the opportunity to host it in my district for a few months longer.

I also would like to thank Mayor Ishi for uh the opportunity to co-sponsor uh item 17, Caminos El Exito, and I um excited to contribute 150 dollars from my discretionary account.

And lastly, I wish to thank Councilmember Kessarwani for her item uh the referral item 19, referral to the city manager to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible accessory dwelling units, and um appreciative of the opportunity to co-sponsor that item.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, this is a blank number, so I'm gonna move on to Councilmember Kessarwani, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Happy New Year to everybody.

I also wanted to be recorded as donating a hundred dollars uh to Caminos al Exito.

I hope I didn't butcher that too badly, and then um I I just wanted to thank everyone for speaking in support of uh the item 19 to allow tiny homes on wheels so that um we are uh trying to expand the opportunities to add accessory dwelling units, the um permanent ones and even prefabricated ones can be very expensive.

So we know that tiny homes can be less expensive.

So we're trying to open up new opportunities, and I did want to add councilmember Bartlett as a co-sponsor of that item.

Uh thank you very much for your support.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna go to Councilmember Bartlett, and then I'm gonna move online to Councilmember Taplin and then back to Councilmember O'Keefe here.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and it's uh great to be back after a nice vacation.

The um uh number thir number thirteen in the consent calendar I'm really excited about.

This is um uh the city engaging with um emerging nonprofit uh affordable housing developers so um we can help new people to access this industry and get some new talent in here uh from the from diverse backgrounds.

Really good.

Really happy about this.

Uh 17, I'd like to give $200 to the Caminos Alexito.

Did I say that right?

Miss Madam Vice Mayor.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And uh, and um and uh again, thank you, Council Kessarwane, for me to join you on the ADU item, the um the tiny homes on wheels.

Also, Mills and wheels on the same agenda tonight.

We're and Mills and Wills is from Berkeley.

Do people know that?

Yeah, it started here.

Very vital resource for seniors getting food.

Um, and uh, like to also thank uh Councilman Blackaby and Chris and his co-sponsors and uh for your work to recognize uh employees, but they do great work here, and I should be held up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Taplin.

Thank you, good evening, everyone.

On item 17, I would like to be reported as Relink Machine 250 from my 13 account, 250 dollars.

On item 18, the referral to the CMAR for the development of copyright and design standards.

I want to thank you, Madam Mayor, for your readership and your sensitivity, and say that I'm very happy to be included as a co-sponsor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Oh, it said I was number four in line.

Um thank you.

Just two quick comments.

Um I'd like to be recorded as donating 250 dollars for item 17.

Sounds like a great program.

And um a lot of compliments being thrown around.

I'll just do one.

I really um appreciate item 18, Madam Mayor and co-sponsors.

I just I'm a big fan of clear, well thought out laws as opposed to haphazard random laws, which is kind of what we have now, and there's no fault.

I mean, all of the it's all good intentioned work um that's led up to where we are today, but this is a really logical next step, and I just really want to say how much I appreciate it.

That is all.

Thank you very much.

Um, so uh sorry, the parliamentarian was out, and that's why it said you were four.

Um so for number two, I want to acknowledge that we have contracted with Lake Partners.

Um I'm really excited to move forward in the poll, so I really want to thank the city manager and your team for moving that forward while we are on recess.

Um I want to acknowledge that we got another grant from Americans for the arts.

I think that's very exciting.

Um our city works really hard to find other sources of funding, and and I want folks to know about that.

Um, so thank you very much.

Um for number nine, we are removing some nonsensical bicycle licensing requirements.

So I think that's always a good thing.

I wanted to call that out.

And uh number 17 is Caminos al Exito, which um I am sponsoring.

I wanted to just highlight that it was written by our intern, Jose Martinez, and so I want to give him a shout out, and um thank you so much for your work.

It's a one-day conference held at Berkeley City College, which is my alma mater as well as Councilmember Taplin.

I don't know if anyone else did, but um, and it's meant to demystify and provide resources for student and parents, students and parents for life outside of high school.

It's a bilingual event that has workshops, working groups, and activities, and um it is organized um with the collaborative efforts of the Chican X.

Rooks Live, Latino Sunito State Berkeley, Berkeley Public Schools, Berkeley City College, Multiculture Institute, and the Office of Family Engagement and Equity.

So I wanna um just thank everyone who worked on that event, and thank you so much to the council members for also relinquishing some funds for that.

Um, and then just for number 18, the comprehensive transportation design standards, which some folks had mentioned.

Um, this is something that we had said at the last meeting that we were gonna bring forward to this meeting.

So I just want folks to know we did it, we said we were gonna work on it during the break.

I really want to thank my staff for pushing that forward as well and working with the uh city manager staff as well.

So thank you very much.

I'm really looking forward to that work moving forward so we have some clarity, and then um also just thank you also the ADU items so very exciting.

All right, um, now is there public comment on consent?

Come on up.

Um, my name is Carol Wolfley, and I am here to express my appreciation to the Landmark commission uh for their unanimous vote to make the KPFA building a historical landmark.

And um I appreciate that they had such an in-depth understanding of Berkeley history as well as knowledge of how 16,000 people protested and rallied in support of community media in 1999 to protect the KPFA building and KPFA as the first listener sponsored media organization radio in the United States.

So I appreciate your being here.

It was also recognized by the Nation Manage magazine in 19 and um 2018.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do we get two minutes if there's less than 10 people?

Okay, thank you.

First, I wanted to uh speak in favor of item 13.

Uh hopefully this will address some of the racial and gender disparities that uh were revealed during the Mason Tillman report.

Uh second has to item 19.

Uh it's always good to have alternative housing options when everything is so expensive in terms of housing.

Uh but mainly I want to address the throne bathrooms, and one of the issues, or an issue with them, is in trying it out.

This would have been really problematic if I having been my mother taking care of my mother or bringing her everywhere for 19 years when she was blind and in a wheelchair and multiply disabled.

There is you get a warning that says, I believe it's a 10-minute warning where the music starts playing and says you have to exit.

And that could be really problematic for a person with disabilities.

Thank you, Karen.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is uh Candace Schott, and I'm a Berkeley resident and the secretary of the KPFA local station board.

Um, and I am also here in support of the landmark commission's decision to approve the uh landmark status of the KPFA building, and to note that it's uh the only um broadcast radio building in uh Berkeley proper, which I think makes it an important building in Berkeley.

And and just to note that all the very famous people that have come through that building uh um been through those airwaves, and I really appreciate um your consideration for approving it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I love that you all are coordinated in your sweatshirts too.

I didn't even think about it.

I wear it so much.

Hi, I'm Colleen Mast.

Go ahead and move the mic up so we can hear you better.

Thank you.

Colleen Mast, and I'm a resident and also a new member of the KPFA station board, and I'm here to speak in support of the landmark commission's decision to make the KPFA building an historical landmark also.

The KPFA building is a site of profound historical significance, not only for its pioneering role in the evolution of the community radio, but also a historical archive of the social and political movements that have shaped Berkeley and the wider world.

Since its inception, KPFA has been a steadfast platform for independent media, providing coverage and in-depth analysis of uh some of the most significant events in modern history and um and just one example being the station played a critical role in covering the civil rights movement, offering a voice to leaders and activists fighting for racial justice, and this at a time when mainstream media often marginalized their perspectives.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Hello, everyone in the city of um well, City Council of Berkeley.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Antonio Ortiz, I'm the interim general manager of KPFA Radio, and I want to thank the Landmark Historical Commission to uh push forward the um making KPFA's building into a historical landmark.

I also want to thank these ladies here for all the work that they've done to make that happen.

Uh KPFA has been found was founded in 1949 by a pacifist.

Ever since then, um our goal has been to build understanding between peoples, and one of the main challenges, at least for me as a general manager or interim general manager, has been how to we start to how do we bridge the gap between people?

And that's what I learned at KPFA.

That's the education that I got.

And my hope is that we can continue doing that.

The building becoming a historical landmark will be fabulous for us because it would show to the commun um to our staff and the community that we exist.

We're here and that we've been part of the fabric of Berkeley since 1949.

And thank you all for listening to me, and I hope you all have a good rest of your evening.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good evening.

Thank you.

I'm Betsy Morrison I'm wearing a third hat now as part of uh my consulting uh practice, planning for sustainable communities.

I've been advocating and mostly just educating uh since 2014 on tiny homes, and just thank you for bringing this up, and I also very much appreciate that this is going for further analysis because the details, those guidelines and definitions are very important.

I also hope we'll come back and consider ways that these can stay uh as at least moderate income, if not affordable to lower income people, because in fact you can have a $300,000 tiny home.

People are selling very elaborate ones.

But I did want to say, just to reassure anyone that um most legal tiny homes in California are certified either with uh manufactured home standards or RV.

Thank you.

Okay.

I still haven't grown.

It's such a pleasure to see all of you.

Happy, happy new year.

And I know it's going to be a super year because again, good mayor, you've opened it up on this first meeting with such a heart space.

And that's my bottom line, and I I'm starting to cry.

I can't thank you enough.

And secondly, KPFA, voice of the voiceless, it's my university after university.

Thank you, KPFA.

All right, my primary interest is in the tiny homes.

I've built a bunch.

There's lots of people that need them, and there's lots of people that actually have space and would like to share it.

It is cost effective, simple, on wheels, movable, alterable, flexible, almost immediately possible.

It's like, can't we simplify this, please?

All day long I take pictures.

Oh, I have an extra minute.

I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you.

From um Taj.

Sorry, thank you.

Um go ahead.

I'm constantly in the community, and I take starting to cry again.

I take too many pictures of wasted resources and infinite needs.

And again, there's a community of share because we care, that's possible.

And it can be legal and it can be safe.

And again, I love the wheels.

So I would just, I'd build them for free, I'm telling you.

All right, and also in terms of this comprehensive transportational thing.

I really have to work very hard not to run over bicyclists with no lights, dressed in black at night, and or on these electric things that come out of nowhere.

It's like, what's happened?

I still have my motorcycle license.

These things are amazing.

We need to be comprehensive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 19.

Uh would like to uh express my support for tiny homes.

However, you have this tendency to look problems and solutions straight in the face and not see them.

Um, tiny homes can be built by people right here in this community.

Um housed folks have skills, lots of skills that can be put to use.

Uh and if they are disabled and can't do it physically, they can't teach.

And we can set up right here in Berkeley a little factory for putting out tiny homes, producing them, putting them in place, and get people a home.

Thank you.

Um, any other comments on the consent or information items online.

Yes, we have four hands raised for comments on consent and information.

First is phone number ending in zero zero zero.

Should be able to unmute.

Star six to unmute.

Maybe we'll we'll come back.

Uh next is Ben.

Good evening, council.

This is Ben Gerhardstein with Walkbike Berkeley.

I wanted to uh express our support or quickly support for the transportation design standards item.

Thank you to the mayor and co-sponsors and and city managers office for bringing this item forward.

It's an important step for the city to take.

It's gonna be a big project.

Um, but I think it will yield dividends if we keep our eyes on the North Star of safety while meeting the operational needs of uh other road users, all road users.

Um and I want to draw your attention to a couple of uh comments we made in our letter.

First, that as we work through these standards, it's important that we field test what we're putting in what what we're developing, um, because that's where we can learn and refine, uh especially when it comes to uh bigger road users with bigger vehicles and how they maneuver various um road features.

And then secondly, I think it's important that we maintain our commitment to delivering on projects that are in the queue and not um take our eyes off of that as we are developing these standards, which will take time and be um important.

Thank you, Ben.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for your comment.

Um next is Della Luna.

Yes, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm speaking about item number thirteen, and I'm here to say that more oversight is needed for these emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers.

The city needs to first verify that these developers uh follow through and display competence before dishing out more funds to them.

Some of these developers treat the city relationship as a creative writing assignment and submit feel good proposals, but the city's not doing their due diligence to vet these organizations, and the impact is that your vulnerable constituents are placed in the hands of the less experienced with no recourse.

City funds should be allocated to help constituents, not prop up not profits, and people will form nonprofits just to get access to city funds.

Creative writing is not enough in proposals, fake it to your make it is harming your constituents.

Please provide oversight for these affordable housing nonprofit developers that are emerging.

The recent lawsuit um resulting from the unfortunate homicide at the homeless shelter is an example um of what happens when there's a times up.

Thanks for your comment.

Uh let's go back to phone number ending in zero zero zero.

Hi, good evening.

I am putting regarding uh, just item number eight.

I don't block it at all.

As a kind of student on the desk for 14 years as in the physics and nuclear engineering department.

One time almost died.

Student.

Sometimes you go on drinking bench.

Through a party we have, I had almost a whole bottle of gin.

I almost died.

We have that enough problem with the pot shops all across the street on telegraph.

Now we need to add liquor as well.

We're going to say think about your kids.

Think about your grandkids.

Thank you.

Okay.

And we have Cheryl Daville, a former council member.

So yeah, but I can when I was on council.

I tried to get an item for tiny homes.

Uh or tried to get um them built.

Have the designs.

I still have the designs.

So it's interesting that you're doing that now, but that's not the first time.

Uh somebody has copied things that I had wanted to do.

Um I'm not sure.

Um, I haven't read the item and don't plan to, but um, I just think it's interesting that now you're putting this forward as you have done on um other items that I put forward that you put forward.

All right.

Um, yeah, that's all I gotta say.

Free Palestine, free Congo, free Sudan, free Yemen, and free yourselves from all the hatred that you all have towards other people in your city that you're supposed to represent.

Next is Daniel Brownson.

Hi, um so I don't know if others saw the news, but the city of Santa Cruz has terminated their contract with flock quote safety.

Um and Berkeley should do the same.

Okay, is this uh this is um on uh consent and information items, which is it in public comment.

Sorry, never mind.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, that that was it.

That was the last um speaker.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um is there a motion to presume, excuse me, to approve the consent calendar.

So moved.

Second.

Um, thank you.

Can we?

Yes.

Did you have the comment?

Uh yeah, if you can indulge me for a minute.

I just wanted to congratulate everyone um that has made the landmarking possible uh at KPFA.

Uh thank you so much.

While KPFA has preceded district elections, I for sure am very proud uh to be able to say that it is in by district and thank you for everything that you're doing.

Thank you.

Uh okay, can we take the roll on that, please?

Okay, on the consent calendar, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, Kaplan, yes, Bartlett is currently absent.

Tregab, aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

And uh Councilmember Bartlett, would you like to record a vote on the consent calendar?

Yes.

Okay.

Um motion passes.

Consent calendars adopted.

Thunderous applause.

Is that a wrong?

We are gonna just take a quick five-minute stretch as we're switching into the next item.

Thank you.

Are we ready?

Are staff ready?

Staff, Jordan, you ready?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Very good.

We are going to, yeah, we're going to call this meeting back into session.

And um, and we are moving on to the action calendar.

Uh starting with action item number 21, which is amendments to Title 21 subdivisions to allow separate sale of ADUs continue from December 2nd, 2025, which is why you're going first.

Um, and as it says items contain revised materials.

Okay.

We have uh Councilmember Kessarwani has a statement.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I've been advised by the City Attorney's Office as well as the Fair Campaign Political Practices Commission at the state level that I have a conflict of interest and therefore will be recusing on this item.

Thank you.

Okay.

And Councilmember Tragood.

Similarly, pursuant to uh this advice from the city attorney and the Fair Political Practices Commission.

I will be recusing myself on these items as a tenant in an ATU in Berkeley.

Okay, thank you very much.

I'm gonna make sure we allow them to leave, but then open the public hearing and have staff give their presentation.

Okay, go ahead, staff.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council members.

I'm Jordan Klein, I'm Director of Planning and Development.

Joined at the table by Justin Horner, Principal Planner on the policy team, and Bronka Tatarovich on the policy team, who will be presenting on behalf of staff.

Take it away.

Thank you, Jordan.

Thank you, Mayor Ishi and the members of the City Council.

My name is Branka Tatarovich, and I'm an associate planner with the land use planning division.

Tonight I'm presenting the ordinance to allow separate sale of ADUs under Assembly Bill 1033 as directed by City Council Referral and Planning Commission input.

The Planning Commission reviewed the ADU condominiums item in spring and summer.

The commission first discussed AB 1033 in March and recommended adoption of the new section ADU condominiums as BMC section 2129 in May.

Berkeley Municipal Code currently doesn't allow ADUs to be sold separately.

AB 1033 gives cities that option if they adopt local regulations.

City Council asked the planning department staff to create that pathway to broaden moderate income home ownership and help homeowners build equity.

The new chapter 2129 is Berkeley's opt-in to AB 1033.

It is nested in Title 21 subdivisions.

The chapter applies only to the separate sale of ADUs on eligible lots and creates no new development rights.

It provides a path to conduize what is already allowed.

The process is ministerial where applicable under state law and our objective standards.

State law also requires a linkholder consent, a safety inspection, and buyer disclosures.

If the ADU is a covered rental, the ordinance preserves tenant protections, the right of first refusal, and the right to remain for chapter 2128 condominium conversion.

CCNRs and any necessary access easements are needed as required under the David Sterling Act and Subdivision Map Act.

Under the proposed ordinance, conduct converted ADUs would be exempt from the condo conversion mitigation fee.

Overall, the ordinance complies with state law, adds no new standards, and provides a practical path to attainable homeownership.

Finally, staff recommends that the city council hold the public hearing and adopt the first reading of the ordinance to implement AB 1033 by allowing the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums through amendments to Title 21.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much.

Uh appreciate the presentation.

I would like to now go to Councilmember Luna Para, um, so that she may present her uh supplemental.

Great, thank you.

Excuse me, Vice Mayor.

I think we might have to take down the staff presentation in order for me to share my screen.

I have a presentation.

Okay.

Sorry, one moment.

All right.

AB 1033 and the goal of the ADU condo conversion ordinance is to provide opportunities for more affordable homeownership, which is a critical piece of the puzzle and one that I personally relate very closely to as a young renter with some hope that I'll be able to afford a home in the Bay Area eventually.

I think the fundamental question right now is around how to balance the stability of ADU tenants and the opportunities for potential future ADU homeowners.

I don't believe that we should be incentivizing putting ADU tenants in jeopardy of displacement in exchange for home ownership opportunities.

That was not the purpose of AB 1033, which allows cities to pass ADU conversion ordinances to encourage more developments of ADUs to be sold independently.

Renters in affected ADUs should be provided with protections similar to those of tenants in other units proposed for condominium conversion based on our existing condominium conversion ordinance.

Based on feedback from tenants, housing supply advocates, and our legal teams, this supplemental material proposes adding the following tenant protections to this ordinance.

One, to add a condition of approval to prevent no fault evictions.

Two, to establish the right of first refusal for 90 days for all ADU tenants.

Three prohibits condo conversion if there has been an owner move in eviction for the past five years to disincentivize using owner move-ins to avoid other tenant protections.

Four provides a choice between paying the affordable housing mitigation fee or agree to rent control the conduized ADU if it is rented out, and I'll explain more about that in a moment.

And five, more clearly define which ADUs are eligible for conversion.

Zooming into the last point, this these definitions would limit ADU conversion to ADUs built after 2002.

And this is because pre-2003 dwellings that had undergone that have undergone the amnesty program process are subject to this ordinance.

The staff can explain this better, but the time that at which the program is approved, that is the year of which it is officially built, I guess, for the purposes of this.

Pre-2003 dwellings that have not undergone the amnesty program process may be converted through the regular condo conversion ordinance, not the ADU ordinance.

Pre-2003 ADUs are considered built in the year they went through the amnesty process.

So they would still fall under this ordinance.

Prior to 2003, accessories dwelling units did not have their own code section and were only listed as a special use in the single family residential district.

The term ADU has also become a popular term that is used interchangeably with residential other dwelling types that were previously referred to as in-law units, cottages, granny flats, etc.

Most of these units are now full considered full dwelling units and could only convert to condominiums under the condo conversion ordinance.

So this slide compares the differences between our condo conversion ordinance, which is already law for non-ADU conversions, the planning commission item, and our supplemental item.

The status of a covered versus an exempt ADU varies on situation, on year of construction, on year of certificate of occupancy, on owner occupancy status, on whether it was built on existing residential space, etc.

The status of an ADU can vary and can change over time.

Part of our goal here is to simplify the process and ensure that all ADU tenants are protected from displacement for the sake of conversion without adding new protections on property owners that do not wish to convert their unit.

So first, um the tenant right of first refusal.

The condo conversion ordinance requires that those converting a unit provide one year of right of first refusal for current and future tenants in covered and exempt dwelling units.

The planning commission recommended one year only for current tenants and fully covered dwelling units, and the current supplemental compromises by decreasing the timeline to 90 days for current and future tenants in all dwelling units, allowing for a quicker process for sellers.

For the conversion prohibition after no fault evictions, so again, the current non-ADU conversion ordinance, condo conversion ordinance has a waiting period that prevents conversions after no fault eviction from happening by prohibiting landlords from doing a conversion for 10 years after a no fault eviction.

The planning commission recommendation removes these protections for all units, meaning a landlord could perform a no fault eviction and immediately convert their ADU, displacing their tenant to sell the unit.

In terms of prohibiting owner move-ins for current tenants, the condo conversion ordinance prohibits owner move in evictions for all current tenants at the time of their conversion.

The planning commission version prohibits owner move-ins for current tenants living in only covered dwelling units at the time of conversion.

And our supplemental mirrors the existing condo conversion ordinance by prohibiting owner eviction owner move in evictions for all current tenants at the time of conversion.

We're almost done, sorry.

For the affordable housing mitigation fee piece, the condo conversion ordinance requires property owners to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee during a conversion.

If they opt into rent control, the fee is halved.

The planning commission version does not require property owners to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee during a conversion.

In our supplemental, a property owner who opts to make the newly converted ADU rent controlled, which would only apply if the condo unit is rented out, they would pay zero dollars of the AHMF.

This incentivizes the preservation of rent controlled housing, prevents displacement, and gives property owners more flexibility.

I want to clarify again that this supplemental is not intended to add any new tenant protections for ADUs that are not already covered by the rental ordinance unless they are converting their unit into a condo, and that we are not required to adopt a AB 1033 ordinance under state law, although we should.

And these are some of the impacts briefly for the owner move-in.

The protections would only apply in the case that the property owner voluntarily opts to convert their ADU into a condo.

So, for example, a landlord who wants to go out of business, so a relative can move into their ADU when it is already occupied by a tenant can still do that without penalty.

Someone moving their relative into an ADU would likely not want to convert their ADU because they aren't selling it.

So the proposed tenant protections of the supplemental would not apply.

We don't incentivize displacement.

It does this by applying less restrictive versions of tenant protections that already apply in other situations, other situations of Berkeley.

Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is to incentivize new development of ADUs for the sake of condoization, not to replace a tenant in an ADU with a homeowner in an ADU.

Statistically, tenants of ADUs are lower income and significantly more likely to be displaced away from Berkeley or into homelessness than a middle income family looking to purchase a home.

As I said at the beginning, I would love to purchase a condo home in the future and start a family in Berkeley, and I'm so glad to see that council is taking concrete steps in creating these opportunities.

And I do not want to place displace my friends who are current young tenants and ADUs in this situation.

This is not a zero-sum game, and I believe that these amendments balance our priorities to ensure that we are incentivizing affordable homeownership without displacement.

And I want to thank Director Klein and his team for all of their hard work on this.

I'm also really grateful to the planning commission to the rent board and the city attorney's office for their substantial contributions to this ordinance.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Okay, so I'd like to get questions from council members first, and then that could be to Vice Mayor Lunopara or to staff.

And then I will take public comment and then we'll go to council comments before moving to vote.

So questions?

Okay, um, I'd like to ask staff if you can please speak to the need for clarification of language around which which ADUs this would apply to.

This is council member Leno Pars point.

She's she mentioned that staff might be able to explain it better.

So I just wanted to get some clarity on that.

Sorry, which ADUs.

Or supplemental would apply to, or which ADUs, no, the her the final bullet point, if you wouldn't mind pulling it up, asked for clarity around the language.

I mentioned that um because the situation in which an ADU is um granted the um the amnesty program makes makes the like date kind of complicated.

So I was wondering if you could just explain it better than I could, what that means when an ADU, an existing ADU gets approved under the amnesty program.

Sir, under the staff and uh planning commission proposal, um a unit that sought amnesty uh through the the city's amnesty program for unpermitted dwelling units could apply could uh qualify for conversion as a condo, but only if but um there's two pathways through the amnesty program.

There's a certificate of compliance pathway, which doesn't result in a full certificate of occupancy.

Um that in that case the the unpermitted unit is only screened for um for housing safety and it doesn't go through the full land use entitlement process, it doesn't go through the um the full building inspection process.

In that case, it couldn't get converted into a condo.

Um if if it goes the full route, which is that which is essentially the normal entitlement and building permitting process uh with amnesty protection from any code enforcement, um, then it would qualify for conversion regardless of the date of original construction, and I think that's one way in which the in which the supplemental differs from the planning commission recommendation, okay.

Thank you.

Um, I know we've gone over this, but I think it would be good if you could also help us understand what if any protections exist for tenants who live in an exempt ADU.

So, yeah, I can answer that question.

So fully exempt units.

Um Kev actually fully exempt units have no protection.

Um, but uh the uh there is really small subset of units that are fully exempt.

So um that doesn't mean that the ADUs to be converted are um are not gonna offer any protection because most of them are actually partially covered units and they have some of the tenant protections.

So all of all of the tenant protections that are in conduct conversion ordinance that apply to partially covered units would uh would also be uh applied to these ADUs, and most of the uh of the ADUs that are rented would fall into that category.

So these protections would be exclusive right to purchase, right to remain, and uh uh recent no no fault eviction screening.

Thank you.

Yeah, so the point is full exempt units, that's a very very narrow subset, and um it only actually applies to um to ADUs that are um the property zoned for single single family um uh for single family use and where there are only two units, and one of them is zoner occupied.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Blackaby.

Thanks, madam mayor.

Uh one quick question and we may not have the answer.

Um I was curious if staff has any rough projections, predictions as to um the kind of volume we might expect.

I know we had a similar discussion about that during the middle housing um um uh discussion, but uh is it do you have a sense of um under the planning commission proposal any rough projections of volume and how that may or may not be affected if in the alternative version?

Do we have any sense of numbers?

Sure, I'll give it I'll give uh a crack at take a crack at that.

Um so we have been seeing production on average of about 100 ADUs per year over the last five years or so.

We don't think that that's gonna be impacted in a huge way by either of these proposals.

Um what it does, it creates a new avenue for separate sale, but I I mean it's difficult to speculate, but I don't think that this will necessarily, I mean, we think that it could have a slightly um beneficial in terms of production, it could encourage a little bit more production, um, by um, you know, creating an opportunity for somebody to um, you know, uh take advantage of some unused land on their property.

Um, and then regarding the the supplemental material, you know, most of the most of the proposed expand provisions don't have any direct impact on unit production.

They're really about when there's an existing sitting tenant, and so somebody who's choosing to go to produce a new unit, they could decide whether or not they want to rent out that unit.

You know, the one possible exception is the the application of the affordable housing mitigation fee, uh, because that's if but that's still an edge case because it's somebody who is planning to produce an ADU for separate sale with the expectation that it would be um a for rent unit, right?

So that's a pretty narrow subset of the kind of units we're talking about, but it could have a slight impact on production, but we don't we don't think a big impact.

Okay, great.

And then getting back to the earlier question about kind of what's covered, what's not covered, again, your sense is the the vast majority of the the fully covered units and the partially covered units, that's still where most of the volume is, um, and the number of units uh that are the fully of the fully exempt kind, which is for the most part what would exist in my district in D6 is your individual homeowners who may or may not uh create an ADU and are gonna be owner occupied.

Um that's a relatively small percentage of the overall volume.

Is that fair to say?

Yeah, I just want to call it.

We really don't have good data distinguishing these by type, so it's really difficult for us to answer, you know.

You you heard Bronca speculate that um it's it's likely a pretty small percentage of the overall volume of ADUs, but we we don't have great data on that.

Okay, but if you are if you are a tenant, an ADU that's owned by uh someone who's not does not live on site, full protection or partial or full protections under the existing rent control, and that's preserved in this uh in this piece.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Oh, sorry, yes, thank you.

Councilmember Taplin.

Uh thank you.

Um I would actually like to um refer my question to the city attorney.

Thank you.

I also have uh Steve Hylus that worked on this project um available.

Feel free to ask either of us the question.

Sure, thank you very much.

Thank you both very much.

Um so this was before my time, but we've received communications periodically from members of the ADU task force regarding exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance for certain types of rental units codified by the 2018 Berkeley Major Q.

Can you clarify what those exemptions were and what impact on those exemptions the amendments proposed here tonight and the supplemental would have how the proposed language would would interact with the RSO?

Um I can start and then I can turn it over to to Steve if he um is prepared to answer that.

But in our examination of the ordinance, there's no conflict between measure Q, which was as you mentioned, a ballot initiative.

Um and this ordinance.

Um Steve, uh I don't know if you're online or Lauren, if you wanted to add anything.

Yes, I am hi.

Hi.

Yes.

So under Measure Q, which as you noted was passed by the voters in 2018, um certain ADUs specifically, um, so certain ADUs on properties where there's a single family home and the landlord occupies a unit in the same property are fully exempt from the rental ordinance provided that the tenancies in question were created after December of 2018.

And so for those types of units are fully exempt under the rent ordinance, and they are treated as such under the staff proposal.

Thank you very much.

And so what the uh language proposed by the supplemental remove that exemption for those units.

Um it wouldn't remove all of those exemptions, but I believe it would remove some in that it would apply certain tenant protections to all ADUs.

Um we however have concluded that the way that the supplemental is written wouldn't pose any conflict with measure Q.

Thank you.

And then um my final question is for uh the planning staff.

Um do we and my apologies if we if we don't have this, but do we have numbers on ADUs produced before and after November of 2018?

We have numbers uh produced after 2018.

And I mentioned it's been on average about 100 a year since then.

We don't have good data on production prior to around that point, actually.

Um, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Those are my questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Okay, we will move on to public comment then, please.

Coming up.

I've got a minute from someone, yeah.

I know many of you are here for that.

So I but I kind of want to just get a sense of how many folks.

Okay, it'll be a minute, so and you have a minute from this person here.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council.

Um, as chair of the rent board, um I'd like to thank Council Member Luna Par and Councilmember Bartlett for their support for this supplemental, which um will I think the important thing to understand is largely mirrors protections already in place for tenants in uh when condo conversions occur, but significantly lower the burden of those protections for um during the conversion process.

Um the board supports in concept the idea that we want to make it easier to produce homeownership opportunities in Berkeley, right?

Um, you know, whether we need more housing, whether though it's rental housing or owned housing, and as Councilmember Luna Parr said, maybe one day some of us young folks will be able to buy a house in Berkeley.

Um but uh I think the important thing as planning director uh Klein mentioned is that we don't need to incentivize the creation of units that already exist, right?

Those units that are currently tenant occupied have been built.

We don't need to do anything to incentivize their creation, and it doesn't make a new housing to replace tenant-occupied housing with owner-occupied housing.

And so any unit that's going to be built because of this ordinance will be built empty of tenants.

No building that you build from the ground up comes to the tenant inside it.

And so this will have minimal impacts on the creation of what this unit would what this proposal would do to incentivize the creation of new housing.

Um as uh um director Klein stated, the one part that could is this part about the fee.

But these are units that are designed to be sold and owned.

So uh the imposition of rent control will have a de minimis impact on filling price if it's being sold for a homeownership opportunity.

Um those those units are not going to be rented.

Um it's more of an insurance, it's an insurance, right?

That basically, if you're not going to use the ordinance for the purpose that we're designing it to, we want to make sure that tenants in those units have protections.

Um additionally, sorry, my phone locked.

I like to be environmentally friendly and have a fast close time, but it sometimes might tune up butt.

Um, likewise, all currently in built EDUs were built with the understanding that they wouldn't be sold as condo.

So there's no rug poll going on here.

This is the status quo, and we're granting a new right, which is the right to uh convert to a condo and imposing reasonable protections that mirror current protections.

Thank you.

So um just I'll say I think have staff from the rent port here if folks have any questions.

Thank you, Carol.

Is that Carol?

Sorry, I can't see you.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

So uh I appreciate the chance to speak to this.

I am here to support the uh work of uh council member Luna Parra.

And uh also.

Sorry, folks.

Can I just have it be quiet while people give public comment?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So I'm here to support that, and there's many details I don't know, but I did want to speak to the item on page five in the uh packet, uh, which indicates ADU condos would be exempt from conversion mitigation fees.

So I would very much encourage a re-look at that.

Uh I have for the last 20 years have lived in limited equity condominium co-housing, which meant there was a group of us that got together, bought uh or and moved in as renters into a property that had already been unfortunately depleted of renters, but we moved in as an empty as cooperators.

The point was that we negotiated for permanent affordability at the moderate income level in perpetuity, and we were uh in exchange for giving up the condo, the rental conversion fees, the condo conversion fee that helped us create and be able to buy these units as moderate income people, and that uh agreement is now going away because the city attorneys said no, you can't make it in perpetuity.

I would really like to encourage you to think about that as a bargaining negotiating to actually make it permanently uh uh affordable if with the mitigation fee uh for given if people go with uh land trust or some other mechanism that keeps it perpetually affordable to moderate income people because we know how crazed the market of sellers and interested uh parties have been.

Thank you.

Thanks, Betsy.

Thank you.

Hello, Madam Mayor and City Council, Nathan Myzo, Berkeley Ramp Board.

Uh good to see all of y'all.

Um I want to thank um Councilmember Bartlett, Vice Chair Luna Parra for introducing this item.

Um I think um, you know, Chair Alpert said really all the all the main points here.

Um certainly those who originally got in the ADU um you know market or business, these is this is a new avenue um for them, and hopefully for you know regular folks in our city to be able to live here and maybe buy a home.

I'm I'm in that camp hoping that's something I can do one day.

Um but more importantly than about me is it's really these protections, and I think the graph um that uh the vice mayor showed really illuminates on it.

Um the city has similar protections that are in place for the condo conversions already.

Um these protections mirror that and in some ways are a compromise.

I think it really gives a reasonable balance between allowing for greater building and homeownership and protecting tenants from displacement.

Things are both very important in the city.

So thank you for considering this.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh Mayor Ishii and Council members.

My name is Audrey Kramer.

Um I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley, and um I'm speaking to you today on behalf of Cal Berkeley Democrats.

I am coming to you as a student, and I urge you to adopt amendment to Title 21.

Um housing in this city is expensive.

We all know it, but the people who feel it are the students like me.

Um enabling the sale of these units separately encourages the building of these homes, allowing for more housing to be built in our community.

It is important to me as a renter in this city that my government works hard to keep our city and community affordable and renter friendly.

I'm particularly in favor of Councilmember Luna Para's amendment to increase tenant protections for all of us.

Please adopt this amendment to Title 21, but especially the revised agenda material.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Ishi and Council members.

Sam Greenberg here on behalf of ESPA for Everyone.

ESPA for Everyone believes that the most successful outcome of this policy is increased production of ADUs for condomization.

We believe that increasing tenant protections for sitting ADU tenants would not preclude increased production and would limit displacement of lower income residents, younger families, and generally vulnerable tenants.

And I also want to highlight that Director Klein just shared his response to Councilmember Blackabee Blackbees' question that added protections wouldn't have a notable impact on production.

We applaud your dedication to implementing AB 1033.

Not every jurisdiction in the state is doing that, but we urge you to pass this policy right.

We can be a model for how cities implement AB 1033 justly statewide.

And I hope we can accomplish that tonight.

Thank you, Councilmember Bartlett and Vice Mayor Linopara for these amendments and modifications.

I really hope and urge Council to support these.

Thank you so much.

And I hope you will adopt Councilmember Luna Parra's supplemental.

Thank you.

Come on up.

That's not a bit.

Hello.

My name is Daniel.

I'm with the Cal Berkeley Democrats.

And yeah, I would just like to voice my support for the measure.

I think that obviously Berkeley's facing an acute housing shortage, and ADUs are probably going to make up a big part of remedying that issue.

ADUs made up, I think something like 20% of new housing developments in the past few years, which you know obviously implies that they'll be, you know, a big part of uh housing development in the future.

I also think that it's important to ensure that tenants still have their needed protections.

Uh I think that, you know, as the what's it called?

As they said earlier, uh it wouldn't so adversely affect housing price uh what's it called uh production of ADUs.

So I think that you know, just looking at the facts, as long as they don't adversely affect ADU production, I think that it's reasonable to adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Is this on?

Good evening, Mayor Ishii and Council members.

Uh I'm Ida Martinak.

I'm uh also uh rent board commissioner and would like to echo the comments of my colleagues.

And I just want to say my hope is limited to surviving this year, but uh should we all survive this year, it would be nice to be able to afford uh a home in Berkeley.

And uh I really wish that for the younger generation to be able to own a home.

And I welcome um uh vice uh mayors and council member Bartlett's uh supplement, uh, in that it is a very happy uh compromise.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um good evening, council mayor and vice mayor.

Uh my name is Rebecca, and I'm an ADU tenant in Berkeley.

I think that we should adopt a version of AB 1033 with more tenant protections with the goal of incentivizing new development for condos instead of replacing existing ones.

Um, and as an ADU renter, I want, uh just as everyone else before me said, to be able to buy a home someday, especially in Berkeley, but I don't want to be risk being evicted in the meantime.

Please support Vice Mayor Luna Paris supplemental.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi all.

Um I'm Audrey Tam, so another Audrey, but um a student in Cal Habitat for Humanity.

Many students as renters see ADUs as important to Berkeley's housing.

And I know this because he let me and you guys know.

I'm fortunate enough to email you over winter break to show up and to speak here today on our first day of school.

Um here's a comment from Theo Wang, who isn't here today.

Like many students, I chose Berkeley not just for school, but also because I care about this community and hope to stay in the area after graduation.

And housing is a big issue on my mind.

Over the past few years, I've watched friends struggle to find affordable housing close to campus or face unexpected rent increases.

Student housing often comes in the form of small units or ADUs, and those spaces are essential for keeping Berkeley accessible to students from all backgrounds.

When tenants are displaced, it doesn't just disrupt our housing, it also hugely impacts our education, mental health, and sense of belonging.

Please consider our voices.

AB 1033 expands housing access opportunities.

Simultaneously, displaced ADU tenants are more likely to be homeless.

Berkeley can set a precedent here tonight, prioritize new home home ownership and tenant protections.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, um, my name is Shalini.

I'm also with Cal Habitat for Humanity, an organization centered around equitable housing.

I'm speaking on behalf of my peer, Ava Smith.

A close friend of hers who lived in our hometown her whole life was forced to leave the home that her family was living in after the landlords decided to turn the home's garage into an ADU.

They were without a home for months and ultimately were forced to leave the community.

A large reason why I've loved living in Berkeley is because of this community's diversity.

Permitting ADUs as written as AB 1033 has written can hurt this diversity.

AB 1033 is a good policy that will increase the number of housing units, but in a city that already relies on rent control to prevent displacement, I hope that tenant protections will be included in A B 1033, because by including safeguards to prevent no fault evictions and guaranteeing first ride refusal, Berkeley can ensure that families and individuals will not suffer from the implementations of ADUs the same way people have in her hometown.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Hi, my name is Lucia, and I'm also part of Cal Habitat, and I'll be speaking upon for my friend Lorena.

Hello, my name is Lorena, and I personally am currently fortunate enough to live in a student rental here in the university village where my rent is covered by financial aid.

Otherwise, like many others, I'd be struggling in finding affordable housing.

As I've had countless of my peers tell me of their unfortunate housing situations that ultimately left them homeless, couch hopping, and seeking unconventional housing for the night.

It is plain to see that it isn't humane and should be prevented from worsening.

It is substantial that we keep in mind that many students live in ADUs.

Hold up.

That many students you live in ADUs or small rental units, and as students, we wish to protect ourselves as tenants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Madeline.

I am also a member of Cal Habitat for Humanity at Berkeley, and I'll be speaking on behalf of my peer, Oliver Chang, who cannot be here today.

Um hello, my name is Oliver Chang.

I am currently renting an apartment in Berkeley for college and we'll be there for at least another year and a half.

I've seen too many examples firsthand of how housing instability has affected how students go about their daily lives.

In fact, today I was with a friend who was absent-minded because all she could think about was how she had to move out because rent was being raised at where she was living currently, affecting her thought process and how she interacted with everyone.

As a result, I believe we should say yes to AB 1033 and tenant protections because Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.

This is a good policy.

We should allow ADUs to be converted into condos and sold separately, especially when they are newly built and not rented.

But this should not happen at the expense of existing ADU tenants who are especially vulnerable.

Uh tenants that live there currently desert protections as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alex DeFrage, and I'll be reading on behalf of Angie, a fellow Cal Habitat for Humanity member and UC Berkeley student.

A couple of years ago, I lived in a rented ADU with my family.

Though it wasn't here in Berkeley, it was one of the many ways we experienced an inequitable and inaccessible path to ownership.

And it is applicable to a variety of communities across the country.

Having the ADU as a housing option had significantly helped my family find a sense of stability amidst the housing challenges we were experiencing.

A lack of information on tenant protections and educational barriers pushed us to displacement when the rent increased over time, and ownership of the ADU was not an option.

Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.

ADUs have the potential to offer an affordable space upgraded from a room or apartment.

If combined with greater tenant protections against displacement and towards home ownership, Berkeley can expand long-term housing stability.

We hope that the Luna Power Bartlett Supplemental is adopted with AB 1033.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Debbie Sanderson.

I'm speaking on behalf of the ADU task force.

In the past, this council has been very supportive of housing, and we thank you for that.

We think it is now imperative that we build as many ADUs as we can.

And we but we want to remind you and that the people of Berkeley gave us a clear mandate in 2018.

And we should continue to honor that mandate through the life of the ADU, even as a condo.

I think the spirit of 2018 measure Q was to relieve ADUs that are on owner-occupied property, a small number of them, to have control over who lives in their ADU because they live there too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Ishi and Vice Mayor Luna Parra and City Council members.

First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Luna Parra and Ben Bartlett for this very thoughtful supplemental item.

You know, tenants living in ADUs are consumers in the rental housing industry.

When you have a business and your ADU is a business, it is a business.

You are making money.

So tenants should have protections, just like consumers in other industries should have protections.

And these are really reasonable.

These are really reasonable.

I would love for them to have one year for you know to think about it, but you know, to think about if they have the first rate of a of approval.

But doesn't matter.

90 days are fine.

All these are good.

So I really would hope that you consider this that tenants need protections.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Christagold Branson, executive director of the Berkeley Property Owners Association.

I just want to remind you, yes, in 2018, the ADU task force, of which I was one of the founding members, and with Ben Bartlett's help, we came forward with a proposal to the voters that said that owner-occupied properties, certain ones, especially with new construction ADUs, would receive exemptions from parts of the rent stabilization ordinance.

I'm here to say that I do believe in reading this carefully, the council member Luna Pars proposal actually contradicts that.

It puts tenant protections on some ADUs if they decide to convert and be able to sell off the ADU.

And that is not permitted under the law because the rent stabilization ordinance is a directive of the voters.

She also is proposing that you remove the ability to do an owner move-in.

An owner move in is given to those properties where a tenant has tenant protections under the rent stabilization ordinance.

So I think you need a more clear answer on that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good evening.

To the mayor, to council members.

My name is Dominique Walker.

I'm the vice chair of the Berkeley Rent Board.

And I just wanted to echo my colleagues.

I think that this is a fair compromise.

Um council member Luna Para, Ben Bartlett.

I think that we can work with this, and I would love for you all to vote yes on the amendments.

And I'll cede the rest of my time to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Hello, my name's Andy Kelly.

I'm a rent board commissioner and vice chair of the county planning commission.

I was just here to speak in support of the supplemental, which I think is a very reasoned compromise.

Sorry, can you move closer?

Yes.

I've never been accused of not being loud enough in my life.

I'm just here to speak in support of the supplemental, which I think is a very reasoned compromise and the kind of spirit of collaboration we'd love to see the council impart on these issues.

I think it's important to note that no one affected by this ordinance tonight built an ADU with the intention of selling it.

That's a major thing that the city is giving to these homeowners, and it's a wonderful thing.

If you need to retire or you want to pay for your kids' college, having the ability to sell is wonderful.

But so is the ability of folks who are living there now to stay if they want to.

We can do both things, it's not mutually exclusive.

And giving tenants three months to figure out if they can purchase the property, that's a great thing.

It's good for our neighborhoods to stabilize them.

It provides the stability and affordable housing the ADUs were meant to do in the first place.

And the tenant protections would only exist for the rent control if the homeowner decided they wanted them.

No one forces that in the supplemental.

Only an owner who's saying, I'm gonna sell this ADU.

I'd like it to remain affordable.

It's gonna be in my backyard.

I'd like folks to be able to stay there.

That's a choice.

You don't want to do it, you pay the affordable housing fee.

You pay the condo conversion fee, you go through the regular process, but it allows the protections without anyone being forced to do it.

It's a wonderful compromise.

It provides a pathway to homeownership for folks who don't have a million dollars, and I strongly encourage the council to support the supplemental.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any public comment on this item online?

Public comment on item 21 allowing separate sale of ADUs.

Currently have four hands raised.

First is Alfred Twu.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Alfred Tu.

I'm also a rent board commissioner.

And I'm here to also speak in favor of the item with Council Member Luna Parro's complemento.

Our goal here is to get people to build new ADUs.

So we have more housing being built.

And also get people who have an empty ADU but aren't interested in renting it out to perhaps consider selling it.

Portland, Oregon, to our north, they implemented an ADU condo ordinance about 10 years ago.

And they now have a good ecosystem of businesses that specialize in building new foresale ADUs.

And that's really the motto we want to go where people are building new homes rather than just taking homes from one person for another.

Similarly, in San Francisco, they passed the AB 1033 ordinance recently.

But theirs only allows new construction to be condoized.

So I think what we have proposed here is a good compromise between the stronger tenant protections as well as offering flexibility.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Next is iPhone.

Should be able to unmute.

City Council members and honorable.

Mayor, this is Kathleen Crandall.

I'd like to cede my minute to uh Deborah Sanderson.

Oh, she spoke already.

Kathy, I'm sorry, do you want to speak instead?

No, I other than we we can't afford to decentrize any kind of building of the ADUs.

And um, so I I've I've written the letter to uh to all of you.

So um thank you for your time and um please vote no.

Okay.

Next is uh Brianna Morales.

Good evening.

My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.

Um we strongly support this ordinance, especially at a time when California is facing a housing crisis and housing costs are through the roof.

Um we love to see creative flexible opportunities that support housing choices, especially with ADUs that already exist in neighborhoods across Berkeley.

Um, this ordinance will help create new pathways to homeownership that are often more affordable, more attainable, and more flexible.

It could mean, you know, a renter having the opportunity to buy the home they already live in, or a homeowner helping a loved one build equity nearby.

And we strongly also support um protecting tenants and appreciate the council's attention to these concerns.

We encourage continued work towards an approach that maintains a clear and workable pathway for ADU homeownership and preserves predictability for these small projects.

Um Berkeley has long time been a leader, and so we're hoping uh to see this ordinance uh passed so that we can align with state law um and bring more homes to California.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Okay, next is Daniel Brownson.

Hi, um yeah, I think it's telling that the housing advocates, including the uh author of the supplemental um council uh member Runapara and the members of the Berkeley Rent Board have been willing to compromise um resulting in this you know already compromised uh supplemental measure, um, whereas the landlords uh like the uh person who spoke on behalf of the landlord association, which shouldn't even exist because it's a price fixing organization, seem completely unwilling to compromise and uh uh and approve any tenant protections whatsoever.

So I strongly encourage the board to um adopt the supplemental um so that it will be balanced with tenant protections and thank you.

Thanks, Daniel.

Okay.

Uh good evening.

Um, this is Tony Mester speaking from District 2.

Um, I support the staff recommendation on the uh ADU uh conversion, condo conversion.

I don't support the supplemental.

I think it's um idealistic to believe that the supplemental, some of the items in the supplemental would not be a disincentive.

Um I think if it passes, you will see the number of ADUs being um created uh reduced.

I don't know by what percent.

I'm not that smart, but I do know that it would be a burden for those people who are going to use their equity to build housing, and I think we need the ADUs, and I'm very proud to have been part of the Measure Q team, and um, very proud that we've had so many ADUs created.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

Okay.

Last hand is Cleo.

Cleo, you should be able to unmute.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Cleo.

Uh, so ADUs are different from multi-unit buildings and that they tend to be owned by non-professional individual homeowners.

This means that creating more cost and or more complexity will mean a major roadblock to conduization and sale.

People will still build the ADUs, sure, but they just won't sell them.

On the other hand, virtually no small entry-level new homes are being currently built for sale in Berkeley, other than the ADUs if they're conduit.

By contrast, the city is building tens of thousands of new rental apartments.

For this reason, I am against the amendment proposed by Council Bess of Bunapara because it would disincentivize private homeowners with ADUs from conduiting conduizing and selling them, thereby denying entry-level home buyers with virtually the only potential new source of affordable first homes.

So we're only talking about a guesstimate of less than a thousand new build ADUs since 2018.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um we're going to move on to council comments, starting with Council Member Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And I want to give a huge thank you to Director Klein and the planning staff for all your hard work on this item.

It's been pending for so long, and I'm glad that we finally got into it.

Um I think the ordinance as prepared by planning staff and the planning commission is pretty much ready to roll with one exception.

Way back in October, Mayor Ishi, Council Member Blackaby, Council Member O'Keefe, and I submitted a supplemental with a proposed amendment to uh chapter in section 21.29.010.c one C.1 covered rental ADUs subparagraph B, for the purposes of for the purpose of limiting the right of first review refusal to 90 days.

So once again, I propose an amendment that simply adds the following to the end of subsection B.

Quote, except that the exclusive right to purchase period shall not exceed 90 days from the date of the notice, and that's in quote, and that's in place of the one year.

I think that roughly three months is a fair amount of time for a tenant to declare their intent to purchase and better and it better aligns with typical timelines for real estate transactions.

A year is far too long to demand that someone wait to potentially sell their ADU, especially since it is most likely people will be seeking to sell because they're having financial difficulties or because they may want to sell to a family member.

With respect to the thoughtful, a very thoughtful supplemental brought forward by council, I shouldn't say that by Vice Mayor Lunapara.

I feel that it it is well intended, but I think I personally I just fundamentally see the relationship between a single family homeowner, you know, sort of a measure queue homeowner and an ADU tenant in a very different way.

I do want to credit the arguments that I've heard tonight here about the lack of impact the supplemental would likely have on newly constructed ADUs.

I think those arguments are correct.

But and I also accept that I still favor that the staff proposal.

Having tighter rules for multi-unit and non-owner-occupied properties makes sense, but I don't think it makes sense when you have a homeowner with just the one ADU on the property to force them into a potentially fraught relationship with a sitting ADU tenant.

And I guess I would say, why should these proposed rights, which didn't exist and don't exist at this point for this very limited class of tenants, all of a sudden spring into existence in connection with a condo conversion of an ADU?

And I'm not completely.

And ultimately, you know, it may have some impact uh to incentivize more ADU conversions, if not construction of new ADUs.

As far as applying an affordable housing mitigation fee to ADU conversions, um I can't support that as I think it's far too discouraging of such conversions.

Berkeley suffers from an even more acute shortage of affordable ownership housing, as has been pointed out than it does affordable rental housing.

So I'm committed to not having a fee for these conversions.

So with all that said, I would like to move for the purpose of discussion the staff version of the ADU conversion ordinance with the amendments proposed in the October 28th supplemental that I just referred to that was submitted by the mayor and council members Blackaby and O'Keefe and I to limit the right of first refusal period to 90 days uh for the tenant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um that was my next question.

Is there a second?

A second, a second from Councilmember Blackaby.

Uh moving on to Councilmember Taplin's comments.

Uh thank you.

Uh just real quick, and my apologies for not asking this in the first round.

The prohibition on um uh conversion following no fault evictions, who's Cooper?

Who's proposing what?

I would try to field that.

So the Planning Commission recommendation.

Uh applies uh uh a no fault eviction screen on conduct version eligibility of 10 years, and that applies to covered units and partially covered units, but not to fully exempt units.

I believe that the supplemental expands that to also apply to fully covered units, but reduces the period from 10 years to five years for all three categories of ADUs.

Uh thank you.

Um to share my thinking, um, it's really helpful to know that there is a relatively small number of ADUs situated on owner occupied two unit properties and the diversions of a prohibition on conversion following no fault termination dependency is present in both versions.

Um I'm very committed to increasing pathways and opportunities for homeownership, and I see condo conversion for ADU sales as a valuable tool and want to be cautious to not unwittingly create impediments that would have a chilling effect on ADU production.

Uh that being said, I do welcome my colleague's deliberation on the two proposal two proposals for the no fault eviction screen in particular.

Sorry, just to clarify the no fault eviction for for all ADUs, just council member.

Oh, I I um I uh I welcome hearing from the rest of my colleagues on uh the fine points of both and either of the two proposals on that point.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

And actually I would like to see if there's a motion to close the public hearing before we continue more.

So moved.

Okay, thanks.

Can we take the role on that, please?

To close the public hearing, council member taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes.

O'Keefe, yes, Blackaby, yes, Luna Para.

Yes, Humbert, yes, and Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

I'm gonna go to Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

To post that one chart with uh the three proposals with the X's, that one, you know, the Vice Mary.

Yeah, give me a moment.

I think that's helpful.

Thank you.

And uh in the meantime, I want to do want to thank the the planning staff, thank director Klein and team uh for your diligent work, wonderful work.

I love the proposal.

Um, I do think it it it is it is it's benefited by my colleague the vice mayor's efforts here.

Um, to really what what I see is a really rational really rationalization and unifying of the baseline protections afforded to tenants uh that we get to houses, people living in houses, you know.

You know, and in one sense, um, without it, we kind of carry on the the prejudicial relationship between single family homeowners and home dwellers versus apartment people, in this case, ADU people that work so hard to kind of unify and make make even.

And so I think that's um, you know, these protections afforded to the people of ADUs are less less burdensome than those living in homes.

Uh and again, you know, going to what you said, 100 units a year.

I think this is gonna be negligible.

Um, however, even though it's negligible, if it keeps one person from falling out into the street that's worth it.

That's a real person.

And uh, and and believe me, I think the I think the fears and ADU people, yes.

I'm all EDU, I'm Mr.

ADU.

I agree.

I formed the task force, I'm all about it.

Um, but again, you know, I don't like I don't believe in the zero sum relationship uh that we hear so much in uh in our in our world today.

Uh you can have your cake and eat it too.

You can have economic growth and you can have people living a good life.

They're not exclusive.

Um this is one example where I would uh really impress upon you the fact that we can protect people while advancing uh the goals of homeownership and starter homes and ADU development.

And you realize if someone's making ADU to sell it, they're doing it to sell it, and they will be engaging in property taxes and et cetera, and you know, doing all things you do to sell property.

It's uh it's a commercial decision.

This is not the usual story about ADU is about my grandma being in there, my mama, you know, my sister got w got reigned out in Florida's coming here to live with us.

This is you selling it to someone to make money, and so you will factor in that cost when you sell it.

I mean, this is really um, I think again, uh the fears are overblown, and I think the the rationale for doing so and executing it with this uh these elements um are good, they're good for the community, good for people, and good for our economy as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember uh Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Um just gonna make some brief comments.

Um, I'll be supporting Councilmember Humbert's motion.

Um, here's why.

I I do want to say I really respect the supplemental.

It makes sense, it's a good like the heart of it is in the right place, and it's you know, it's very easy to feel good about tenant protections.

That's just that's a it seems on its face like always a good policy.

Here's why I can't support it.

I'm not choosing to support it tonight.

We're making the law more complicated.

And we have to, that's the mandate of this, is we have to sort of update our laws to incorporate this this specific situation.

I'm pretty allergic to making laws more complicated.

I think as I said earlier in my comments for um consent calendar, I really we really need to be making them clear, more streamlined, make more sense at any opportunity.

And so, yes, we have to tweak our law a little bit, we have to add a little, you know, cross some things out and add some things.

But the best way to do that in this case is to maintain as much as possible the philosophy and the structure of the existing law.

And that's that's what I'm basing my vote on.

Right now in Berkeley, like it or not, renters who are renting in multifamily um developments have certain tenant protections.

Renters who are renting in single-family home type situations, either a part or all of a home or a back of a home, have none, essentially.

And the staff um the staff recommendation, the the main the um Councilmember Humbert's motion supports carries that philosophy forward into this new situation.

And so that just makes more sense to me.

It feels more comfortable for me.

And I'd like to just continue.

I'd like to keep the our law structurally the same as it exists now, and that's why I'm voting the way I am.

Thank you.

Um actually, if you don't mind before you speak, can I ask a couple of questions?

Or do you wanna?

I want to respond to that.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

That's fine.

I would argue that the planning commission version is much more complicated than our version, given that ADU units often can can like go in and out of certain statuses.

And if we apply the same tenant protections across the board, that very much simplifies the process.

And also because we're mirroring existing legislation that we have currently for the condo conversion ordinance, that also kind of connects everything together more than the planning commission version does.

So that's my argument.

So I will ask my questions, but I do want to make sure you get your your com your comments in as well.

So I'm curious if you can let us know, because I I just couldn't pull it up quickly, what the affordable housing mitigation fee actually is.

So that when we're talking about the fee, we can just be clear about what we're talking about.

Yes, sorry, for staff.

You know, we have um HHCS staff on the line.

And so I think we'd like to turn that question over to either Margot Ernst or Mike Uberdi to speak to the affordable housing mitigation fee that applies to condo conversions.

Hi, council members.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Thanks for being on.

Sure, no problem.

Thank you for having me.

I can't see my video.

I'm hoping I'm looking good for everyone.

We can see you.

You're here.

Okay.

Um so how the affordable housing mitigation fee works is it's based on a nexus between um ownership costs and rental cost for the unit.

That's divided by the current interest rate.

Um so uh we usually um we have a kind of uh set way that we calculate the projected ownership cost for the unit as a condo, um, including a 5% um down payment price, um, the cost of uh future HOAs, property taxes, et cetera, um comparable to a rental cost for the unit.

Now there's an alternative called the rental limitation, in which uh property owners can elect into establishing a rental limitations on the unit in exchange for um a fee that's based on the sales price of the unit, an 8% sales price, or in certain cases a 4% sales price.

Um so um that's either they can do that based on an appraised price at the time of conversion, or they can um base that on the actual sales price.

They can defer the fee until the unit is sold.

I mean, that's based on the sales actual sales price when it goes on the market.

Thank you.

I I just um I remember when we were talking about this, there were some, I don't know if it was like median, you know, amounts or something that was an actual dollar amount, um, just to kind of put some specific uh uh specifics into this conversation.

I don't know if you can speak to that at all.

Um I believe we probably um I I worked with planning to develop examples based on like an estimated sales price, so you could kind of compare how the two fees would look.

Um, so I I think that might be what you're thinking of.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm sorry, we've we've continued this item so many times.

I don't have uh the same documents in front of me anymore.

All right.

We do, thankfully, thanks to Bronco.

Mike and I worked about on this, I want to say about six months ago.

So um the example that we came up with, and so you're gonna have to bear with me because there's a lot of numbers here because to be honest with you, this is not a simple fee.

This is a complex calculation.

So Mike mentioned that you you're um identifying the difference between the rental costs and the ownership costs.

So if the rental costs were estimated at $1,500 per month, or um, that's $18,000 a year annually.

The ownership cost is you do you develop the estimate of that based on um estimated mortgage payment costs plus um uh taxes and insurance and HOA dues, um, you might end uh estimate that at 2700 per month for a small ADU or $32,400 annually.

Okay, the difference between those numbers, the ownership cost minus the rental cost is $14,400.

And so the mitigation fee is developed by dividing that difference by the prevailing interest rate.

Six months ago, it was six and a half percent.

The resulting amount is two hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars, two hundred twenty-one thousand five hundred thirty-eight dollars, and that's that that's a pretty real world.

Those I mean, those amounts we came up with, we did our best to estimate what the actual rental and ownership cost would be of uh an ADU around 750 to a thousand square feet.

Thank you.

That is really helpful to have an actual number in front of us as we're having this conversation.

Um, and thank you, Mike, for being on as well and answering that question.

Um Jordan, can you also speak to the impact of uh conversion prohibition after no fault eviction?

I know that uh council member tablin asked us to opine about that, and I'm I'm interested in in thinking about that more as well.

Well, first let me say I think it's quite rare that this occurs.

Um I would actually potentially if you if you have questions about specificity, I think that rent board staff are work with those cases much more frequently than we would.

Sorry, I should I should clarify that question.

It's uh to speak to the impact of a of a of adding this to the potential um uh conversion of ADUs to condos or building ADUs.

It's really on the planning side.

Oh, so whether adding it would impact production.

Thank you.

Um I really don't think it would impact production much, if at all, uh, to add that.

So currently the planning commission proposal uh it are it's already applies to covered units and partially covered units, would not apply to fully exempt units.

Supplemental proposes to expand it to also apply to fully exempt units.

Um I think that it would impact production only in cases when somebody is intending to sell a condo as an investment property, or conduize an ADU as an investment property.

In those cases, yeah, it could serve either it's gonna you're gonna add a huge amount of cost to the conversion to over $200,000 is what we estimated, or you're gonna limit the future uh income generating potential of the property.

So, yeah, in those cases, it could serve as a disincentive.

Um if somebody would only produce the unit with intention for sale as an investment property.

Yeah, and I think that's important because I think the conversation that we're having here is about encouraging conduization in the hopes that also people are owning their homes and not just you know, someone's buying it in order to rent it out as uh as additional income because they can do that as an ADU, they don't need to convert it to be a condo in order to to um in order to rent it out in that way.

So I just want to clarify that for folks.

Okay, um, I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure you got to make your comments.

Um I just have a couple of uh a couple short comments um kind of emphasizing some of the pieces of this.

Um first that for the affordable housing mitigation fee, the goal isn't necessarily for people to pay the fee, but if if this is happening, if if somebody is purchasing um this converted ADU condo, is is then renting it out, that then those tenants get rent control protection, um, which is also not the intended purpose of this, um, and is an unlikely scenario.

Um, I think um I also want to go back to some of the topic of how many tenants this would apply to.

I don't this wouldn't apply too many tenants.

I think we all know that we have um a uh crisis of displacement and of homelessness.

Um, and even if this applies to one person or one family, that person or family is getting evicted from the city or is significantly more likely to fall into homelessness.

And the best we know that the best way to prevent homelessness is to keep people housed in the first place.

And I think that they if they if they are not choosing to convert it, they still can evict those tenants.

That is not changing.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Barkaby.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Just stepping back very briefly.

I mean, one thing I I've been observing and wrestling with a little bit is that you know we have a series of different um housing policies in Berkeley to accomplish different goals, uh different housing types, um, whether it's rental housing or housing that's available for purchase, tenant protections to protect people who are in those um those rental units.

And so part of what I've been wrestling with a little bit is thinking about well, what's what's our A number one goal with this you know particular policy?

And you know, our challenge, one of many challenges we face in Berkeley is that we don't have enough housing for purchase at the lower end of the economic scale.

And by lower end, it's still plenty high end.

I'm just saying that, you know, we're trying to create more housing inventory that's available for less than a million dollars, and hopefully substantially less than a million dollars.

And um to me, this ADU conversion policy is one chance, and that we've heard I know she's not here, but Councilmember Castrowani's talked a lot about in the past, um, some some of this work to create more inventory at that on that side of the scale and not just at the upper side of the scale.

Um, so this ADU conversion policy under AB 1033 is focused on generating more for sale inventory at that sort of lower, relatively lower, relatively more affordable price point.

Um we have other policies like the density bonus that incentivizes the creation of affordable rental housing, and that is a clear policy choice, and we're putting um we're we're trying to put that uh to work, and the state's trying to put that to work.

Um, and we have a rent control system here in Berkeley that's the most robust in the country to provide strong tenant protections in as many places as we can.

Um but I keep coming back to the goal.

And this in this case, our primary goal is the creation of more housing for purchase at a less exorbitant price point.

And from speaking to residents in my district, um, I know there's real apprehension to moving forward with ADUs at all if they feel potential um restrictions.

It's a disincentive to convert existing ADUs, and I do believe that it's the ethos of this additional regulation on um, you know, ADU edit on a single family property where the owner is occupying one of the units, the ethos of this additional regulation, whether it's real or perceived, is a disincentive to participate.

I heard it a lot during the campaign, and I hear it as I go around now.

There's just a sense that I don't know if I want to do this if I feel like my hands are gonna be tied, if I feel like I'm gonna have these additional risk restrictions, additional fees.

Why bother?

Like I'm just not gonna do it.

It's better for me not to do it at all than to do that.

And that feels like that's that moves us backwards in terms of what we're trying to do with this particular policy.

Um again, I I could be wrong, but that's sort of where my head is at in terms of my discussions in the district and thinking about the goals and what we're trying to accomplish.

So for that reason, I really appreciate I really appreciate the the passion and the commitment of the vice Mayor and councilmember Bartlett for their proposal.

Um but thinking about what's the primary goal here, what's the primary problem we're trying to solve with this particular legislation.

I believe that the planning commission version with Councilmember Humbert's amendment is the better approach to actually creating more housing for purchase at this kind of price point.

If our goal was different, you know, if we had a different goal, and that wasn't the goal, I think a different policy prescription could be the right choice, and it could end up supporting the supplemental.

But for this particular goal for this particular reason, I'm gonna support the staff recommendation with Councilmember Humbert's amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And speaking of, you know, what is kind of our goal here, you know, what I I mean the purpose of really converting the ADUs to condos is to encourage more opportunities for homeownership.

And at the same time, I I know that we need to be doing our best to protect the tenants who are currently living in the ADUs.

Um at the same time, I'm also concerned about some of the aspect of Council Member Luna Tapara's items and worried about how it might disincentivize the conversion of ADUs to condos, specifically the affordable housing mitigation fee piece of it.

Um another thing I realize that in this conversation we really need to have better data around ADUs.

So I'm just saying that out loud because I think that's something that we should all be working on because I think that will help us make more informed policy decisions.

Um I want to comment on something that was said earlier.

Um I really want us to consider the possibility that people will be conduizing their IDUs in order to live in themselves and sell their main houses instead.

Um and in fact, I know some older residents who you know are selling their main homes to their children, for instance, or to someone that they know and then are living in the ADU, but might be interested in continuing to own something.

So condoizing it might make sense for them.

So I just want us to think about that and not make too many assumptions about how people might utilize this.

Um the other thing that I also agree with in uh that I agree with in Councilmember Luna Par or Vice Mayor Lunapara's item is the right of first refusal for all ADU tenants within 90-day time period.

I want to briefly speak to why we were interested in shortening it, shortening it to 90 days.

Um we had many conversations with um with different folks about how long it takes to get funding together, and we thought that 90 days was was reasonable, wasn't enough time.

If you're able to get funding together in 90 days, you'll most likely be able to purchase.

And I'm interested in giving everybody that opportunity, given that we're talking about um converting ADUs to condos and to encourage homeownership.

We want to allow the people who are currently living in them to have the opportunity to purchase their ADU first.

And and given 90 days, we've kind of agreed isn't is a reasonable time frame.

I'm also interested in including that um as well.

And so speaking to Councilmember Taplan's interest um in a conversion prohibition after no fault eviction for five years, I'm also interested in supporting that.

So I want to signal my support and and see if folks have any other comments about about my comments before we move on.

No thoughts.

Right now we only have one thing on the floor.

So yeah, count uh Vice Mayor Luna Parra.

Um I have some kind of high-level comments in kind of a an attempt to um convince my colleagues about what the choice that we're making here is and and how we are treating tenant units um in comparison with homeowner units.

If the choice that we're making here is about replacing our tenants with homeowners, I think that is a I think we've lost the plot.

I think it is so important to create those middle level for sale homes, but are we really willing to displace and evict our vulnerable tenants to create them?

That's not a decision that we have to make.

That is a policy choice.

Our primary problem that we're trying to solve at a high level is housing affordability and housing stability for all.

And I'm really frustrated because I think that this conversation is leading into the same fundamental problem that we see over and over again about prioritizing homeownerships, homeownership and placing their homes at a higher standard than tenants' homes.

And we should not be con we should not be considering that tenants' homes are unequal to homeowners' homes.

We are telling tenants that they do not deserve the residential and financial stability that homeowners do.

And that I think that's the policy choice that we're making right now.

Yeah, that's my argument.

Okay.

So right now, just so we're clear, the only thing that's on the floor is the staff recommendation with um with a supplemental that council members Humbert, Blackaby, and uh O'Keefe and I have put forward.

Um I'll make a motion to approve the supplemental material without the affordable housing mitigation fee section.

Second.

Sorry, you're supplemental with without the affordable housing mitigation fee.

Okay.

I I still can't fully support that where it's at.

Um where are we?

Do you have a friendly amendment?

Yeah, I think the piece that I have a hard time with still is the um sorry, I'm just trying to pull up my notes.

The owner move in.

Since, like I said, there might be some owners who would be interested in moving in to their ADUs and converting them to a condo and then selling their the main house.

Do we think I what what I'm worried about is an um a landlord using owner move in eviction um and then turning it into a condo.

I wonder if there's a way we can meet in the middle of there and um accommodate that issue without completely removing it.

I would be interested to see if anyone else is in support of this.

So I'd like to ask if any of my colleagues have any comments.

I'm interested in this mostly in the name of unity.

I don't I think I'd prefer to just have my way, but I think I think the other side's arguments are reasonable.

So I'd like it would be feel better if um we could find some some agreement, and I'm I'm open to looking for that.

And this is like this.

Keep going.

Go ahead, Councilmember Taplin.

Um, I didn't want to respond, I didn't want to speak to the point about displacement.

I think that's why I'm interested in this the prohibition on conversion following a no-fall eviction.

Um I see both proposals as having very valid, very valid and very useful this dissentives against displacement.

And I want to just voice that.

Um, I don't think either the planning commission or planning staff or any of the members of the council are seeking to replace tenants with homeowners.

I think we are, you know, trying to thread the needle here.

Um but I I but I wanted to sort of reiterate that I that's why I'm so interested in the the prohibition on no fault eviction uh conversion.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, Vice Marilyn O'Para.

I think um in the interest of not trying to come up with an entirely new policy on the dias.

Um we can um revert to the plan and commission version of the OMI evictions, and that's my of the owner move in evictions.

So um, yes, yeah, okay.

Do you want I'm sorry, do you want to actually just repeat everything?

I think that might be helpful.

Yeah, um, it would this motion um would approve the supplemental item without the affordable housing mitigation fee, or the changes to owner move in evictions from the planning commission version.

Um, so that would leave.

Sorry, I'm just pulling up my notes.

I want to make sure I'm saying everything correctly.

So that would leave the right of first refusal of 90 days and the conversion prohibition after no fault evictions for five years, correct?

Okay, and just looking to see if anyone has other thoughts.

And I'm imagining a scenario where somebody has rented their ADU backyard ADU to a tenant that and it wasn't working out, and they wanted to conduize it, and I feel like what's being proposed right now, I do have empathy and concern for that landlord.

I think I think they need because it is, as I alluded to before, this is more of a single-family home situation.

It's a little more personal.

I'm I do want to preserve that right sort of of the of who you get to live next to for homeowners.

So but I don't know, I feel like there's still a compromise in here, but the it's the pairing of those two things that concerns me.

I guess um in that situation, they would either have to wait five years, and if it is a no fault eviction, because there are many, you know, I don't know what it's called, but faulted evictions, that uh homeowner can take if they perform a no fault eviction, they have would have to either wait five years or they can just rent it out to another tenant in the meantime.

I don't know, I guess I've I I don't think that we should I'm I'm worried about weighing um about displacing that tenant um and possibly pushing them into into homelessness when the homeowner has multiple options to not live with that person if if it's not working out for them, they don't have to conduize it, and um yeah, okay.

I just want to check and see if there are any comments, and then I think we should should move forward and vote.

Yeah.

Yeah, just because I guess we're having a little bit of back and forth to respond.

I just I want to say I I I hear what you're saying.

I think you're I think we're gonna agree to disagree, but I think what you're saying is reasonable.

I just I'm not I'm not I'm just not comfortable with what's being proposed at this time, but I appreciate the argument.

It's it has a lot of merit, how do you think, what what what would you propose differently?

I'm not sure.

I'm just I'm open to some sort of less um less trichonian, isn't quite the right word, but less strong tenant protections.

Like I am open to something.

I just I do want to preserve, I don't know why this has come to just me.

Maybe maybe other people on my side aren't open to this at all.

Um yeah, I just I really want to make sure to preserve the right of a of a homeowner, a single family homeowner, to choose who lives with next door to them next on the same property as them.

I just I want to preserve that.

So whatever we do has to make that possible even when they want to do a condo conversion.

So just just being realistic, thinking about the votes that we have here.

Um I do really want us to make a push for the 90-day um 90-day um right of refusal, because I do think that that's something that we can have votes for, um, and so um I just want to say that out loud with the hope that you might make an adjustment and and focus just on that piece because I do think that that piece is winnable, and at the same time, um, to address council member O'Keefe's concerns, um, it's possible for us to have this prohibition after no fault evictions for five years, um, unless unless the owner is moving into the ADU into the condo, and that might address your concern.

Right, there's a difference between a no-fault eviction and an owner move-in eviction.

No?

There's no difference between those.

They have different names.

Yeah.

Because I agree.

If if you could, if there's crossover, so there they are, they are not the same thing, but situation could happen where there's both.

Okay.

I have one more point if I can add.

Um, if someone conduizes and sells their ADU, and then that person sells it to someone else, that homeowner has no choice over who lives there.

They can choose who they sell it to, but then that person can sell it to whoever they want.

So it it's kind of, yeah.

Does that make sense?

Does that address your concern?

Let me think about it.

They could have the most control if they keep renting it out.

Does my vote even matter?

Why is everyone looking at me?

Everyone's vote matters.

Yes, sorry.

Go ahead, Councilmember Taplin.

Uh, thanks.

Yeah, I appreciate the conversation.

I I, you know, just you know, I think you know I hear what everyone is saying, I see where we're trying to go, and I think between the what's on the table, I feel most confident that the main motion by Councilmember Humbert will get us as close as we can get to where we want to be.

Okay, so our uh one more last stitch effort.

Um if we can compromise to only apply the um uh no fault eviction prohibition for all c covered current tenants or all sorry, all current tenants.

Um and we can set a date for that.

That does make the law more complicated though.

Sorry for that one more time.

Um only apply the no fault eviction five year prohibition for all current tenants as of the time of the second reading, but that does make the law more complicated.

Oh, can I is it okay if I yeah, please, thank you.

I the thing that sort of happened for me when I that was a really argument.

Um, just you know, I respect a good argument, so um wanna name that.

But I I think what's happening for me is I'm just going back to my original um orientation to this, which is like I I think that the planning commission staff recommendation just makes more sense and it just feels cleaner to me.

And I do wanna it would be nice if we could come up with a compromise that and voted unanimously, but I don't think that's on the table, and I think I'd rather just stick with Councilmember Humberts.

Yeah, Vice Mayor, I think the only thing that we might be able to pass to to add on from what your supplemental is the 90-day um, um I'm mixing up all my phrases, oh my lord.

Oh, right of refusal, thank you.

90 day right of refusal um for for all.

I'll amend my motion to just that then.

So then it would be just to clarify, it would be uh staff's recommendation with council member um Humbert's uh supplemental, and but the 90 days would be included for all for all city for all tenants, yes.

Okay.

So I believe there was a second from councilmember Bartlett already, and so in that case I will ask if the clerk can take the role.

Does that mean we have the same motion twice or no?

So what's what what is the what's the difference between the two?

The addition the addition is that the 90-day right of refusal would apply to all as opposed to just the um it would the 90 days was just a change from a year.

In which motion?

In council member Humbert.

No, supplemental, and council members.

In the main motion.

In the main motion, yeah.

Okay.

Did you have a question?

I think that was my question was how it's exactly Humbert's, but with a different number.

There's no same number.

What's the, but it would apply to more people?

Okay, I guess my question is home Councilmember Humbert had a um something extra, and I just want to make sure that's in it, or if it doesn't matter anymore, maybe he could speak to that.

Can I clarify?

Yes, go ahead.

So the the planning commission version um gives one year of right of first refusal for covered tenants.

Councilmember Humbert's change reduces that to 90 days.

My supplemental expands that to all tenants.

But only for 90 days.

Yeah.

So to exempt partially covered and covered to 90 days.

Yes, 90 days of right of first refusal.

Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying.

Councilmember Humbert did you uh want to say something as well?

Yeah, I um no, I I I can't support that.

I mean there may be a majority that does, but I can't support it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just sorry, I'm I'm out of order, my apologies.

No, no, go ahead, Councilmember Taplin.

Did you have a comment?

Yeah, it's just it's just it's I mean it's difficult to keep up.

It's you know it's difficult to parse on the fly like this.

I might, you know, I remain my support for the main motion remains.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so we should take the role.

The substitute motion by council member uh Vice Mayor Lunapara.

Um the motion council member taplin.

No, Bartlett, yes, O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby, no.

Lunapara, yes.

Humbert, no.

Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay, that motion fails.

All right, thank you.

And then on the main motion by Councilmember Humbert.

Um Councilmember Taplan.

Yes.

Bartlett, yes.

O'Keefe, yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

No.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

No, that was a lot of sausage making.

I really appreciate you all sitting through that.

Um, okay.

I think we should take a five-minute break so we can switch over to the next item.

Let's let's get back in it.

Hello, lovely people in the crowd.

We're gonna get started again.

Okay, Sam, Ciroc, Rebecca, everyone, please.

Paul, Sydney, I'm just gonna start calling everyone by name.

Okay.

All right, let's get started.

Thank you so much.

All right, we've got a few more items left, so let's let's get going.

Um we're gonna move on to item number 22, which is public health vital statistics vital records fees.

Um we don't have a presentation from this, but I will ask if there are any questions from our council members.

And I will also open the public hearing.

Questions from council members about item number 22.

Okay, seeing no questions, I will ask if there are any public comments.

No, this is please say the title maybe say the title of the threat.

Yeah, any public comments for the public health vital statistics vital records fees item number 22.

I'm trying to I try to figure out how closely I can relate this.

But I just want to say given the laptosporosis that's that's come out, it's just ironic that when uh the bathrooms that were uh portable bathrooms that were raised in 2017 and that passed council, which have now eight years later or where we have been uh set aside that we now are in the middle of another epidemic, because at 2017, the reason that passed council was because the HEPA that had broken out in San Diego, and it was spreading to Santa Cruz and other areas, and I hope that we don't have to have that widespread of an epidemic again that we have to be fearful of uh before we recognize the importance of or the community recognizes the importance of having sanitation because sanitation has now come right come up as the issue with the leptoscerrhosis at Harrison.

Thank you.

Thanks, Carol.

Any other comments online?

One online commenter, this is on item 22 public health vital statistics fees, and the hand went down.

Okay, no comments.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Some left.

Is there a second?

Okay, thank you very much, Councilmember.

Can we take the roll, please?

Okay, to close the public hearing, Councilmember Kesarwani.

Councilmember Kessarwani to close the public hearing.

Yes, taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trego, aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any council comments on this item?

Yeah.

Yes, go ahead, Councilmember Humbert.

I do have one.

Um I just want to thank Director Gilman and the staff at HHCS for preparing this item.

Um, no one likes death in taxes, and people and people like a fee you pay after death even less.

But we have to make sure these fees keep up with the cost of providing these vital services.

Thankfully, these increases for most people will equate to just a few dollars over a lifetime.

So I don't think we're pricing anyone out of being born or dying, and I'll support this item.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um, any other comments?

All right.

Uh and is there a motion to approve?

Some lived.

Very good.

Can we take the roll, please?

Okay, to approve the item.

Councilmember Kesserwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Trago.

Aye.

OK.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to item number 23, changes to selected recreation and campus facilities and program fees.

I believe there's also not a presentation for this one, so I will ask if there are any council questions.

Yes.

Councilmember Bacabe.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

And Director Ferris is online.

Is that right?

Oh.

Direct first.

Just quick question.

Um I think we've seen this in previous um reports.

Do you have a sense of not just the before and after of the proposal in Berkeley, but how we compare kind of our fee levels?

And I know we can't do it at the level of every line item, but um kind of any sense of where this puts us relative to neighboring jurisdictions with with kind of our our fee levels for these programs.

Yeah, a lot of those tables are um attached to the report.

Um but generally it puts us um either close to the middle or below below the average for most other cities.

So it just depends on what program.

Okay, but we're not definitely not in the case of kind of pushing ourselves higher than we're at median or a little below, not significantly above median, which is more my concern.

Correct.

Okay.

And you know, in the case of uh Berkeley Tuamy camp, um which which these fees addressed, we are um you know in in good shape, but you know, it is a um it is a camp that a lot of services are provided, so the fees are inching up there, but we're still in in good shape compared to other family camps.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Um, since there's no there are no more council questions, I'm gonna move to public comment.

Um, are there any public comments on item 23 changes to select with selected recreation and camps facilities and program fees?

Is there anybody online?

One commenter online.

Um this is uh Alan.

Alan, you should be able to unmute.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the city council.

My name is Alan Abchez.

I'm the chairperson of your parks recreation and waterfront commission.

In November, the Parks Commission received a presentation on the proposed recreation fees for uh fiscal year 2027.

As you know, the Parks Commission is quite concerned about the adequacy of Berkeley Parks funding.

Berkeley's currently unable to fund approximately 300 million dollars in capital and major parks maintenance projects, and on top of that, department is facing a potential 10% budget cut in the coming year.

Simply put, Berkeley's parks and programs are starved for adequate revenue.

After receiving staff's presentation on the proposed fees, the commission unanimously recommended that staff revisit the proposed fees because in many cases Berkeley is charging and proposes to charge less for comparable recreational programs and facility rentals than jurisdictions that surround it.

In many cases, materially less, as indicated in attachment three to this item in your packet.

The commission felt that it makes no sense for Berkeley to continue undercharging for recreational facilities and programs, especially given Berkeley's current fiscal environment and park funding needs.

Accordingly, my fellow commissioners asked that I appear tonight to request the city council not approve the proposed fee schedule and instead direct staff to revisit the proposed fees and bring them into better line with the fees surrounded by surrounding jurisdictions.

Every dollar counts, our parks are not in a thriving state.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Alan.

Any other comments?

No other commenters online.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you so much.

Um I'd like to see if there's a motion to close the public hearing.

Yeah.

So second.

All right, can we take the roll on that, please?

Okay.

Uh to close the public hearing, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Bartlett, yes.

I.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert, yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Public hearings closed.

Thank you very much.

Are there any council comments on this item?

Yes.

Councilmember O'Keefe.

Yeah, I just want to say briefly, um, because I have thrown a tantrum in the past about adventure playground fees.

I just want to say this is fine.

Um, and also the I'm remembering um my kids have aged out of uh needing camp now.

But um I remember the Berkeley Day camp, um, the affordability of it was a real life saver.

As a teacher, I haven't needed camp that much, but a few times we did, and you wouldn't, if you don't know, you wouldn't believe how expensive summer camp can be, and having that relatively affordable option of very high quality uh child care during the summer was amazing.

And that said, this new fee is still very affordable.

So I just want to mostly have an opportunity to shout out Berkeley Day Camp and give some appreciation, and this is fine.

Thank you.

Councilmember Humbert.

Yeah, I just want to thank Director Ferris and Park staff for all the work on this.

Raising fees is never fun, but given our budget situation and broader inflation, these cost increases are necessary to preserve the facilities and programs that we all value and that are so you know useful to us in terms of maintaining our sanity.

Um and using our public facilities and programs remains a very good deal relative to purely private options.

I also want to thank staff for devising the birthday package options.

I thought that was really creative and important.

It's a great idea to offer folks this opportunity and encourage more use of these facilities while maintaining general open public access.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Backabee.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Very briefly, I just wanted to respond to the uh parks chair's comments.

And I I I appreciate um the feedback because uh I do I think there's a tricky balance here.

We want these programs to be affordable and accessible for all our residents.

I think that's you know that is the most important thing.

These are services that um we want people to be able to avail themselves of at the same time we know we're entering a difficult um budget climate.

So I'm certainly open kind of moving forward to just you know uh how else we need to kind of strike this balance.

Um so uh you know, I'm gonna support uh certainly the the proposal from um our parks director and all the work they've done in this, but as we go through the coming months and the coming year, we're just gonna have to look not I'm not saying we're gonna look at you know just these things, but we have to look at a lot of things in our budget um in terms of how we are both generating revenue and and also um providing services.

Um and so I'm I'm open to if we make need to make future adjustments to make sure that we are properly funding these things, but I do just I do have real sensitivity making sure that's accessible to to everyone in Berkeley, and and that to me is still the number one goal.

But I do appreciate the feedback from the parks commission and um sensitive to that and it's very good feedback.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, going to Councilmember Taplin online.

Uh thank you.

Um on that note, I'm wondering whether it would be possible for staff to come back as we enter the budget uh season with potential options or uh fee levels that we can consider.

Uh Councilmember Taplin, we can we can do that.

We can incorporate some additional uh fee information uh as part of the budget deliberations when we come back uh to council through that process.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you very much and yes, just adding on my comments about the the challenges that we are going to be facing and the importance of looking at all the different options for increased fee revenue, while also balancing what council member Blackabi brought up around access.

I think that that's very important.

So thank you all so much for your comments there.

And um I know our council really understands the challenges that we face ahead and the importance of of also considering um our values as a city.

Um I did you want to say something?

Yeah, really quickly, just to follow up on that as well.

Um, and by the way, I love uh Tualny camp.

This will be this now the second year we've taken our kids, it's amazing, and I I will say, Scott, you're right, like the value for the amenities for what a family pays is I mean it's a very attractive option.

So as we're you know working with staff going forward, maybe the other way to think about it is making sure that certainly there's you know uh if you are at uh the the more modest end of the income spectrum, again, super affordable, make sure it's completely accessible and there might be some income-based things you could look at, but just we might be able to be creative in terms of I don't want to be assessing big fee increases on folks to discourage them from using the services.

So maybe there's some capacity or ability to pay that also comes into play.

I don't know.

Um I'm reluctant to go uh into this territory, but I think we're gonna have to at least look at it as we move forward.

So thank you.

Absolutely, thank you.

And I I know that the parks department is particularly um you know focused on equity and access, and that there are some options for scholarships for for different programs to the parks and recreation department.

So I just want to shout that out to thank the department, but also to to bring that to folks' attention if anyone's listening and um you know is is looking for some relief from some fees that we have.

Um okay, so um we have already voted to close the public hearing.

Um, is there a motion to move this item forward?

Oh moved.

Thank you.

All right, can we take the role, please, Clerk?

Okay, to approve the changes to selected recreation and camps facilities and program fees.

Councilmember Kessler White.

Yes, Taplin.

Yes, Bartley, yes, Traga.

Aye, O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion.

And carries.

Very good.

Moving on to item 20.

Thank you, staff.

Moving on to item 24, amendments to Title 23 zoning to permit by right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous housing elements and revisions related to design review.

All right.

Jordan, where's my fun acronym?

I'm just kidding.

Go for it.

Let's see if we can come up with one on the fly.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm going to pass it back to you.

Thank you.

Good evening again, Council members.

Jordan Klein.

Uh I'm joined at the staff table by Ann Hirsch, Ladies Planning Manager.

And Burns, Senior Planner, and our design review lead, and Justin Horner, Principal Planner for Policy.

And Justin is gonna bring up a very quick slide deck.

So I'm gonna do this.

Which one am I gonna share?

I guess this one.

No, that's what this one is one.

Okay.

And then presentation.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mary Ishi, members of the city council, Justin Horner, Planning Department staff.

Tonight I'll present amendments to the zoning ordinance to enact program 32 of the housing element regarding by right approvals of housing projects and revisions to our design review regulations for these program 32 projects and for middle housing projects in the MUR zoning district.

The 2023-2031 housing element update includes program 32, which requires the city to amend its zoning code to reflect the requirements of the California government code that allow residential uses by right, that is with a zoning certificate for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable on sites that have been listed as opportunity sites in previous housing elements.

There are currently 14 such projects or properties that meet the government code requirement, which are included on the map in the slide and listed in your staff report.

In future housing elements, the list of eligible eligible parcels may change as some sites are developed and others end up meeting the government code requirements.

The second item relates to design review for program 32 projects and for residential projects in the MUR, a middle housing zoning district.

As you recall, the intent of the middle housing changes was to approve new code compliant housing projects without any discretionary public hearings and without any appeal.

BMC section 23.406.070 contains the city's design review requirements.

To summarize for our purposes here, design review is required for all projects in all non-residential districts.

Therefore, design review applies to projects in the MUR district, which is a manufacturing or non-residential district, as well as any projects on sites identified through program 32, which are all in commercial, that is, non-residential districts.

Projects that do not require a use permit, such as program 32 and middle housing projects, receive staff level design review.

However, staff level design review decisions are appealable to the zoning adjustments board, and ZAB's decisions on DR on the DR appeal can be appealed to the city council, although that is quite rare.

As being able to use DR to appeal a project to the city council is inconsistent with the intent of ministerial approvals to avoid appeals, the proposed ordinance includes an abbreviated design review process recommended by the planning commission for MUR and Project 32 projects.

These include staff level design review, one advisory visit to the design review committee for design related input only, and a new provision that would exempt projects covered by this process from appeal to the ZAB or the City Council.

That's the end of my presentation.

Please hold a public hearing and we're available for any questions.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to uh pass it forward to are you ready?

Actually, yeah, yeah.

I'll I'll ask a question.

You're gonna ask a question?

Yeah.

Okay, you don't want to present your supplemental.

Um it's uh so uh Madam Mayor, I don't have a supplemental, I have um two short amendments that I want to make to the ordinance.

Um but before I do that, I so this is the public hearing, so I can ask a question.

Um Director Klein, can you just briefly explain what was your recommendation to the planning commission or or Mr.

Horner, you know, whoever wants to take it, what was your recommendation to the Planning Commission as it relates to middle housing projects in the mixed-use residential zone, and can you explain why you made that recommendation?

Our initial recommendation for both program 32 and for MUR projects, uh middle housing projects in the MUR was to exempt them from design review.

Um this was in our view consistent with the city council's intent to allow code compliant projects to be approved ministerially and not be subject to any discretionary hearing or any appeal.

And we uh in the process of uh implementing uh middle housing zoning changes came across this uh particular provision that would create an appeal pathway for middle housing projects.

Um we thought that we should remove that provision.

And um Mr.

Horner, can you just clarify why does the mixed-use residential zone, why does it historically have this uh requirement for design review, whereas the the residential zones do not?

Uh design review is required in any non-residential zone.

So any commercial zone and any manufacturing zone um requires design review for any project.

And so the MUR, although it permits residential, is classified as a manufacturing zone.

Okay, thank you very much.

I think we should close the public hearing and then I can um discuss my proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Sure, that's fine.

Are there other questions?

I no longer see council member taplin, but I think if his hand is raised, he'll pop up.

So I will then move us on to see if there are any public comments on this item.

So public comments on item 24, which is amendments to Title 23 zoning to permit by right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous housing elements and revisions related to the design review.

Is there anyone online who has public comments on this item?

We have three uh three hands raised.

Okay.

First speaker is um Cleo.

Cleo, you should be able to unmute.

Hi, um, I have a small observation here.

I notice that there's a property one zero four nine, one zero four nine Gilman Street, that is uh in the list of uh of properties.

And that's the location of the Dollar Tree.

And so I think uh the observation I'd like to make is that uh it's amazing that you know we're having by right uh authorizations to build housing that are gonna contain lots of um affordable housing, but we might also want to consider um that we want to keep things like the Dollar Tree because this is my neighborhood and it is the only affordable store in the entire neighborhood, and I know that I have neighbors uh who uh have been in the area for a very long time, and who uh are on the I'll say the lower end of the income spectrum uh and for whom that store is invaluable.

So this is great, but while you're doing it, don't forget to like keep the actual the affordable stores that you know uh people uh who would benefit from the lower income units might actually um want to use.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next is Kelly Hammergren.

Can you hear me okay without an echo?

Yes, okay.

Okay.

So I really pushed for this design review when I heard it at the planning commission because um I've been attending the planning commission for 10 years now.

I've missed very, very few meetings.

A design review has changed considerably in those 10 years from what it used to be very picky and many, many meetings.

And now with SB 330, we only have like one meeting at the beginning and then kind of a final on colors and products and things.

Do come to design review.

And design review really contributes a lot in terms of that of the building of just seeing so many projects over so many years to improve to improve the project, make improvements.

There are some things that the architects, you know, as good as they are will miss.

And the design review makes significant contributions.

And so that one uh stop at design review is really not gonna slow things down.

Um, there's uh a great benefit to improving the project because once it's built, you can't change you really can't change it.

But the design review committee can catch problems that have been, shall we say not considered or missed um in the development and the design of the of the building, and it's just um is just so important.

They contribute so much.

Thank you, Kelly.

Thanks for your comments.

And then uh the last speaker is Brianna Morales.

Hi, good evening again.

My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.

Um, we're a member supported advocacy organization working across California to advance housing at all income levels, and we see this as really about follow-through.

Um these sites were identified by the city um as appropriate places for housing, and so by allowing qualifying projects on these sites to move forward by right.

The city is honoring commitments it made um in its housing element and bringing local roles into alignment with state law.

Um we see this as a balanced approach.

It prevents housing, especially more affordable uh middle housing to from getting stuck in layers of process that add costs and uncertainty and delays without improving outcomes.

And I think importantly, for builders and communities alike.

Predictability is incredibly important when housing can move forward more efficiently, we get home sooner and lower um overall costs and a better chance that projects serve uh lower income households actually pencil out.

Um it benefits not just future residents but the broader community like local businesses, schools and neighborhoods that depend on people being able to live nearby.

Um it's a practical people focused step forward towards a more functional housing system.

Um so yeah, the housing action coalition strongly supports this ordinance and encourages um it to move forward.

So thank you for your time and continued leadership on housing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, that's that's it.

Okay, very good.

I will go back to um actually I'm gonna see if anyone has a if there's a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

Can we take the role on that, please, Clerk?

Okay, the closed public hearing, Councilmember Kissarwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett.

Yes.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Clackaby, yes, Luna Para.

Yes.

Humber.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, going to Council Comments, starting with Council Member Kesserwani.

Uh thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I hope we can uh wrap this up relatively quickly.

I want to thank our um planning director and Mr.

Horner for your very brief presentation.

And so I just want to recap the uh the planning department recommended that the Planning Commission eliminate the design review requirement for middle housing projects in the mixed use residential zone to better align with the council direction in the middle housing ordinance, which we you know we passed unanimously back in I think it was June, July.

Time flies.

So and what we said in the middle housing ordinance, remember is we want to treat all residential zones except for the hillside overlay zone equally.

They are gonna get the same density per acre, dwelling units per acre.

Um they are all going to have the opportunity to go through a buy right streamlined approval process.

So I I um I have great respect for our planning commission.

I it is my view that um their recommendation to have the small slice of middle housing projects that are five or more units in the mixed use residential zone to have a requirement to have one non-binding design review meeting.

I think that is going in the wrong direction.

Uh and uh the reason why is all other middle housing projects are gonna be able to go straight to that permit counter with their plans, and they don't have to go to design review.

And I think we heard in public comment that there's no delay.

There is a delay.

The design review um group, they meet monthly.

That's a one-month delay.

Um, I don't think we need to do that.

And I'm also thinking about the potentially new developers, people of color, people who are new who are trying to get into this development industry.

I think we should be lowering barriers and making it easier to enter this market.

And so I have a brief amendment that just reverts back to what the staff proposed that we're not gonna require design review for middle housing projects of five units or more in the mixed use residential zone.

On the housing element opportunity sites, I it's interesting that staff was they're also saying no design review.

When I looked at it today, um, you know, other sites in commercial zones do go to design review.

It's typically one non-binding meeting.

I don't um see anything wrong with that.

What I'm trying to do with these amendments is like let's just treat like projects the same.

So all middle housing projects in the city of Berkeley will be treated the same, no design review.

All of these sites and commercial zones will be treated essentially the same, they will go to design review.

Those are gonna be bigger projects, they may um it you know have greater benefit from the design review experience.

So with that, I'm going to share screen on Zoom and introduce.

Oh, someone else is sharing.

Let's see.

Share.

Okay.

Share.

Let's see if I can get the amendments up.

Those are visible.

Okay, so the first amendment here is in this B1A.

We are just saying except for residential uses in the MUR zoning district.

Oh, oh, even bigger.

Apologies.

It's big as I can go.

And still have it be visible.

Okay.

Okay, so that's the first edit, and then these edits below, these are the amendments that came out of planning commission.

Um, so what we're doing is we're leaving the housing element opportunity site portion, but we're just striking the piece about MUR and for projects including five or more units.

This again is just to treat all middle housing projects of any unit number in any zone the same.

And and you know, on a personal note, as somebody who represents this mixed-use residential zone on the far west side of the city, formerly redlined area, it just rubbed me the wrong way that we would treat this this part of town for projects that are trying to do a lot of density, five or more.

There, they're we're gonna put them through the ringer.

I I don't think we should be doing that.

So, so these are the amendments.

So I'd like to pass a motion to or make a motion to pass this ordinance with the amendments shown on the screen.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other council comments?

Oh, yes, Councilmember Tracub.

Thank you so much.

Uh uh.

I I just wanted to conform with Councilmember Kesarwani, um, and I appreciate your uh suggestions.

Um to clarify uh this would only exempt MUR uh middle housing title, um, quasi housing type proposal, but it would not alter anything under um uh like the proposed uh let me see if I can pull it up.

Um the balance of the um items and I'm specifically looking at uh for example the 14 sites um under program 32 um three of which are in my district.

So yes, we're gonna um go with the planning commission recommendation for that, which is those housing element opportunity sites, including the three in your district, they will have the non-binding design review meeting, an opportunity to improve the design of the project uh with this middle housing in the mixed-use residential zone.

Um it's it's uh the way I think about it is we're just treating those projects the same as the projects in the R zone.

So so where I live in R2, there is no design review requirement.

If I want to transform my parcel into a five plus unit middle housing middle income development.

Uh so we're just saying if you if you go far west to mixed use residential, you'd you'd have the same treatment with this amendment.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Yeah, I just want to say I'm supporting um, I'll support uh Councilmember Kasserwani's motion, and I just I really need to say I think was my hottest take has always been that design review is a waste of time, and I think we should get rid of it as much as possible.

Um architecture is an art form, and I don't think art uh benefits from a committee.

So that's my hot take.

So yes, I like this.

More of this, please.

Thank you.

Um Vice Mayor Luna Para.

I support the motion as well.

Okay, any other comments?

Okay.

Um yes, sorry, I forgot we were in comments, but I um I I will support this item, although um, and this is where um my colleague and I have maybe a slight albeit respectful disagreement having sort of done the design review committee, uh, I think uh committee members do good work, and um and I know that was not actually your comment, but um, I think the committee is very efficient.

I think it reviews project, most design review projects don't come back for a second design review meeting.

Uh that said uh it does make sense from a consistency and equity standpoint um to make the further um uh alteration to this proposal suggested by council member Casarwani.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

All right, thank you very much.

Um and then we have a motion on the floor.

Do we have the motion on the floor?

Yes, we do.

Sorry, I couldn't remember the second.

All right.

I'm also gonna be supporting the motion.

So if we could take the role, please clerk.

Okay.

On the motion by Councilmember Kessarwani, um, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trigum.

O'Keefe.

Yes, Blackbee.

Yes, Bunapara.

Yes, Humbert, yes, and Mary Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, staff.

Thanks for being here.

To the late hour of 9 56 p.m.

Councilmember Kesarwani, we've emailed that.

I'll email that to you.

Thank you.

Okay, so now public item, public comment on items not listed on the agenda.

Thank you.

Uh, first uh I want to say those throne bathrooms, they just open up.

They just open up after 10 minutes.

So ready or not, you're exposed.

Uh and uh last night I was um near San Pablo Avenue, and I noticed an older man in a wheelchair outside the Everett and Jones.

This is about nine o'clock at night.

Uh he didn't, he wasn't properly clothed for the weather.

I could share my scarf and my uh and a hat and and a jacket with him, but he was clearly cognitively impaired, um, isolated out there by himself, so I engaged with him.

He didn't know how he got there, he didn't even know he was in Berkeley.

Uh and um after it took almost I was with him for almost an hour, or probably over an hour at after 10 o'clock, and you know, mobile cr there was no mobile crisis, but I have to say the officer that responded, the Berkeley Police Department was Officer Edward Jacala, and he was incredibly epithetic.

The way he communicated with the man.

It was just uh he was very, very sensitive to him, very kind, making him comfortable, and um uh it was just really good to see an officer that was trained and skilled in this way to that was aware, you know, and he was taken away um in an ambulance, but to see that's situation that it could have gotten so much worse because the man I was holding on to his wheelchair, he kept trying to wheel away because he was convinced he was gonna make himself warmer if he wheeled miles away.

But it was it was uh that officer really deserves to be thanked for that.

What was the name again of the officer?

Uh Officer Edwin Jakala.

Thank you.

Thanks.

We can have our city manager pass it on to uh thanks to him as well.

Thank you.

Other um public comment on items not listed on the agenda.

Anyone online?

Yeah, we have four hands online.

Uh first is uh caller phone number ending in 211.

Well, good to talk to you.

Good to talk to you tonight.

I just thought to remind you, our great company contributed more over 1.2 million dollars to the city of Berkeley Finance, and business license, but it's like to be sixty, seventy thousand dollars a year, as well as self-stacks, which is sitting at one percent.

Uh so let's go forward.

Uh well, not only losing, we're in business, but our customer losing, and many of them are cursing you, or the fact that you did nothing when you had seven places vacant, and drank small.

And eventually you rented for one buck when we talked to this woman.

We told her we'll pay anything she wants.

We're never giving a chance.

Let's fix what was done wrong and go forward.

Again, we are dealing with horrible time with this monitor in the White House.

We need all of our strengths to build the city of Berkeley as it was before.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have Alfred Two.

Hi everyone.

I want to invite everyone to the Friday kickoff of Connect Bay Area, the ballot measure initiative to fund and save transit in the Bay Area.

Want to give a big thanks to everyone who's already endorsed the measure.

Encourage everyone else to as well at Connect Bay Area.org.

And there will be a kickoff at 10 o'clock on Friday at the embarcadero plaza, and then another one at 12 15 at the Alameda County Administration Voting in Oakland.

Hope to see you there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Halfred.

And then we have Daniel Brownson.

Hello.

Um, so recently Santa Cruz became I believe the first city to terminate their contract with Flock safety.

Um Berkeley should follow suit.

We know that the owners of this company, the people who run it are deep in with uh ties to the Trump administration.

We know that despite prohibitions on them doing so before they have shared uh information with ice, we know that ice is coming to the Bay Area.

Minneapolis will not be the end.

These cameras, as long as they are up, are weapons pointed at the very heart of our community?

Uh it's time to take them down.

Um people will say, oh, what but what about public safety?

But at the per current moment, there is no greater threat to the public safety of our community than the rising fascism that is now very much here, as we can see in Minneapolis, and those cameras will be used to track those who try to stand up against the fascist incursion when it comes to Berkeley, which it will.

Thank you, Daniel.

Uh we have uh Janice Ching.

Thank you for taking my comment.

I just have to um say on that last item that you discussed.

Um I don't understand why council members can propose supplementals after the public comment is closed.

I appreciate Mayor Ishii that you offered um the council member to present the supplemental, but uh you know maybe I missed it.

I read the packet, I listened to the staff report, I thought I understood the uh item, and then a supplemental is brought forward and I wasn't able then to comment about the new proposal and it passes.

Yeah, Janice.

I'm sorry, but this is actually public comment for items not listed on the agenda since the item that you're referring to was on the agenda already.

I understand your your comment.

I'm not commenting on the item, I'm commenting on the process.

That um council members are allowed to bring supplementals that completely change the staff recommendation after public comment is made and closed.

So I just want to voice my um opposition to that.

It if it's you know, if we're if we're at the meeting to comment on an item, we should hear all of what is going to be proposed, especially when it's already stated that there is a supplemental, it would have been good to hear it.

Thank you for your comment.

Um I appreciate I appreciate what you're saying, and I I do just want to say that um, you know, that there can be changes that are made on the dais um that are completely different from our what are in the agenda packet just generally, and I understand that that can be frustrating, and the purpose of um, you know, um closing the public hearing um is it and is really so that um we can actually take a vote on what we're talking about.

So I understand it's it's frustrating and appreciate your comment.

Are there other comments online?

Uh yes, two more Kelly Hammergren.

Um I know surveillance is coming up at next meeting, and um it's very concerning.

Um my family's in the greater Twin Cities area, Minneapolis, St.

Paul, Minnesota.

And whatever you've seen on television or may have heard or have seen on videos, it's worse.

It's worse than that for the people that are there.

It is terrifying.

It's terrible.

People are being sheltered.

It it's just really awful.

And at some point they'll probably be here.

And I think you all need to be thinking about the future.

We're no longer living in the same kind of world, the same kind of democracy that we thought we had, even though democracy wasn't the same for everyone.

But this is this is very, very bad.

So I'll leave you with that thought for the night.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

And Jeff Lomax.

Yeah, Kelly's always a tough act to follow, and that was a great comment, so thanks for that.

But I I do want to return to the previous comment.

I I mean I actually supported um Member Kashuwani's um amendment, but I do agree that the uh you're basically icing out your you could substantially change an item and then you're icing the public out of any participation in that change.

And you all have the discretion to re-invite comment, so it nothing has to change, but I think once you make a substantial change to uh an item, you should give the public who are spending their time and their intellect to be part of this process the opportunity to respond once that change is made.

So I um I just want to concur with the uh the prior comment, and again thank Kelly.

I agree completely.

Have a good evening.

Thank you for your comment.

Are there other comments?

Thank you very much, everyone.

Okay.

With that, I will see if there's a uh I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Can we take the role, please, Clerk?

Uh to adjourn.

Uh Councilmember Kissarwani.

Yes.

Tablin.

Yes, Bartlett.

Yes.

Oki.

Yes.

Blackabi.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

Mary Ishii.