Hello, everyone, good evening.

All right.

Hello.

I am going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

Clerk, could you please take the roll?

Okay, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Here.

Kaplan.

Bartlett.

Here.

Tregu, I.

O'Keefe.

Present.

Here.

Lackaby.

Here.

Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert present and Mayor Ishi.

Here.

Okay.

Quorum is present.

All right.

So it is the first meeting of February, so we will have Councilmember O'Keefe read the land acknowledgement statement.

For those of you that don't know, we've been taking turns reading the land acknowledgement.

And so, Councilmember O'Keefe, if you could take it away, please.

Okay.

The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of the Huchun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Tucheno speaking Alone 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 Alone 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.

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

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

Thank you very much, Councilmember.

We will now move on to ceremonial items.

So we have a proclamation that was brought by Councilmember Humbert.

So, Councilmember, you're welcome to read the proclamation, and I know you have some remarks as well.

And actually, if the awardees would like to come forward, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll the whole troupe could come up if you'd like.

The entourage, thank you.

I want to thank the mayor and her staff for helping create a proclamation recognizing the work of Tom Broham and Barry Warren, who were instrumental in advocating for the City of Berkeley to establish first in the nation recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships.

I'm proud that these brave and persistent men are Berkeleyans.

Whereas Tom Broham and Barry Warren have shared their lives together since 1975, and through their tireless advocacy, fundamentally changed the landscape of civil rights for the LGBTQIA plus community in Berkeley, the United States, and across the world.

And whereas in 1979, while working for this city, the city of Berkeley, Tom Brough discovered that he could not enroll his partner Barry Warren in city health and dental benefits because those programs were strictly limited to married spouses.

And whereas Tom Broham recognized a critical contradiction between Berkeley's 1978 non-discrimination ordinance and its exclusionary marriage-based benefits, leading him to author two historic letters in August 1979, proposing the first domestic partnership policy.

And whereas Tom and Barry spent years persistently lobbying the City of Berkeley, the University of California, and local unions to adopt this new legal protection, providing a path for equity rooted in basic fairness and recognizing shared humanity.

And whereas their work inspired the formation of the East Bay Lesbian Gay Democratic Club, which organized a methodical community-led campaign that successfully made domestic partnerships a central issue in the 1984 Berkeley municipal elections.

And whereas in December 1984, the City of Berkeley enacted the first policy of its kind in California, and I think the nation, and Tom Brom and Barry Warren became the first couple to file for employee domestic partnership benefits under this landmark legislation.

And whereas this pioneering policy served as a national model, overcoming the resistance of health care providers, employers, and reactionary opposition, and paving the way for statewide registries, civil unions, and eventually full marriage equality.

Whereas Tom Broham continued his service to the public as the first openly gay elected official in the East Bay, serving as Peralta College community district trustee from 1986 to 2000, 14 years, where he remained a champion for educational opportunity.

And whereas since 2000, on a lighter note, Barry and Tom have hosted more than 100 community events, including more than 90 supper and song dinner concerts, bringing together local musicians and music lovers in celebration and community, and whereas Barry Warren, Barry and Warren's steadfast partnership in his own advocacy as a University of California employee were indispensable to the success of this movement, which has since provided immeasurable benefits, security, and dignity to millions of families.

Now, therefore, it be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii, mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby recognize Tom Broham and Barry Warren for their visionary leadership, their decades of activism, and the historic role in securing the first domestic partnership policy, ensuring that the City of Berkeley and the United States remain beacons of equality and justice for all.

If you'd like to say a few words, you can.

And I will present this city of the formal City of Berkeley proclamation.

I'll come out.

My remarks are going to be very brief, because the proclamation said so much, it was so detailed in recounting the steps that we originally went through.

So I thank you for the thoughtfulness of the proclamation and for the work that went into it.

You did your research.

At the time there was no other place on the face of the earth that would have undertaken the risk of when the city council took seat in 1984, they basically said, do it and we'll pay the bills.

There was it was a great act of faith.

No one quite knew how it would work, and we thought it would work just fine, but there was no precedent at all.

And so I think it's a great celebration of this community that this is the first place in the world that simply stepped up to the plate and said, let's do it, we'll pay for it.

Thank you.

We will have pictures.

Here, we'll hear you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

We now have a proclamation and also an adjournment in memory in honor of Todd Walker.

Family, friends, folks who are here to support him, you're welcome to come up to the podium here.

And this adjournment in memory was brought forward by Councilmember Ben Bartlett, Councilmember for District Three.

And I will read the proclamation as you are coming up.

Honoring the life and legacy of Todd Walker.

Whereas Edward Todd Walker was a beloved son, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, coach, mentor, and esteemed colleague who devoted his life to serving the Berkeley community with unwavering commitment and love.

And whereas Todd Walker served as a community peace ambassador, life coach, street outreach worker, violence interrupter, and community leader, dedicating himself to community-led gun violence prevention and intervention work that saved lives and transformed our city.

And whereas through his work with Live Free California, Todd Walker was instrumental in achieving Berkeley's historic milestone in 2025 of a hundred percent reduction in gun violence, a testament to his tireless efforts and the power of community-centered approaches to public safety, and whereas Todd Walker was a pillar of faith and service at McGee Avenue Baptist Church, where his spiritual leadership touched countless lives and created a foundation of hope and healing for community members.

And whereas Todd Walker built bridges across our community, working collaboratively with city leaders, journalists, community residents, youth and families, and sports teams to create a safer, more connected Berkeley.

And whereas Todd Walker's life exemplified the values of compassion, dedication, servant leadership, and an unshakable belief in the potential of every person he encountered.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Adina Ishi, mayor of the city of Berkeley, hereby honor the life and legacy of Todd Walker, recognizing his invaluable contributions to our city and celebrating the remarkable impact of his life and work.

And I was told that we had two options, and that Todd came up with me.

And so we're talking as we coming up.

And I said, Okay, well, I'm gonna take you know 30 seconds, and I'm gonna give you 30 seconds.

He pushed me in my back, he said, No, you got it, you got it.

Um I was interested in seeing him publicly speak, knowing his track record, his history.

Um Todd has a legacy um within the work within the community um that will never be forgotten.

Um he's touched so many lives, he's impacted so many people.

Um a true trooper.

Um, to those who do not know and hadn't had the opportunity to spend time with him, Todd was a true historian of Berkeley.

Um if you sat down with him, he would give you knowledge and information um from his experience growing up in the city, um, information that was passed down from you know his older brothers and um as well as his own experience, and so um our hearts are deeply saddened in this moment, um, but we're also inspired to know um that we must continue to allow his legacy to live on.

We must continue to put forth the work and the efforts um to make uh public safety a reality in the city of Berkeley, to challenge all individuals, um, to to relinquish sides and come together as one community for the sake of peace and justice.

Todd was an advocate, a fierce advocate, um, as someone who stood by principles, and um in a short amount of time that that we worked together, he showed me so much.

I remember seeing uh uh um a new special in 2006 or seven, um, as I was dealing with some of the young men in my career that we've lost to gun violence.

Um I met Todd at a funeral of one of my young persons, um, and it was his commitment to that family and making sure that things were done dignified, um, to make sure that there was honor and respect towards the loss of the family members, but also honor and respect towards community.

And so we just want to continue to allow his legacy to live on.

We're gonna continue to do this great work um in honor of him, and we just really appreciate.

I want to acknowledge both of his daughters are here tonight, um, and I want to acknowledge his brother, his one of his oldest brothers, I mean older brother is here as well tonight.

So, on behalf of the live free team, on behalf of the city of Berkeley, we thank you and appreciate you for this acknowledgement, and we'll continue to do great work in his name.

Thank you.

Um, so we just have to use this remote.

He was really involved.

Okay, overall, right.

Oh, and then it's a good one.

So, what are they trying to do there?

They're trying to get out of here.

Oh, so they're trying to incentives that's the new thing.

Because that's a huge moment.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so the final ceremonial item this evening, um, it's just a very brief presentation that I have.

Um, I was recently in Washington, DC.

Um, and I want to make sure that you all know about my trip there.

Yes.

Okay.

Hmm.

If I do this, then you won't be able to, I won't be able to see my notes.

So I'm gonna keep it here.

All right.

Okay, so all right, everyone.

So at the end of January, excuse me.

All right, at the end of January, I attended the United States Conference of Mayors, followed by the mayor's innovation project at the U.S.

Conference of Mayors.

Uh so you can see I went to the US Conference of Mayors.

I'm also going to talk about the Mayor's Innovation Project.

I'm going to briefly discuss some of the lobbying that I did there and also some key takeaways.

So at the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, there are three significant bipartisan takeaways that I want to share.

Um, housing was a really big topic there.

The conference opened with a statement from uh from Republican Senator Tim Scott and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who came in person to talk about the bipartisan unanimously supported road to housing bill.

This bill encompasses things that both parties could agree on to address the national housing crisis by growing more housing stock.

Um there was also very clear opposition to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration, uh DHS, Customs Enforcement, Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE, and Customs and Border Patrol, uh CBP takeover and invasion of American cities, along with indiscriminate attacks on our immigrant community.

During the U.S.

Conference of Mayors Press Conference, we heard public testimonies from Minnesota mayors and the terror being imposed on their communities.

Some of the mayors shared that they themselves are carrying around their own passports because they're concerned that they may get picked up off the street.

They talked about businesses being closed, schools, where children are not going to school because they're afraid of what's going on.

And I think it's important to bring that back to our community so that folks know about what's happening in other parts of our country.

Another thing I wanted to bring up that I thought was important for my colleagues to know in particular is the we were talking about the safety and security of elected officials.

So I've actually asked our city manager and our chief of police to do a security audit of our building, and I want to recommend that all of my council colleagues also do security audits of their homes as well if they haven't had an opportunity to do so.

It's a very scary time, unfortunately, for those of us who are elected leaders and leaders from around the country were talking about some of the scary incidents that they faced.

So I want to bring that up as something important for folks to know about.

The two days were full of workshops and sessions on a full range of topics, and uh Julie Sinai, who is my chief of policy, and I attended sessions on artificial intelligence, housing, city design, transportation, immigration responses, and economic development.

I also attended the API mayor's session and uh volunteered to assist them in growing.

Um so the next thing I want to talk about is the mayor's innovation project.

So immediately following the US conference of mayors was the one and a half day Mayor's Innovation Project, MIP.

MIP is a national learning network for mayors committed to shared prosperity, environmental sustainability, and efficient democratic government.

They support mayors around the country who are taking the lead on pressing issues climate change, racial equity, economic revitalization, housing, and more.

The four in-depth sessions that we attended were leading under pressure, protecting elected officials, looting through uncertainty, a fiscal playbook for a thriving community, very relevant to our conversations that we're having right now about the budget crisis, from crisis to community asset, building a supportive child care ecosystem for families and workers, and building an age-friendly city, the imperative of aging in place.

That photo in particular was about the aging session, very interesting topics from our young and to our older members of our community.

Additionally, we got the benefit of an innovation showcase, which is a speed dating type of presentation form from 10 cities sharing innovations over the past few years.

Everything from seawalls to protecting urban trees, parks, housing, transit, better public meetings, and more.

They only had, I think, three minutes to present each, so it's very quick.

The annual winter sessions are timed with the opening of the congressional session to make the most out of mayoral power and influence with the 119th Congressional session.

So while in DC, we leveraged this time to meet with our congressional delegation.

Um I had four productive meetings.

We met with U.S.

Forest Service, which was virtual given the snowstorm.

I don't know if you know, but when I was in DC, there was really record storm.

Our purpose was to talk with the department uh leads about our Embers policy.

We met with the branch chief, the California lead, and other members of the Forestry Service.

They applauded our city for being the first in the country to seriously prepare for and address wildfire risks in our wildland urban interface, our embers program, they said is the first of its kind in the nation.

They were very interested in learning more about how we're implementing our ordinance, what's working, what isn't.

We stressed the importance of the department uh continuing to provide the research and science supporting our efforts.

Um I also, of course, highlighted our really great community efforts and all the efforts that are happening from our fire department, including interns who are literally going door to door.

I met with Senator Schiff and had the opportunity actually to connect with him one on one-on-one.

Of course, we talked about fire safety and Ember, but also small businesses and just Portos.

I don't know if you know, but he's from Burbank originally.

Um Porto's is a great bakery down there.

Anyway, it's important to have those conversations too.

Um we met with Congresswoman Lasifa Simon's office, uh, her legislative director.

It was great to provide some context.

Oftentimes, folks who are working in DC haven't actually been to the cities that they're representing, so it's good for them to understand what we're doing in our city.

Senator Alex Padilla's office, we met with legislative staff who lead the senators' housing, immigration, and fire policy agendas, and we also met with Senator Adam Schiff's staff, which met with uh about housing, disaster preparedness, and health.

I gave updates on what our city is doing to address various issues, what opportunities there could be to work together, and we asked them what we could be doing to support their work in Congress.

Some of the ideas included uh lots of interest in keeping up to date on our embers work, commitment to staying engaged and updated on ICE activity in the bay, and continuing to provide stories from the district that support our policy goals.

And as part of the conference of mayors, I joined the delegation of California mayors in a one-hour briefing with both Senators Pitya and Schiff, where the focus was on immigration and also infrastructure.

They allowed us to ask questions, and one of the things that I mentioned was about thinking about how we can continue to move things forward as as many of the things in our country feel like they're actually going backwards.

And so briefly just my key takeaway is just housing housing housing.

It's amazing how mayors across the country are all talking about housing and homelessness and the importance of building importance of building more housing.

Um, immigration, of course, was a was a very serious topic, as I mentioned, and bipartisan unity.

I was very heartwarmed to see that mayors around the country were willing to have conversations across party lines in order to be um focused on the matters that at hand and really supporting our community members.

Um I think that that was really important, so thank you all for for giving me some time to talk about that.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Very good.

Now moving us on to the agenda.

We are now finished with our ceremonial item um items, and I will check to see if the city manager has any comments.

No comments, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Okay.

We will now take public comment on non-agenda matters.

Okay.

Uh so we'll draw five cards for in-person speakers, and then now is the time if you're participating remotely on Zoom.

If you intend to speak on non-agenda matters, now it's time to raise your hand.

Okay, so the five speakers and please come up in any order is uh Steve Tracy, Gina Rieger, Carol Morosevic, Steven Alpert, and Pam Jacob.

So if you heard your name called, please come on up.

Come on up.

There's a chance to speak at the end of the meeting.

Good evening, uh, mayor, council and and um City of Berkeley, is it manager and attorney?

Redundant.

I think no longer needed.

Redundant.

That's our health department in Berkeley.

Twenty-seven million dollars of a deficit.

Almost half of it, is a redundant health department.

The county's number is way bigger than $12 million.

It's $1.4 billion.

So Berkeley is spending one percent of the county total.

But we save.

Let's see, 12 out of 27.

We could save about half of that deficit by getting rid of the redundant department.

Any chance we can rotate this to where it was last year, so the speaker doesn't have their back to the audience, and the speaker can acknowledge certain individuals without having to twist the neck.

Is that your time's up?

I didn't hear the sound, but your time is actually up.

And the actually the podium has been consistently that way.

Next speaker.

It was at an angle before.

Thank you.

Before I speak, I just want to address these three screens are unseeable by people in the audience.

We can't see anything really on them.

This is part of your time.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um I recently went to a Save Our Shops meeting, and what I heard was pretty appalling.

None of the shop owners in either the in any of the three districts.

We're talking about the corridor upzoning, the Elmwood, the Solano, and North Shaddock charming areas, which the City of Berkeley economic depart economic opportunities thing touts as being having the charming village quality that we all love.

That's a recent thing that you've put out about why people come to Berkeley, and yet you're talking about putting up eight-story buildings in these areas.

It's a disgrace.

And you need to include the people who live here and work here.

Thanks for your comment.

Good evening.

I'm Dr.

Stephen Alpert.

I forwarded a copy of this recent publication by the London School of Economics.

Inequality, not regulation drives America's housing affordability crisis, to the council and to the to planning director Klein.

This article examines and dismisses a core belief that the shortage of housing in the U.S.

is primarily due to excessive regulation.

These international recognized academics maintain that housing affordability crisis is driven by broader economic inequality rather than solely by regulation and by lack of supply.

From the abstract, a popular view holds that declining housing affordability stems from regulations that restrict new supply, that deregulation will spur sufficient market reconstruction to improve affordability.

And even a dramatic deregulation-driven supply extension would take decades to donate widespread affordability.

Thanks for your comment.

You all received this.

Thank you.

Hi Carol.

First, I want to speak on the information report in terms of switching from uh taxis to the go-go grandparent.

And I uh agree with this because the taxi drivers in part I agree with this because the taxi drivers often ask $20 minimum is $50 minimum's huge tips, uh don't turn on their meters, etc.

Uh, but I would ask staff to make one revision, which is instead of to go go grandparent, to make it optional whether someone can book Lyft on their own, left or Uber, or go go grandparent.

And uh as an example, last week, I uh reserved a ride to go go grandparent that uh charged me $14 and something, and I looked at had I booked booked Lyft directly, it would have been six dollars and ninety-four cents.

So they're clearly charging the highest price and a fee on top of it.

Now again, I uh I understand some people don't know.

Carol, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comment.

There's actually a mic uh that's uh down here if you'd like.

There's one uh right here, if that's easier to reach.

Good evening, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Pamela Jacob, and I'm a resident at a senior uh building in Berkeley at Helio's corner, and I have been a recipient of Taxi Script now for years.

I'm in a low low-income uh area, and it's been my lifeline to maintain my health to the outside world needs.

The shop cat backs now to once every seven months.

Six for high medical needs, one per month, and three for regular for seven months for shopping and errands has turned my life upside down.

I have to cancel most of my many needed medical appointments to accommodate this cutback and my lifelong Richmond twice a week, and my PT swim therapy that costs sixty dollars round trip one single way, which uses up all my go-go credits.

I'm able to take public transport or paratransit due to a thank you.

I'm so sorry, but your your time is up.

Okay, but thank you.

Yeah, I if you haven't written council already, um perhaps my staff can also share some of their contact information with you.

Thank you.

Yeah, they'll they'll walk over and and give you a card.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we'll move to five speakers on Zoom.

Uh, first raised hand is you have one minute each.

First raised hand is speaker with a caller number, uh the number ending in zero zero zero.

Hi, uh good evening.

Very nice to talk to you again.

My assistant again, Roy handed you uh a couple of documents, one about the business history, 52 years, and uh I request a friendly meeting with the mayor, Yishi.

Friendly meeting, we just got different options.

Okay, now we have to talk about what is happening in the country.

This is more softy.

You're not going after brown people, Mexican Latinos or blacks as you called Obama a monkey.

This is unbelievable.

This man belongs to a mental hospital or prison, not a not a president, and we need all of us to stand up because they come after you, you uh you come after the first black uh brown, whatever.

Then they come after everybody is a typical fascist style of skiing.

He's also throwing cancy, is also thrown horse for putting Russia.

He put it every day at all at once.

Thanks for your public comment.

Thank you.

Your time's up.

Next speaker is Della Luna.

Yes.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

So I wanted to talk about um, well, recently in the paper, there was the story about the elderly woman who passed away in the fire.

And what stood out to me was how uh uh her neighbors tried to get her help and support and called the city multiple times, or BHA, the housing authority, and or the fire department, because the woman had been collecting items and her house was full.

But this reminded me of the previous news story we read about a man who was in the homeless shelter and he was murdered there, and they were also calling the city and letting them know that there were problems in the uh in that institution.

So I have called the city and I get the same response.

Some staff don't respond, and there needs to be more oversight.

The city might have policies, but departmental practices are not um in alignment with those policies if they exist.

And I would like for you all to publish your standard operating procedures so that the constituents know like what is expected of the staff when they uh when they are contacted by us.

Thanks, Stella.

Next is Amelia Purnell.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh I just wanted to comment on the rise in authoritarian violence.

The mayor mentioned in her uh field trip report.

I'm uh just my neighbors and I are terrified that this council has chosen to meet the moment by removing police accountability and instead looking for ways to give BPD more access to weapons of war to use against your constituents.

Um firing the director of police accountability for doing his job too much without your permission represents a huge waste of taxpayer time and money.

Um I'm I'm really terrified that this is what you guys are seeing when you look out the window as we are facing this huge amount of violence that BPD doesn't need oversight anymore, and that's really scary to us.

Um, they've lied to council several times in the last few times that they've testified, especially about abuse of flock cameras, and you've responded by giving them more access to spy on us.

Uh I think that they need more oversight now than ever.

Thanks for your comment.

Uh all right.

Next is uh Janice.

Janice, you should be able to unmute.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

I want to urge city council to um uphold the public right to speak on items that you are going to discuss.

Um, what happened at the last um city council meeting for those who missed it?

Uh, council member um proposed an item but chose not to uh sorry uh proposed small amendments to an ordinance presented by planning staff, but instead of sharing it so that the public could comment on them.

She stated, I think we should close the public hearing and then I can discuss my proposed amendments.

Now, this may not have been a violation of the Brown Act, but it does violate the spirit of the law, and I understand that last minute changes may come up, but changes that are purposely withheld should not be allowed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And the last speaker on non-agenda comments is Will Amina.

Will Amina, you should be able to speak.

Willamina, you should be able to unmute.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

I just wanted to make a comment about the um zoning proposal.

I want to urge the council to step back for a minute and think of what we have in Berkeley, which is unique.

I have seen tour buses drive up to experience people getting off the experience chapice, the cheese board, and all the other little restaurants in that area, and the idea that you'd have a golden goose like this that brings in so much revenue.

I propose putting high-rise buildings into what people consider a French country little area.

I think you're gonna the city, and please think creatively, don't just put up high-rise buildings because you think it's part of a ill-conceived plan.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

That concludes non-agenda public comments for the beginning of the meeting.

There is another period of non-agenda public comments at the end of the meeting.

Okay, thank you very much.

So, this since this is the first uh meeting of the month, we also have time for public comment by employee unions.

Are there any employee unions here today?

Or if you are in a union you're online, you can also raise your hand.

And no, no hands raised for representatives from employee unions.

Okay, all right.

So we will move on to the consent calendar then.

All right.

So at this time, if there are any council members who have comments and consent, please uh go ahead and press your button.

Starting with council member Tracob.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I just for the record need to note that I will be recusing myself on item three amendments to Title 21 to allow separate sale of ADUs as a post-1996 tenant in an AD.

Thank you.

Other comments on consent.

Do you want to get council member?

Thank you, uh Madam Mayor.

Yes, I uh like council member tragic, I would also like to recuse on item number three.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Say Clerk, could you speak to what that looks like?

So we'll just um vote.

Uh well I uh council members uh Tregov and Casserwani can recuse themselves.

We'll vote on item three, then they can return, and then we'll vote on the balance of the consent calendar.

Okay, sure.

Thank you.

Are there other comments?

I'm just look checking to see.

No.

Okay.

Um I do want to just appreciate staff uh for pursuing funding for our housing, our much needed housing.

Item number nine is the application for pro-housing incentive program funds, PIP funds.

The city of Berkeley is eligible to pay for up to 1.2 eligible to apply, excuse me, for up to 1.25 million dollars through the state of California Department of Housing and Community Development's uh Pro Housing Incentive Program.

The final award amount will be decided as part of the competitive application.

The funding will be used to support the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services programs and support of low-income or unhoused residents, including the Housing Trust Fund Program and/or eligible homeless services.

So thank you very much to staff uh for doing that.

All right, I will then close council comments and open to public comments.

If you have a public comment on council or consent items only, please come on up.

Uh both of these uh, along with several other measures you've been uh uh passing recently, incentivize speculation.

Speculation has consequences, whether you want to re uh recognize it or not.

On the one hand, and you can't you can't um you can't predict what way it's gonna go.

On the one hand, you could get more displacement, more gentrification, more on housed folks.

On the other, you would have underwater properties and bankruptcies, or things go sour on your speculation.

Thank you.

Do you have a comment on consent or information items?

Yeah, I have a comment on the way just spoke of uh Mayor Adina Ishi Thursday.

Well, my name is Irania De La Mora, and I'm here to speak on the housing situation.

I think housing is very expensive, people don't make enough money, and I appreciate you all saying that you're gonna do affordable housing, but it'd be very helpful if you mention how much it would cost, rather than just saying affordable and not saying the price or giving a website where you give the prices because I've been to many meetings on different councils, and they always say affordable housing, but then when the housing comes out, it's not affordable.

It's around 3,000 to 2,500, which is the normal, which is everywhere else.

If it's going to be affordable, it needs to be affordable, like one thousand nine hundred people make twenty-five, eighteen dollars an hour.

So it'd be very hopeful when you say affordable, you give a number, not just say affordable and be vague, and then it'll be affordable when it actually comes out.

Also, you're gonna do affordable housing, it'd be good to also make more jobs just like Donald Trump is doing.

I know a lot of people in the Bay Area do not like Donald Trump, but I do and I voted for him, and I appreciate how he not just tries to make more housing, but he tries to bring more jobs.

Okay, because very nice.

You want to give affordable housing, but how are people gonna pay for it?

They need jobs.

And right now, jobs since COVID, which was brought by China to America into the whole world, has caused a severe unemployment, so and close down many jobs.

Let me finish my time.

And I would really appreciate with affordable housing, you also create more jobs for average people, entry-level jobs, so people can actually have jobs because people are suffering right now looking for jobs, and I appreciate that kind of and that is all.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

You have a question?

No, go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

If you have a statement, you can okay, appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hi Maria, we're on a public comment on consent or information items.

Yes, thank you.

And first of all, I want to thank you for going all the way to Washington DC and surviving the snow and talking to everyone about us.

I really appreciate it.

Uh, and I know you I'm really grateful, is the point, and because Berkeley has been first, I'm concerned that we're slipping a bit, especially when it comes to housing, because there are so many high development buildings going up, it's difficult to drive, park, etc.

So, you know, the the ratio of affordable or moderately affordable units is so minimal, and this could doctor that spoke earlier when he spoke about inequality.

It's like, okay, this is what the world is doing.

We've got those that have and those that have not, and it's not working because the majority of people have not, and it's getting worse.

So I'm concerned about that.

I'm really glad that uh we're considering bike registration and licensing, because I'm having a hard time not running over people, because they're coming out at night in black, no lights, no nothing, and they are utterly uh, you know, just taking advantage of things and being motorized and shipping and I'm really scared for them.

Uh yeah, and God bless the firefighters and just each and every one of us, but I really hope we start encouraging more caring and sharing and more courtesy, because we're not gonna get through this if we don't start taking care of ourselves more responsibly and each other, because it's really alarming out there.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Maria.

Uh, are there any online public comments for consent or information items only?

There's currently two hands raised for the consent calendar, consent and information items only.

First is Bryce Nasbit.

Yes, we can hear you.

I encourage council to take item one, which is the bicycle registration item, off consent and discuss it.

Most of it's completely obsolete, and should be gotten rid of.

But there's a baby in that bath water, there's a present rule that requires dealers to report sales.

It's in the wrong way, but there is a modern system called bike Index.

Which can match an owner with a serial number of a bicycle, and a requirement to require that the bicycles purchased in Berkeleys be registered by the dealer.

Is a low cost, high impact way to help people get back stolen bicycles.

So I think you got it close, but pull it off consent.

Talk about it a little bit more.

Thank you.

And the last speaker for consent information is a speaker with a phone number ending in 211.

Should be able to unmute.

Okay, I'd like to talk about consent item number four.

In 1968, I've got no, I'm sorry.

Uh in um uh Craigmont.

28,000.

Beautiful house.

Still exists.

I don't own it anymore.

For 101,000.

Now both of this house is now worth over two million dollars.

What happened?

Private equity firm.

For money from India, Russia, um, everywhere, United States, criminals, Nelson Friedman, the all of this horrible crowd of money, money, money.

And uh the close at that won't go forever.

We're going to have far worse crash than the 2008 for me and many members of my friend, loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Lost in this everybody, give me a call, conversation.

510 848 5000.

510, 848, 5000, two year old phone number.

Thank you.

Bring it back again.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Okay, that's it.

No more speakers for consent or information.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, um, so now moving on.

I know we said we were gonna pull out three, so is there a motion to approve item number three on the consent calendar?

So move, second.

Okay.

Could you take the role, please, clerk, after she's uh uh on uh consent item number three, uh council member taplin?

Yes, Bartlett, yes, O'Keefe, yes, Blackabee, yes, Bunapara, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishii.

Yes, okay, okay, all right.

Um maybe we should get them to come back for the rest of the consent calendar.

Um, someone grab them really quickly, thank you.

Uh the city attorney went back to oh okay, yes.

My job is.

Okay, all right.

Um now at this time is there a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar, so second.

Okay, moved by council member Bartlett, seconded by Councilmember Humbert.

Um could you please take the roll?

Okay, on the balance of the consent calendar, Councilmember Cassarwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trega, aye, O'Keefe, yes, Blackaby, yes, Unapara, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishii.

Yes, okay, motion carries.

All right, thank you all very much.

Consent calendar is now complete.

Seven o'clock.

We are now gonna move on to the action calendar.

We only have one item on our action calendar this evening.

It is a public hearing.

So I'm going to open the public hearing for item number 14 zoning adjustments board appeal 2109 Virginia.

Uh use permit ZP two zero two four-zero zero six-six.

And I know we have a presentation, but just so folks know what's gonna happen.

We're gonna have a presentation.

Um, and then we'll hear five minutes from the appellant, five minutes from the applicant, take public comments on this item, take council questions, close the hearing, have council deliberations, and then vote.

So I will pass it over to the planning department.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council Members.

Jordan Klein, Director of Planning and Development.

I'm joined at the staff table here.

Uh at the far end, that's Sharon Gong, principal planner.

Uh Ann Hirsch, Lanny's planning manager, and presenting for staff this evening is Singe Saliki, senior Planner, and the Lany's team.

All right, good evening, Council and Madam Mayor.

As Jordan said, my name is Singe Saliki, and I'm a senior planner with the land use planning division.

Tonight I'm presenting on 2109 Virginia Street, an appeal of a zoning adjustment board decision to approve a use permit to demolish a non-residential building and parking lot and build a mixed-use residential building with 110 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space, off-street and bicycle parking spaces.

I'll present the review history of the proposed project and provide project specific details before addressing the appeal issues.

On December 14, 2023, the city received a preliminary use permit application pursuant to SB 330.

The preliminary application was deemed complete and thereby vesting the development rights on December 27, 2023.

A use permit application was submitted on June 3rd, 2024 and was deemed complete on July 3rd, 2024.

On October 7, 2024, the LPC held a public hearing and took no action to initiate a landmark or structure of merit designation.

On May 15, 2025, the DRC held a public hearing and provided a favorable recommendation to the ZAB.

On July 10, 2025, the city mailed and posted public hearing notices.

On July 24th, 2025, the applicant requested to remove the item from the action calendar of the ZAB public hearing.

On August 28, 2025, the city mailed and posted new public hearing notices.

On September 11, 2025, the Zab held a public hearing and voted to approve the use permit.

The city received an appeal from nearby residents on September 30th, 2025.

Today's hearing is the fourth out of five public meetings allowed under SB 330.

The project site is located on the northeast corner of Shaddock Avenue and Virginia Street in the North Berkeley neighborhood.

The half acre lot is split zoned and contains one commercial district on approximately 90% of the lot and two residential districts on the remaining 10% of the lot.

Properties in the same zoning districts surround the site, except to the south across Virginia Street, where the zoning is corridor commercial.

The area is characterized by residential and commercial buildings that are one to three stories tall with commercial uses primarily fronting on Shaddock Avenue.

Surrounding uses include commercial uses to the north and west and a multifamily building to the south.

To the east is a commercial use and residences.

The project provides approximately 7,000 square feet of usable open space, 64 bicycle parking spaces, and new street trees on Virginia Street.

The site is identified as a housing opportunity site in the city's adopted housing element.

Due to the site size, exceeding half an acre, it was identified as a high potential site for redevelopment of residential uses with a capacity of 50 dwelling units per acre.

This is a rendering of the proposed project from Shaddock Avenue looking northeast.

These are the primary elevations facing the streets.

The west elevation facing Shaddock Avenue is on the left, and the south elevation facing Virginia Street is on the right.

The proposed project qualifies as a housing development project under SB 330 and is entitled to a density bonus under state law.

The density bonus is calculated based on the site's base density, which is the maximum number of units allowed on the site while fully complying with the applicable district's development standards.

The density bonus is then determined by the percentage of total units dedicated as affordable and their affordability level.

Under the city's density bonus procedures, the base project is 55 units.

By providing nine very low income and nine moderate incomes on nine moderate income units on site, the project is eligible for 100% density bonus or 55 additional units.

The project proposes 55 additional units above the base density for a total of 110 dwelling units.

This exceeds the 50 dwelling unit per acre potential capacity of units anticipated in the housing element.

Two concessions are requested to exempt the public art and loo fee and relocate underground parking in the base project.

The applicant also requested waivers for height, setback, lot coverage, and parking to accommodate the proposed project on the site.

Moving on to the appeal, the following slides summarize the appeal issues and staff's response with a more detailed explanation in the staff report.

The first appeal issue is about construction impacts and environmental concerns.

The appellants argue that construction activities would create noise, dust, and vibration that would disrupt nearby households, and they are requesting mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

In addition, they are requesting mitigation to nearby creeks and aquifers, additional soil testing due to the site's past use as a dry cleaner, measures to protect community health from exposure to hazardous substances, and written disclosures to future tenants regarding soil or groundwater monitoring and any health risks associated with the site.

The conditions of approval include several conditions to mitigate the construction impacts mentioned.

No creek or culvert as defined by the BMC exists on or within 30 feet of the project site.

Due to its previous use as a dry cleaner, the site was remediated under the oversight of DTSC and assessed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The applicants submitted phase one and two ESAs, which were reviewed by Toxics and a SQL consultant in order to prepare an environmental checklist.

The CEQA analysis found that the project would not have significant environmental effects that have not already been analyzed in the housing element EIR or that are more significant than those previously analyzed.

The second appeal issue is on labor standards.

The appellants argue that the project would be conditioned, should be conditioned to use union labor, ensuring fair wages, safety protections, and higher construction quality.

The project was vested on December 27, 2023 under SB 330.

This vesting date is prior to the January 1st, 2024 effective date of the hard hats ordinance.

Therefore, a condition of approval cannot be retroactively applied to the project.

The third appeal issue is on parking concerns.

The appellants argue that parking will overflow into nearby streets, worsening the existing shortage.

They also claim the location of the parking entrance will increase congestion on Shadow Avenue and pose safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

There's no parking minimum for the applicable zoning districts, and the BNC limits off-street residential parking to a maximum of 55 spaces when near transit.

The project uses a waiver to exceed this standard and provides 109 spaces to help reduce neighborhood spillover.

The project is not eligible for the residential permit parking program, so new residents would not be able to secure the existing permits for on-street residential parking that serve the neighborhood.

The parking entrance on Shaddock Avenue reuses an existing curb cut and is consistent with existing commercial access patterns.

The project maintains existing street trees and adds a corner bulb out with seating on shadow to enhance pedestrian safety.

The appellants claim that the number of units and parking spaces will lead to operational impacts, including noise and increased traffic from deliveries, ride share pickups, and service vehicles.

The project includes standard conditions of approval to manage operational impacts such as noise and traffic as detailed in the staff report.

No significant operational impacts were identified in the sequel analysis, and the project complies with all applicable zoning and environmental standards.

The fifth appeal issue is on public input, affordability, and transparency.

The appellants claimed the project increased from five to eight stories without clear public notice or sufficient community input.

They request stronger affordability commitments in exchange for the added height and ask for transparency on how the density bonus was calculated, which concessions and waivers were granted, and how the city ensures that concessions result in real community benefit.

Has been under review for over two years, and public outreach included a neighborhood meeting, mailed and posted public notices, and three public hearings.

The increase to eight stories complies with the state density bonus law, which allows additional height in exchange for affordable housing.

The project includes 18 below market rate units, nine very low income, and nine moderate income units, and qualifies for a 100% density bonus.

Details on the density bonus calculations, concessions, and waivers are in the ZAB staff report and were presented at the ZAP public hearing.

I also covered these calculations earlier in this presentation.

Per state law, concessions granted under the state density bonus law are intended to support affordable housing and do not require the provision of community benefits.

The sixth appeal issue is on shade and privacy impacts.

The appellants claim the proposed project would create shade and privacy impacts for the adjacent homes.

The city has no objective standards for solo access, and the shadow studies submitted indicate that new shadows would fall on nearby residential homes.

These shadow impacts would be limited in duration and extent, and are typical in a in a built urban environment.

To address privacy, the project steps back above the ground floor, approximately 12 feet on the north side, and approximately 10 feet on the east side.

Incorporates trees and planters on the second level to minimize privacy impacts to the surrounding homes.

The step back is maintained for all open for all upper stories above the ground floor.

The last appeal issue is on infrastructure impacts and emergency preparedness.

The appellants cite the site's seismic risk and deep excavation for the eight-story building as potential safety issues and request details on fire protection and emergency access.

They also note increased demand on police and fire services, loss of trees and green space, and claim the project's impact on utilities and infrastructure hasn't fully been addressed.

The site is not in a designated seismic hazard zone, so no extra mitigation is needed beyond standard building codes.

The project will meet 2025 building and fire codes, including fire sprinklers, emergency access, and evacuation planning, which will be reviewed during the building permit process.

The CQ analysis found no significant impacts on police fire or ambulance services beyond those addressed in the housing element EIR analysis.

The project is consistent with planned residential growth and infrastructure capacity.

It includes new street trees and landscaping to offset vegetation removal.

These features enhance the pedestrian environment and contribute to the urban canopy.

Staff recommends that council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution affirming the ZABS decision to approve the use permit at 2109 Virginia Street.

This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

I appreciate the presentation.

And so, folks, I want to actually give uh people an opportunity.

Council members, if you've had any ex parte uh conversations that you'd like to disclose before we ask any questions.

Go ahead, Councilmember Cherko.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, as this project appeal was moving forward, because it is in our district, our council office was copied on at least one appellant communication.

Um, today the applicant reached out to a staff member in my office.

No substance was discussed, and the emails we were copied on went to the full council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um, are there any questions for staff?

Well, yes, council member O'Keefe.

I didn't want to go first, but it's fine.

Um I'm curious about the waiver of the civic arts fee.

Um, do you have I know it's hard to estimate that speculative, but could you give us a sense of how what the value of that is?

Is that possible?

It's okay if it's not possible, but I thought I'd ask.

I believe it's uh 0.8% of construction costs.

Uh what's this 110 meter project?

Yeah, do the math for me, please.

I don't know.

Uh I would guess $800,000, maybe less.

To a million.

Okay, thanks.

Um, yeah, I think I pretty I acknowledge that was a little bit of unfair question, but I just wanted to get a sense of the order of magnitude, so that's helpful.

I don't know much about construction costs.

Um, and I'm curious, this doesn't matter too much, but I I really am just curious like how does I understand it's um the proposals to waive it, but could the um could the developer like they can also build the art?

Is that right?

Could you explain how that works just briefly because it's not it's a little tangential, but I'm I am curious.

Anyone want to take it or want me to?

Yeah, so the public art and private development policy uh gives kind of two pathways to compliance.

You can uh incorporate a public art project that's worth I think it's one one and a half percent of construction costs, and there's a process um for uh to engage uh a qualified um professional to oversee that to ensure that that's it meets that project meets the city's standards for public art, although we don't actually approve or disapprove of the art piece itself, right?

It's just the process to make sure they comply so they can do the on-site or art or they can pay an inloof fee.

Great.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um council member Blackbee.

Thanks, madam mayor.

Um just two questions, one for staff and potentially the city attorney.

Just to remind us and also remind um the public who's here and I what discretion does the city council have under SB330 for a density bonus project like this.

What kind of discretion do we have when we're hearing an appeal?

Like what what standard needs to be met?

So under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, um, if the project is compliant with all objective standards, then the city cannot deny or reduce the density of the project unless it meets uh um findings of specific adverse adverse impact to health and safety, which is a very high um bar to meet.

So it's really specific adverse impact to community health and safety.

That's the standard that has to be met.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, and then I noticed also in the staff report um a project like this would be normally entitled to have up to three concessions.

They've they've asked for two.

Do we have any reason to or you know any idea why they asked for two instead of three if they could have taken three or three?

Do we know?

Just curious.

You can ask them after the presentation if you'd like.

Do you want to hold the question?

I will hold that question, but um thank you for the updates on the standard.

Thank you.

Okay, um council member Tra.

Did you have questions?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, we received a communication today from a member of the public.

Um, and um it uh one of the things it asks about is um citation analysis for findings under um the neighborhood commercial preservation ordinance and other approved ordinances.

Um I was just wondering if you could, in general terms, talk about um what goes into um the findings around uh uh BMC code section 23 and or how other provisions are incorporated uh either by reference or as part of the code.

Actually, I think it can I just ask for clarity.

Um you mentioned findings.

Are you and I just so I'm clearer, is it findings more broadly or it's it's specific to a commercial component?

I wasn't quite clear, yeah.

I'll I'll just um, and I realize this is a little maybe unclear.

I'll I'll read an excerpt from the letter.

Um after reviewing the administrative record for this project, I was unable to locate citation analysis or findings under Barclays Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance.

Um I also did not find findings under related voter about the neighborhood preservation ordinance or anti-demolition ordinance.

And then at the so I think the question is well the question I have is can you speak to um how um such things may or may not be included in the um in the findings of uh the staff report uh recommending denial of the appeal.

Um so the findings for approval will generally include the findings uh for approving a use permit.

So those are the um general non-detriment findings.

Um other findings that might be included in the staff report would be uh any use permit that is not uh included in the base project by right.

So for instance, the demolition.

So there are demolition findings in the uh set of findings that are attached to the staff report.

Um in specific uh demolition of non-residential building, uh that finding was made also.

Uh we also include uh density bonus findings, um, findings for uh the granting of the waivers and the concessions.

Um in addition, it looks uh let's see and if there's any additional standards uh or findings that we need.

Those are the main ones.

We also cover housing accountability act findings um which I just addressed uh findings for um denial, um, whether the city can make findings for the dial um according to specific adverse impact of health and safety.

Um and then any other specific findings that are uh for use permits that are included um that are not included in the base project and that are by right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember or Vice Mayor Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um I have a question about the um the waiver for more parking.

Um I'm curious how that is um justified in under the the allowable waivers.

Um the waivers are around allowed based by the state density bonus law.

So if it's a state density bonus uh project, then they are allowed an unlimited number of waivers, and so um this is one that the applicant chose to waive because they wanted to provide more parking than the maximum that's allowed.

Thank you.

Um I'm sorry, I I need to clarify.

Um, I'm sorry, no, uh saying I did answer that correctly.

Thank you.

Um I have a quick follow-up, just so I understand.

From um my understanding, and I I could be misunderstood, uh not remembering right.

Um waivers are connected to making the project more feasible um and allowing for the for those new density bonus units.

Um and so I don't know if the applicant is supposed to defend their waivers or how how that works or how this waiver is counts as part of that.

Like I I understand the premise of that there's a limited waivers, but I from I thought that they had to be connected to lowering the cost of a project or making it more feasible to build.

Yes, there are a couple of different kinds of um requests uh that are that could be waivers to development standards.

So waivers are um uh modification of a development standard, in this case parking, uh, in order to physically accommodate the building with the concessions included on the site, and concessions are um modifications to development standards or other standards, um, as long as there is a justifiable cost reduction to the project.

Um parking was a development standard that the applicant asked for to accommodate the project that they designed to um to be built on the site.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And a number of questions that I have uh have already been asked and answered, but I guess I would ask a general question.

Um has the project, and and I think I know where the answer is.

Has the project been found to comply with the applicable development standards, accounting for any incentives or concessions required under state density bonus law.

Yes.

Okay, that's yeah, that's what I thought.

Um are you aware of any evidence that the environmental assessments of the site or its remediations have been insufficient or that any applicable monitoring or mitigation measures would be insufficient to assure the safety of future residents and workers?

With this uh application, the applicant provided uh a phase one and a phase two report as well as a closure letter.

The site itself was analyzed specifically for housing use as part of the city's uh certified housing elements.

So it was already evaluated through the EIR, and accordingly, we used the the checklist um just to have that as part of the action before you tonight.

So we have a fair amount of uh comprehensive evidence to support that there uh are no impacts.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um finally, is the city empowered um to require modifications of the proposed design on the basis of shadow privacy or aesthetics?

Um, because there are no objective standards for um solar access.

Thank you.

That's those were my questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um so now we've got a five-minute presentation from the app uh from the appellant, five minutes from the applicant.

So would the appellant like to come forward?

And I think that the planning department might need to remove their presentation, or I'm not sure whose screen is up right now, but I am sharing my screen with it.

So what is it?

This is the final discussion.

Great.

Okay, ready to roll.

Five minutes on the clock.

Go ahead.

Good evening, members of the city council.

Can we start?

And the residents of Berkeley gathered here.

My name is Vijay Shunikrishnan.

I'm um representing the North Shadow Alliance to appeal the uh approval of the property here in 2109 Virginia Street.

Um why are we here?

Well, we're neighbors and residents of North Shadow Alliance.

Um, and um we represent residents, family, workers, small businesses who care deeply about the future of a neighborhood.

We're here to appeal the approval of the proposed eight-story building.

The building is out of character with the neighborhood and will ruin our North Shadow Commercial District.

And we believe that in approving this project, the city council has relinquished both your legal as well as moral responsibilities for the community it serves.

And I will give you some of the reasons why we believe so.

So the protests focus on three issues.

One, as we understand and we have access, the applicant has failed to document and justify the claimed needs for waivers and concessions used to increase the height, size, and bulk of the building, um, resulting in incomplete and legally flawed application.

Second, the city failed to review this these needs uh for waivers and concessions, which we can talk in more detail, and um this third, the city did not follow the established procedures for the environmental review of the project, which is located above a toxic waste site, the former Virginia cleaners.

We believe that the planning code exists for the people of Berkeley.

We don't drill oil next to schools, and um the code is is for maintaining and improving the neighborhood commercial areas such as North Shattock, make it pedestrian friendly, visually attractive, uh, and reduce potential conflict with neighbors.

This is a rendering of the apartment um and uh potential scale size of uh a house that's right next to it, and it fills twenty-two thousand square feet with vastly increased height, um, and uh lip build property built end to end in terms of setbacks and then less than seven hundred square feet of public use common space in almost 22,000 square feet of the area.

So, why eight stories?

The planning department says it's due to the housing density bonus loss, um, and your hands are tight.

However, this overlooks two things.

The city can ask for documentation for needs of waivers and concessions, and I think they've been brought up a few times now.

And the city can deny a project if it makes uh finds necessary findings.

And what has the city done instead?

Did not ask the applicant to document the true cost reductions that favored the construction associated with the waivers and concessions, and did not use its discretionary authority to actually determine if those concessions and waivers were in fact needed.

And as it stands today, the project has been granted some quite substantial concessions and waivers.

You could argue that maybe these trade-offs are not needed, uh, but these trade-offs are substantial.

It affects the quality and the livability of us neighbors in the area.

And the city can argue that the state law leaves it with no discretion, but asking these questions is not prohibited.

And we believe that with the amount of trade-offs.

Asking these questions is essential.

The second, the city did not meet its obligations to protect the environment.

As we see, the site sits above a toxic waste site.

The applicant's own environmental review revealed the presence of various various environmental pollutants.

The building is less than 30 feet away from a well-established large pediatric medical clinic and um and right next to several elementary schools.

And the so-called review that was done 1987 state review, almost 30 years old, is used to justify a project remediation.

And the current approach relies on the housing element EIR, which addresses it a program EIR, and it's not sufficient to address site-specific concerns, and it's more of a checklist.

These are serious unresolved concerns as a parent of young children.

I urge you to know that this is not abstract risk.

This is a real risk.

These are risks to children, seniors, and community members who live in that neighborhood.

We welcome housing in our neighborhood.

Don't get us wrong.

We believe in livable family-oriented housing.

We believe in the middle housing aligned with Berkeley's vision, thoughtful when integrated, responsible development and not driven by speculative investments by private equity firms, which essentially has led to potentially the foreclosure of 1709 Shaddock, which is the building right next door.

We don't want that type of development.

The project must be denied, our conclusion.

There's numerous other projects that can be accelerated in the pipeline.

In fact, the developer has them.

The city has failed to follow its own rules.

City Council has a moral obligation, and you can exercise that right.

And the toxic issues of the site require full-scale environment review in our view.

This is clearly not the future of Shaddock Avenue that we want to see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And kudos on your perfect timing.

That was great.

Very impressive.

Can we have the applicant come up, please?

You'll have five minutes to present.

I think, as you know, I've been developing in Berkeley for 35 years, and uh I have never been more bullish about the prospects for downtown Berkeley and Berkeley generally.

Uh I'm very encouraged by the um emphasis on housing in the current council and on business development throughout the city.

Uh this project is the first project we have done that is actually for older Berkeley residents and um non-students.

Um this area is going, this project is targeting um older Berkeleyans that are interested in downsizing, empty nesters that are interested in downsizing, and all of these people have no place to go if they want to stay in Berkeley and they sell their Berkeley house.

Um the project will have a lot of uh of downstream benefits to the city as well.

It will liberate a lot of pre-prop 13 houses that these people will sell and provide more opportunity for young families.

Fox, please let him speak.

We just want to ever lab.

It would provide um more opportunities for young families to move to Berkeley.

It would allow a lot of legacy Berkeleyans to stay in Berkeley where they desperately would like to go instead of moving to Walnut Creek, and it would generate a huge amount of additional taxable property in the neighborhood of around a hundred million dollars to the city of Berkeley.

And that's apart from the additional taxes that would be generated by turning these houses over.

So it would be uh it would also provide a lot more uh patrons to the arts and businesses downtown that sorely need new patronage other than students.

So uh I encourage you to uh deny the appeal and approve the project.

Here's our uh lawyer that will address the legal issues, Mark Loper.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Mark Loper from Ruben Junius and Rose on behalf of the project applicant.

Um, just a few things based on some of your questions and then what we heard from the appellant.

Um the standard for a specific adverse impact, that means a significant quantifiable and direct impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards.

Um I heard that the project was out of scale, that it didn't meet neighborhood character, that it wasn't reflective of what um some people in the community might want.

Um I didn't hear reference to any um significant quantifiable or direct impacts based on objective identified health and safety standards.

There are several approval conditions that are specific to ongoing work that needs to be done when this uh project is built, if you see fit to approve it, and those address things like the the uh contamination that was remediated.

There are procedures in place that go through uh the state, the county, or the city as the city deems it appropriate to deal with remediation activities on sites that had former toxic soils.

Um developing housing on sites that have former toxic soils happens around the state.

If if Berkeley just stopped doing it, you'd rule out a lot of sites.

Um I'd also like to point something out that staff emphasize.

Um this project is is on your most recent housing element.

It was on the one before that, too.

This is a reused housing element site.

That means that for the last two cycles, uh, you as a city council have directed from a policy perspective, this site to be developed with dense multifamily housing.

Um the project uh does use the density bonus law.

There are only two concessions that we've asked for.

We can get into why our architect is here also to help um uh walk through how the project goes from the base to the density.

Um I'm sure that many of you know things like height, setbacks, um, parking location, those are very common issues that are addressed using the state law.

Um the appellant didn't specifically raise any CEQA arguments per se, but I do think it's important to point out that um your staff uh used the housing element EIR that that this uh council is certified.

Um and uh the uh CEQA says that um for a project that tiers off of the housing element, you cannot undergo heightened environmental reviews, such as a negative declaration or an EIR, except in very narrow circumstances, and and I don't think that that's been presented here.

Dealing with um uh uh a site that had some soils issues uh several decades ago um is not a unique issue.

Um thank you for your time and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, so um our let's did you have questions?

Okay, sorry, for the both the um for the appellant, excuse me, and the applicant if you have if you could stay nearby in case folks have questions for you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh both of my questions are for the applicant, if he can please come up.

Thank you.

Um I have two questions.

One dealing with the um uh requested uh waiver, um, in regards to parking.

Um I see that the request is nearly, well, because we have the parking maximum ordinance in Berkeley, and so this is essentially a 200%, it's a waiver to do nearly 200% more parking.

Um, could you speak to um how this was calculated to be a cost reduction to the project to my understanding of parking is um the costs of parking are perhaps different that they do not actually um less parking is not necessary.

Yeah, it was actually it actually addresses project feasibility.

These are these are units, much larger units than we typically build and they're uh uh targeting older families and individuals, almost all of whom in Berkeley have at least one car.

And we're gonna limit people to one car, but uh we also would like to make this a condominium project at some point if the state laws or city laws allow us to fee out instead of uh having on-site units, and it's almost impossible in Berkeley to sell a condominium without at least one parking space.

And and we did surveys of over of uh over 60 individuals, and all of whom uh said that they were if they were to be induced to leave their house in the Berkeley Hills, they would need to have a place that has at least space for one car.

So it was essentially a market feasibility uh issue.

Thank you.

Um Mark Mark uh Mr.

Loper has a comment too.

Yeah, and um I just want to point out that a a waiver uh does not need to demonstrate any more state laws changed, so with a waiver, you don't need to demonstrate any cost reductions in a project.

That's only for a concession or an incentive.

Thank you.

I didn't know that.

That's good to know.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Did you have your question answered?

Uh this one was.

I have a second question.

Um, it's around uh the waiver for public art or the um the one percent for the art.

Okay.

And um my question is simply I mean um staff in their presentation and QA provided the two different avenues under the uh the Pulpels um ordinance.

Um can you speak to um the just the thinking behind uh the request to waive um either avenue?

Yeah, I can address this.

This is a concession, um, and so what we need to do is show that with the concession the project is cheaper to build.

That that's what the state legislature has said, and we get up to three, we're only using two, so we're only using two cost reduction measures.

Um a fee that's required uh as part of uh the the construction costs.

If you eliminate that fee, it's it's cheaper to build the project.

Um I think that answers your question legally.

Maybe you'd like uh us to talk a little bit about you know how how the ground floor plane works and and stuff like that, or you feel like you've got your question answered.

I would be interested in just like specifically, can you uh um I'm not going to ask you to pull out a performer, but can you speak to just order of magnitude of the reduction, like um just trying to better understand the the basis for the request?

Yeah, sure.

Um so it's it's a percentage of the construction cost, and and I think staff said it's about 0.08.

So I think the s estimate we heard was around 800,000, maybe a little more.

But again, I want to be clear, um, and and I don't I don't mean to be an uncharitable, but the the state law says we get up to three concessions.

We get up to three uh exceptions from things that make the project um cheaper to build and getting out of the art requirement makes the project uh cheaper to build.

Thank you.

Council member uh trick up, you have that's you're finished.

Vice Mayor Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um I have a quick question about the waiver and the um for parking.

Um if a waiver is supposed to be for development standard that physically precludes the project.

Can you talk a little more about why um more uh exceeding the maximum number of of off-street parking does fit that definition?

So this is where state law I think might get a little funky.

A couple years ago, the state legislature, which works really hard to produce housing, um, gave projects that invoke the density bonus more discretion when it comes to um the amount of parking that they're allowed to have in the project.

Um and I think that that might be part of how the project is able to justify the number of spots.

Um and I also think this the second thing is that uh by getting rid of so the project is invoking a density bonus, which allows it to have um the number of units that it's getting, and in one way of thinking about the the waiver that we're requesting is by by going up to um essentially double the the number of units.

If if we waive the parking requirement, then that allows the density bonus units to be treated the same as the base units when it comes to the number of parking spaces.

So I know that's a little bit of a wonky answer, and it's kind of two things, but I think what he's saying is 55 spaces would have been allowed with a project of 55 units, but now that we've doubled it, we can get 55 spaces.

But uh on the issue of parking, I've been a big proponent of car-free housing for 30 years.

In fact, the last 10 projects I built had no parking for residents, but the economic realities are for this demographic, i.e., older Berkeley's, they want to keep their cars.

And um we we have to defer to that judgment if we're gonna make the project economically possible to finance.

Our banks won't finance empty nester housing if we don't have at least one space for each of the of the units.

It's just an economic reality.

Um we're doing a seven-story project down the street and we have no parking, but that's largely for students.

Okay, thank you.

Um I want to just clarify with the planning department how the um the parking structure works because it was my understanding that it was.5 to one.

Um and so if they had a 55 unit building, it would be half.

I just I don't remember the policy, um, and just want to clarify.

Yeah, the standard in the BMC is that uh the parking maximum um is uh half a space to you each unit, and so it would be half the number of total units that is allowed.

Okay, thank you.

That's it.

Thank you, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Um, thank you to our staff for the presentation.

Uh thank you to the appellants and the applicant.

You know, I just wanted to explain something about this density bonus law.

First, I want to confirm that the project is taking advantage of a relatively new modification to density bonus law, AB 1287, which uh gives greater density for um, you could say I guess less affordable units, and so uh density bonus law is very complicated, but um this isn't you I just want to acknowledge what the um appellants are saying.

This is quite unusual to uh in my experience to have a three-story base zoning become an eight-story project, and it's because it's a hundred percent density bonus, correct, and it's and it's done with essentially 30 percent affordable units, as you noted 15 percent very low income.

That means the area median income is 30 to 50 percent uh of the area median income, and then it's another 15 percent.

That's so it's nine units of very low income, and then another nine units of middle income.

Um that what that means in terms of area median income, it's eighty to a hundred and twenty percent.

I know that might not mean much of anything to folks, but it's it's more like a middle class type of salary.

We don't actually typically uh the below market rate units on site don't serve eighty to a hundred twenty percent of the area median income.

To my knowledge, we rarely, if ever, have uh units at that income level, correct?

Yeah, that's right.

I believe uh in the entire fifth cycle housing element period in that eight-year period.

I believe we we permitted fewer than a hundred modern income units for that entire eight years.

It's very rare for those middle income units to be built, and I think that was the policy motivation behind AB 1287.

Yes, it's and and I know it it's hard to um discern what the policy motivation might be, but it seems like um uh you you ventured to to do that, and and I I think it's it's trying to incentivize this middle income housing, giving a greater density bonus.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that that's what's happening here, and it it will be the tallest building when constructed in sort of this corridor.

Um and it's driven by the state law.

It's it's not um, it's not something that the city of Berkeley has control over, and I think as Council Member Blackaby had noted, uh, we also are don't have the discretion to reduce the density because it's provided by the state density bonus.

Um so I you know, I just wanted to explain that.

This is a bit of a quirk because there's a newer law that's used um to give greater density.

So I I don't have any further questions or comments.

I'm ready to um vote.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um so we haven't heard public comment yet, so we have some more things to do.

But um, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I have a question for Mr.

Kennedy, if you don't mind, um, back to the art thing.

Um, and I prefer if you could answer if possible.

Um could you just let us know?

I understand that the um civic art concession saves the project money.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

Um, why there are I imagine there are a number of concessions you could have asked for, and I'm wondering why you chose that one.

And I have a fault question, which is um, do you plan to put any art at all or any sort of um yeah, anything of that nature in the building, even though I guess you wouldn't be required to under this concession?

Um, yes, we are planning to do a significant bulb out um on the street, which will provide seating for probably another 15 or 20 people.

And um the building itself, I hope will be an aesthetic contribution to the city.

Um, but um, specifically other artwork, we're not planning any right now.

Um it's very hard to get any projects financed right now.

So every, you know, a million dollars here, a million dollars there makes a big difference on whether a project proceeds or doesn't proceed.

And this was a significant reduction in the fees from the city, and you picked it just because it was the most significant reduction you could ask for as a concession.

Is that why?

I still didn't get an answer to my question as to how you chose to ask me this particular question.

I think it was the most significant one that reduced the total construction cost.

I didn't realize we had overlooked a third concession, frankly.

But um it's too late.

Yeah, but um, you know, as uh council member um Kazarani said the the law is changing quite a bit all the time.

And um, but in any case, um it was necessary in order for us to try to get this project finance.

Um, okay.

And I just um I guess this isn't quite a question, but uh one of the reasons I'm motivated to push on this is it true that you'll be uh covering up a really really significant mural on the adjoining building.

That I believe that won't be visible once this is constructed.

Um I wrong about the geometry of that.

Um which is I'm not sure which I have not noticed the significant mural.

You haven't noticed the big mural?

No, okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Trakeup.

Did you have another question?

Actually, I'm sorry, I'm gonna go to Councilmember Blackaby because um he has not asked a question yet.

Great.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Um, one question, like a couple questions, one for the applicant, one for the appellant, one for staff.

Um I guess that's three.

Um I noticed in the appellants presentation, um, this is for um the applicant.

Um they contend that the environmental review was not sufficient, um, that the phase two environmental assessment is not a substitute.

Just talk about from your perspective why your belief that what you did present is sufficient, you met the standard.

Can you talk us through that discrepancy or disagreement?

Let me defer to uh Mr.

Loper here, he's got better expertise on this subject.

Thank you, Councilmember.

That's that's a very good question.

Uh typically how um uh infill housing projects work on on sites that at one point had some sort of remediation activity uh is that you start with something called a phase one, which is basically a desktop study that involves looking at the history of the site and the cleanup activities that took place.

Um this site uh already underwent a significant effort uh to to clean it up, and it and it received uh a closure and no action letter and staff probably has all the details um in in front of them on their computers.

Um and so a phase one looks at things from a desktop perspective, and a phase two involves a more serious and in-depth look at um the actual conditions on the ground, and sometimes that involves um doing sampling and boring and testing, um, and then a phase one and a phase two get discussed and baked into the CEQA clearance document, which here was a consistency determination with the housing element EIR, and as I mentioned earlier, this is not a unique condition to housing development sites.

So I'm I expect that the housing element EIR talked about this approach at length.

And then the final thing, and I mentioned this during my presentation, but I'll just mention it again.

That's that's not the end of the show.

If you look at the approval conditions from ZAB, there are at least four, or there are four conditions that the city will work with the uh applicant and the developer on to ensure that when construction takes place, all proper um local, state, and federal laws relating to site remediation are followed.

Okay.

The staff agree that we've that this project meets that environmental review threshold.

Yes.

And just to follow up on that point, when this project comes in for a building permit, um, it is routed through our toxics management division, and so they continue that deep dive review of the reports, the the measures that are taking place as part of the construction to abate that condition.

Okay, thank you.

Um also the staff, and then um after that, one question with the appellant.

Uh the other main issue in the presentation from the appellant was um whether or not the applicant was documented cost reductions associated with the waivers.

Um again, we've heard some discussion about that.

Is are they obligated to do that?

Are they not obligated to do that?

Have we met that standard uh in this process?

Their contention here in the presentation is that the city didn't ask the applicant to document, do they need to the reductions associated with waivers and concessions?

As far as waivers are concerned, there is no requirement to provide documentation to justify the waiver concessions as well.

Um actually there is case law that um uh forbids um staff from asking for documentation of the cost reduction.

So we could not ask for that.

Staff can ask.

Okay, okay.

Um, and one question for the appellant if you're near a microphone real quick.

Thank you.

Um coming back to I think where we started the conversation again.

I I'm what what I'm really trying to drive into is again what what is the council's discretion and what we've heard a couple of times from staff and also from the applicant is we would need to have a find a reach a finding that there is um significant quantifiable specific adverse impact on health and safety.

So I think my question for the appellant is how would you, you know, out of all this, how would you distill that?

What's the claim there that you think is appealable?

Thank you, Councilman Blackby.

Uh, this is James Hendry for uh the appellants.

Um, first off, on the um environment on the issue of concessions versus waivers, there's two issues.

Waivers are less pretty off the table.

Concessions, however, under the Brooklyn planning code, you you're asked for substantial documentation if you want to, and the count the planning staff did not do that.

Uh they rely on the court case broadly.

We discussed this extensively.

It says you can't ask for concessions, you can ask for the documentation of concessions, and they did not do that.

Uh, they seem to be confusing going a step further, which is what the court case involved, which is dealing with the issue of making applicants prove a profit of the project is profitable or do pro formas.

But the state law is clear that you can ask them to document what the concessions are, what you do with them then is up to you.

But in this case, you violate the planning code by not even asking again this documentation, which you're allowed to do under state law.

Uh and for the adverse um I believe there's also a code section, maybe it got taken out in the last revision, but it's also on page three of our applicant.

Um, that says you can deny project if you make written findings upon substantial evidence that the concession or incentive does not result in identify identifiable and actual cost reductions consistent with subdivision K to provide for affordable housing costs.

So there's also the second tier of looking at economics, that probably is also a very high bar, too.

And that one is one that seemed to have been ignored also in the analysis.

As for the waiver of public health, that clearly is a high bar, but uh, we do feel there are toxic issues.

We're happy to talk about the environmental issues and the failure of the city planning staff to address them.

Uh, which might argue, I think it may be a good argument to make that yes, those environmental issues are sufficient to uh raise a question about the viability of the project and whether it uh should be approved.

Thank you.

So your concern is particularly is a is a process concern about the documentation or request for documentation.

Um, so you're leaning into that more than the higher bar of finding a specific adverse impact on health and safety.

I think so.

I think the uh adverse issues of health and safety are addressed in the environmental issues where uh we're happy to talk to you about that.

Well, adverse public health effects, we believe.

Okay, thank you.

That's all my questions.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Trackup.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, I have a follow-up question for the applicant, if you can please come up.

Okay.

So I appreciate the cost of construction right now, and I appreciate um the work you would be doing uh on the ball out.

But I have to ask, um, have you considered or might you consider a partial contribution to the city's public arts fund as a gesture of goodwill?

Um, um I will consider it, but uh not tonight.

And uh I'd like you to uh remind you of the difficulty we have nineteen stalled projects in Berkeley right now that have been approved at various stages, and uh we're facing headwinds on construction costs, interest costs, and a whole host of other things.

I'm well aware they're all in my district.

Thank you.

Uh I you've answered the question, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, any other questions from council members?

Okay, we will take public comment.

Actually, do we want to take a very quick stretch break?

Yeah, let's take it.

We're gonna take a five-minute stretch break, but be prepared to start public comment right afterwards.

Thank you.

Hello.

Oh, there we are.

Okay.

Recording in progress.

Please take your seats so we can hear public comments.

If you have any public comment, please come on up to the podium.

Whatever order.

Yep.

Go ahead.

Come on up.

Hi.

I have somebody who's seating a minute to me over here.

So I'd like to have two minutes on the car.

Sorry, who's it?

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

I want to say first of all, I don't know anybody who wants to move from their homes in Berkeley into a very expensive rental unit on Shatdock Avenue.

Okay, I've lived in Berkeley a long time.

I have a I have a partner who left and lived in three different buildings in downtown Berkeley during his time there before he went to assisted living because that was the next route.

And he said it was full of students, always.

The building on Francisco had six minutes to campus on it, but they took that sign down now because that's student housing.

All right, this may not be student housing, but it's not going to be built, it's not going to be housing the people that you want to house.

A waiver is a giving up of a legitimate right.

Is um we have large developers who are building here.

That they're the only ones who can do this.

And the other thing is look at Center Street.

What is going to happen to Center Street?

We're not going to be able to track anybody to Berkeley until we clean up what's going on in downtown Berkeley.

We talk about the arts, et cetera.

Thank you.

We've got a mess on our hands.

Thanks for your comment.

I'm going to sell my home, pay a huge capital gain, give up my garden, give up my neighbors, and move into a high rise.

No F and way.

Find me two people, two names that will do that.

And there'll be two fools.

When I walk around the corner and have a monolith in instead of a cute restaurant, that affects my health.

There's been no measure of people's mental health impacts.

Go get it.

Measure the impacts.

I didn't even know about this till November.

I didn't write a letter.

I'm here today.

The tour bus, there'll be an impact on the health of money, because no tour bus wants to park in front of a monolith to go to the cheese board or shape and knees.

They'll try to blind their people to get them in.

Take about those impacts.

Thank you.

I'll give Jim a minute.

And Melinda's giving me a minute, so I believe I believe I have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is James Hendry.

I want to begin by noting that as we discussed, there's a difference between concessions and waivers.

You're obligated under the code to look at concessions and figure out what they cost.

And then you have great benefits, you know, great benefits are being lost to the city of Berkeley, particularly on the issue of we talked about the loss of the public arts fee.

Now the developer says that's needed to make the project, you know, profitable, but he also came into this council last week and asked for it be waived on 1752 Shaddock, which has already been built and already financed.

So are we talking about modifications necessary to build a project or this modifications necessary just to make more profit?

Second, I have to clear up a major misconception that everybody seems to be operating under.

The planning department and the applicants seem to be saying, this is a toxic waste site, and we chose to build on it anyway.

That is incorrect.

The housing element environmental impact report looked at every toxic waste site in Berkeley, including this project.

And if they'd looked on the website, what they would have found, it said the project has been mitigated and you can build on it.

So the project had been mitigated and could build on it, and thus we had a win-win.

Former toxic waste site, opportunity zone.

Now, sadly, that mitigation effect was done in 1987, and new technologies and new requirements, new measurement techniques, now found out there's toxics on the site.

Lead, benzene, chloroform, total petroleum hydrocarbons, all located next to one of the largest pediatric clinics in Berkeley.

And so the question then becomes, you know, and even the planning department now keep saying, oh no, we knew it was toxic, even though if you read the report, they're so claiming in Lion's 1987 report and their staff report that oh no, it's harmless, there's no problem to it.

So it's a misconception to say that we knew it was a toxic site.

We thought it wasn't, it turns out it was.

Now how do you deal with it?

So the housing element, EIR says you're supposed to remediate sites.

Remediate is a term of art meaning take all the toxic dirt, get rid of it, remediate the site to residential standards.

Residential standards is a requirement that's in the uh infill environmental checklist.

So instead of remediation, the applicant is proposing mitigation.

What is mitigation?

Mitigation is basically a vapor intrusion barrier, e.g., a large tarp put over the toxic waste to keep it allegedly in.

Whether it worked or not, we don't know.

The entire documents in the uh report consists of three statements: a sales offer from a consultant saying, hey, we'll sell you one, a one-sentence statement in the phase two environmental assessment saying we think it might work, and a statement from the developer saying he'll voluntarily put it in, which since it's not mandatory, does not mean it necessarily meets the enforcement requirements you want under CQR.

So the question then becomes: we need to mitigate this, and how do we do that?

And it does not meet the environmental under the ELI.

Good evening, everybody.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

I'm not used to this.

Uh thank you for the chance to speak.

I want to talk about.

Oh, yeah, I have a minute.

Thank you.

I want to talk about two minutes is what I mean.

Yeah.

I want to talk about eroding trust in our elective officials, which is very disappointing to me.

I feel like the print the permitting process is very opaque to us citizens.

And I also want to talk about pedestrian safety, which is close to my heart because I walk everywhere.

Right now, the public process does not feel transparent.

There's very little time to ask questions or get real answers in these meetings.

Presentations often feel vague and downright misleading.

We hear height instead of stories, everything keeps moving around.

Some visuals in the room are not readable or even ADA compliant on occasion.

And we've had meeting notices more than once with incorrect dates.

It creates more confusion.

Some um traffic and pedestrian safety is a very serious problem in our neck of the woods.

People, somebody just got hit, a 95-year-old woman at the corner of our street.

And every other day I seem to almost see something happen on either Virginia or uh Cedar, and definitely it's shadow and cedar.

So I feel like the traffic there is not going to be helped by entering all these cars entering in and out of this building.

Um I support housing, and I think that there's some place that um this very tall building could come down a little bit, it could go back a little bit.

There could be steps up, and then you hear, well, it doesn't pencil out for the developer.

And I think the weight of the council seems to be well behind the developers and not behind your citizens so much.

And that really is disappointing.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I see that minute to Mike.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Mike Apty.

I'm a Berkeley resident and a board member of Save Berkeley Shops.

I support new housing in Berkeley, including affordable housing.

We're not opposing housing.

This is about process transparency and compliance with binding voter adopted law.

Berkeley voters adopted the 1982 neighborhood commercial preservation or ordinance that's 22.12 has never been repealed or amended.

That ordinance requires explicit findings before demolishing an existing commercial building, including findings that demolition is not materially detrimental to neighborhood commercial needs, and that replacement development appropriately harmonizes with its surroundings.

After reviewing the administrative record for use permit ZP 2024 66, I found no citation analysis or findings under that ordinance under the related voter adopted neighborhood preservation anti-demolition measures.

Instead, the approval relies on zoning provisions and state housing law.

If voter adopted ordinances no longer apply, that conclusion must be stated clearly and supported in the record.

Silence is not compliance.

For example, a city commission study on upzooming zoning impacts on businesses did not include interviews with business owners.

And business owners have not been consulted about rezoning plans affecting commercial corridors.

Council is not being asked to redecide the project or deny housing.

You are being asked to ensure that approvals rest on a complete and legally sufficient record, and that laws adopted by Berkeley voters are not effectively nullified through a mission.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I've made these comments before.

At the second works call it quarters workshop for North Shaddock College and Solano Avenues, city presenters repeatedly assured us that developers would only ask for 50%, most likely only asked for 50% density bonus.

This is now the third project that has been requesting or has been granted 100% density bonus.

Could the city possibly be more disingenuous and duplicitous about the zoning updates?

It's an outrage.

50%, none of these projects are asking for 50%.

This is for Solano Avenue, where again every slide that the city presented showed only eight stories.

And in fact, 11 stories we put it for 100% of the state bonus.

But you assured us that's never gonna happen.

It is happening.

Well, that doesn't do it.

Um that violates your um municipal code.

Um also uh you're it will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing in the working and working in the neighborhood in the general welfare of the city.

That's in your city code too.

Um, you're supposed to follow.

I thought you were supposed to follow your regulations.

Thank you.

Can I have a minute?

Okay, I I think people have given their minutes.

Yeah, okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, we have to go to the next person.

We have to go to the next speaker.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, hello, council.

Thank you for having me today.

I believe the property on 2109 Virginia Street should be allowed to be constructed because at this time most of the city of Berkeley is owned by UC Berkeley.

Other establishments other than the University of Berkeley should be allowed to build.

And the city is not just for students, it is in American country, it is in America, and the city of Berkeley is also for families.

Also, I appreciate how I appreciate how this building is going to provide parking, which is greatly needed in Berkeley.

Scarce parking is here.

Furthermore, the way the city of Berkeley is currently operating gives the impression as if it is a neighborhood only for the wealthy, and the poor are not tolerated.

Another proof of this is with the recent removal of People's Park, which was a huge, huge sad moment for the people of Berkeley that are from that were from here and that grew up here, and that were lost their businesses during COVID, and people are still suffering, and this would give people a place to live that have nowhere to live right now because they can't afford anywhere.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ms.

Baku, thank you.

I'd also like to mention that you have 17.

I'm sorry, but you you've already spoken, so you you can't speak again.

You've already had your minute.

Well, you told me I could come after this person.

No, I was saying that the next person needed to come up.

I had somebody give me a minute.

I'm sorry, you've already spoken.

You're so democratic.

I've lived here for 58 years.

I mean, there's been an orgy of construction, and I understand we've already met the state mandate.

So why is construction going on kind of mindlessly?

As to this specific building, in North Shattock, we don't want it.

We spoke up in 208 2009 when they proposed the North Shattock Plaza.

It was overwhelmingly rejected, and the council listened to that.

We don't want high-rise buildings in that area.

It's doing very well.

She needs just opened up a bar.

Uh, the cheese board is remodeling.

These high-rise buildings will kill it.

And there are other places to put housing.

The university is starting to build all over the place.

So I think you people are not representing us as citizens.

You're representing the developers, and I think it's time that you try to represent what we want.

Thank you.

Hi again, and I have an extra minute from my friend back there.

Change is the only constant, right?

We certainly need housing, but this housing is not affordable for the majority of people.

We already have gentrification.

We already have the elimination of people that had lived here for so very, very long.

And I understand developers and development and I understand, but the whole notion of profit means I give less than I get.

Just like my body, if certain cells did not stay in harmony with the others, I'd be dying of cancer right now.

It's like we have to be thoughtful.

I got an emergency notice today about how the wellness centers are closing.

BACs is cutting its staff and eliminating its programs.

Food is drying up all over the place.

Remember, I deal in the general public.

But again, I chose to care about everyone because none of us are going to be okay if we continue this inequality and this calloused unintended consequence proliferation of Mayor Berkeley was first.

I don't want it to end up being last in terms of the care for the community that it can be, and I'm really really concerned.

So please I know people want to make money, but people need to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any public comments online?

Yes.

So this is the time for public comment on item 14, the appeal on 2109, Virginia.

So if you're on the Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand to speak.

Hi, thank you very much.

I am very disturbed about the hypocrisy around this low-income housing.

You're justifying put what basically is a monstrosity in the middle of our neighborhood, five stories higher, four stories higher than it needs to be under this low-income housing uh justification.

The reality is that's not low-income housing.

Anyone who's working at Starbucks, anybody that's a minimum wage worker is not gonna is not gonna live there.

You have a legacy here.

Look at what you're doing to our city.

In the end, we will have a housing problem, but you will have destroyed our neighborhoods one after another.

You did it downtown, all the empty buildings.

You rezone and then no buildings go in.

This is a mistake.

Nobody, I've talked to hundreds of my neighbors, nobody wants this.

You are pro-development.

Your time is up.

This is Amelia.

Hi.

Um, we wish that everyone would take public transportation.

Uh you've cut our buses.

Bike safety on the corridors is terrifying, and you have incentivized landlords to kill our local businesses with short-term leases and the promise of upzoning cash outs.

My new neighbors will be using cars and ordering delivery.

I just want to make sure everyone can do so as safely as possible.

I've seen accidents, traffic jams, and near death experiences with cars pulling into the shadow garage of the apartments across the street.

Is there any chance of a ride chair and delivery cut-in or a designated entrance on Virginia?

Uh, I'd also like to thank Councilmember Tragub for the attempted shakedown on behalf of the arts fund.

We love to see it.

Honestly, seeing you guys stand up to developers on even the smallest token feels like a miracle at this point.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh next is Rohe uh Rohini.

Hi, um, I hope you can hear me.

I'd like the council to know that if you vote um to go ahead and uh vote against this appeal.

You're telling me that you're completely understand the remediation and the environmental risk.

You're voting to tell me that there's no risk from the benzene in the soil to um the pediatric clinic is right behind this building, and Berkeley's magnet pool, which is right across from it.

It means that you've understood all the impacts and you're okay with it.

Frankly, I don't believe that's the case.

I don't think you've done your homework.

I think you've rubber stamped this, so we've got stamped everything else.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next is Kelly Hammergren.

Um, hello.

Um, I picked up one of my old composition notebooks with notes to speak at the landmarks preservation commission from July 16th, 2015.

And in those notes, I've got Berkeley City Council passed as a goal.

50% rooftop solar by 2030.

Why don't we have objective standards for solar?

What what happened to that?

What happened to this um sustainability that we used to be committed to?

How things change.

Um yesterday at the agenda committee.

Um, I asked that you schedule a special meeting, special council meeting on state laws on housing and land use and how those have changed and how those affect our city.

Um, we've got four more.

Thanks, Kelly.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

Thanks, Kelly.

Next is Sherry Washburn.

Hi.

Um, I'm assuming you can hear me.

I just want to make it really clear from the start.

I support more housing in our city.

We need it.

It's very clear we do, but this particular project fails to deliver what our community actually needs.

I understand from listening tonight that the developer is using density bonus law to justify eight stories and 110 units, but in exchange, we're only getting 18 affordable in air quotes units.

That's 16% at income levels that still aren't affordable for many working families here.

The law sets minimums, not maximums.

Other California cities negotiate 25 to 30% affordability for projects of this size.

You have the discretion to require more or to reject a project with insufficient public benefit.

I'm not gonna get into parking.

I think everyone in the neighborhood knows there's not enough parking, and I can't imagine what it would be like to live next door to this behemoth of a building.

But does this project justify its scale and its impacts?

The developer is asking for maximum density, but they're offering minimum affordability.

I'm sorry, your time's up.

Thanks for your comment.

Next is a phone number ending in zero zero zero.

Um, definitely again, in your high rising birth.

What do you have enough of them?

Uh, you know, you lost a couple of weeks about earthquake.

It was form Earth's a quake in San Ramon, California.

This is a bad, bad bite sign.

The big one is coming.

The Hayward Fault is waking up.

We are going huge earthquake.

All of this cheap built box apart building was beautiful.

Very smart students in Berkeley are going to be dead if seven or eighth magnitude earthquake takes over.

From a scientific point of view.

On the other hand, we don't have to worry because with Trump had access to the nuclear football, we're going to go to a row three.

In fact, the dual date clock was advanced just last week by several seconds.

Have a good night.

Do not approve high rise in Berkeley anymore.

All this boxes are going to collapse in seven plus magnitude here or uh for the quick.

Thank you and have a good night.

Thank you.

Next is Tony.

Um good evening.

This is Tony Messer from uh D2.

Um I have two points about this project.

Number one, what makes this project particularly um for senior citizens as Mr.

Kennedy uh mentioned.

I don't see anything I uh in your interim.

I looked at the um uh layout and I didn't see anything that said this is for seniors.

And I also suggest that you hold a public um meeting exploring how the density bonus is computed by the planning department.

It is opaque, and I doubt that that you even understand it.

And I really think a council workshop on this subject is needed in this city.

Thank you for considering my ideas.

Thank you, Tony.

Next is Nancy Rader.

Oh, good evening.

Hi Nancy Rainer and V6.

Uh first I appreciate the developers designing the buildings, larger units.

I hope they're considerably larger than the time to do this telephone as we've seen and for affordable for them to move demographic in the record.

I also appreciate the parking space because it will reduce the number of ages and delivery vehicles covering out part of the building for the congestion.

On the negative side, if this massive building can be built in current zoning, it's a great way to advertise against the fluted up zoning that consuming up so process.

In that process, staff is offering development standards that can be applied, including building setbacks to help reduce the building's magnificent neighborhood.

But here we've seen many, if not all of their setbacks have this big wave, and there's some sidewalk space.

So I don't know what meaning is to have this track.

Do you have any review opportunity with a description there?

Please use it.

Thanks, Nancy.

Okay.

Next is Cheryl Daville, a former council member.

Oop, hold on.

One moment.

Well, I think you're gonna send the link.

Thank you.

Um, so I can't see the clock, so I can't know my time.

Can you start it over and put it in a place where I can see it?

But so far, people are saying like, what does this why is this happening?

And the weight is towards developers, concessions are minimal.

There are no cons, you know.

I don't know about the concessions, but it seems like every time the developer gets what they want.

They get the density bonus.

They get um, you you're not uh abiding by the city ordinances.

Planning just approves these monstrosities.

Someone said it was an orgy of construction, the hypocrisy of low-income housing justification.

Hundreds of neighbors don't want this, and it's on toxic land, and the objective for solar, not no commitment, public benefits are minimal, 18 units is nothing, and they're not affordable.

Thanks for your comment.

Next is Tova Solomon.

Hello.

I want to mention about the uh 19 stalled other projects.

If those were built and brought in new residents, then that would help ease some of the financial concerns people are having about this project, and as always, with real T there's location, location, location.

So down by San Pablo and University, three of the four stores um on that corner are closed.

We have room for larger building, housing down here that wouldn't be interfering with the quaint neighborhood at North Chaddock, and the students that would be moving in, they're world class students.

They know how to take a bus up to campus.

Um putting this building um in this location is just the wrong place.

It's absolutely absurd.

Thanks for your comment.

Next is Cleo.

Hi.

So I want to come to the defense of the city council a little bit here, in the sense that uh actually, all of these regulations are allowed by the state of California, and the laws of the state of California supersede the laws that we can pass in Berkeley.

So in reality, what's going to happen is that the city council is going to have to approve this, and there's going to be a lot of hangring, and the reality is that this is just what's legally possible.

The developer is doing what's legally possible.

But I do want to point out two things that uh the city of Berkeley is passing a lot of its own regulations, and what I've noticed is repeatedly it does so without paying attention to what the state of California is really doing, or not paying sufficient attention to what the state of California is doing.

And so we end up with these unintended consequences where you know we've allowed we've designated this site in the housing element, creating additional uh density uh authorization for it, and and now I think nobody really wants what's happening, but we don't have the choice, and it's fair for the developer to be looking at the housing element and saying I'm a lot.

Uh next is Walnut.

Hi, I work next door to the building that is being proposed.

Uh I live I work in that building that has the mural that our uh applicant doesn't know about.

I teach kids with learning disabilities building construction of this magnitude that will take so long is going to be so detrimental to my students and to my co-workers, especially when no, when it stalls.

Uh but then my main grievance is anyone who has a legitimate problem with this building is treated like, oh, you're against housing.

Oh, you don't care about past redlining.

These are not going to be for sale, these units, they are not going to be affordable.

I will be around for the rest of my life, I won't be able to live in one of these.

Make them all affordable, put your money where your mouth is.

Don't claim that this is all out of um altruism when it's about making money.

Thank you.

Okay, that was the last um comment or online.

So thank you all for your public comments.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So move.

Can we take the role, please, Clerk?

Okay, to close the public hearing.

Councilmember Casarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett, yes, Drago.

I O'Keefe.

Yes.

Rackaby.

Yes.

Munapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Maryor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay.

Public hearings closed.

Okay.

So council deliberation starting with Vice Mayor Lunapara.

Thank you.

I just want to say something really quickly.

The Berkeley minimum wage right now is $19.18 an hour.

And as a full-time job, that makes $39,894.40 cents, which is obviously way below cost of living.

The nine very low income units designated here will be deed restricted affordable for residents that are at 30 to 50% of the area median income.

30% area median income in Berkeley for a one-person household is 33,600, and for a two-person household is 38,400.

This means that these low-income units, which will sit on a lot that currently has no housing at all, will quite literally be affordable for people making minimum wage in Berkeley.

These are units for low-income residents that otherwise will not exist.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to everyone who came here tonight, as well as to staff for their diligence.

I certainly heard from many neighbors leading up to and including tonight, and appreciate the labor time and effort that it takes to participate in this process.

I also understand this is the place you call home, and what is happening directly next to your home affects you more than any of us sitting here.

So I have listened and I appreciate it.

And unfortunately, as in many circumstances, we are faced with some tough choices.

On the one hand, understandably, some members of the community have expressed concerns and desire for additional features, such as more affordable housing, higher labor standards, and keeping the one percent for the arts provision.

On the other hand, this application includes 110 dwelling units, including nine very low-income units, which to Vice Mayor Luna Paris' point will in fact be affordable to many making minimum wage, as well as nine uh moderate income uh density bonus qualifying units, which is basically workforce housing for working families.

And even in the face of a nearly $35 million budget deficit our city faces, I'm personally deeply committed.

And I think I speak for everyone on this body actually in saying this and supporting funding civic and public arts and demanding that the residential projects built in Berkeley are done with the workforce, uh not on the box of it, and including units that are affordable uh for those who can who build them.

And that said, we desperately need housing, especially around and in the near vicinity of Transit Witch corridors, and like all of my colleagues, I'm committed to trying to do my part in addressing our housing unaffordability crisis, despite how challenging it may be to find appropriate locations, appropriate conditions, appropriate unit price point in development that will satisfy the uh all Barkley constituents, as has been mentioned, several projects have stalled in Berkeley.

Most of them are in my district, and we are unfortunately not receiving much needed housing elsewhere.

Um, furthermore, state laws have dramatically limited the level of discretion available to quasi-judicial entities such as the ZAB and the city council.

And in this case, uh, based on um everything that I'm aware of in the state housing law landscape as well as um everything before it from staff, uh, we don't have much discretion either.

But even before these state laws were passed, and I um between the ZAB and City Council, I have been absorbing the landscape for the last 14 years.

Uh, even prior to this, it would have been challenging and legally risky to demand something of an applicant unless they themselves agree to something that goes above and beyond local or state requirements.

Now it's next to impossible, and all we can do is voluntarily ask.

And we did.

For all these reasons, and based on my close review of the appeal packet and staff responses, I will be supporting approval of this project.

To the community members here tonight that may disagree with this vote.

Please know that tomorrow my office and I will get back to working alongside of you on the issues uh that we have been working on, including revitalizing our downtown and commercial spaces and addressing street safety for all.

Together, we will continue to endeavor to create a Berkeley we can all call home.

Thank you.

Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to begin by saying that I understand where the neighbors of this proposed project are coming from.

It's a big change.

There's no way around that.

It will mean less privacy, less light, and a big change in view.

All else being equal, being unhappy about these things is perfectly justifiable and understandable.

I don't condemn you for that.

However, at the same time, we as a city should act according to our principles, and above all, we must follow the law.

Our principles are that we need to allow for more housing to help make homes more affordable and available to people at all income levels, and this project will do that.

And be a city that can welcome all, including immigrants and the workers who keep our city running.

We also need to follow our principles of maximizing new homes near jobs and transit to support local businesses, shortened commutes, encourage alternatives to driving, and thereby help protect our climate and and this project checks those boxes as well.

And finally, and most importantly, we must comply with state housing law and allow projects that meet all applicable developments standards, and particularly with respect to density bonus projects.

Our staff and all voting members of the zoning adjustments board are in agreement that this project meets applicable standards.

Absent additional evidence to the contrary, and I've heard none, I'm compelled to affirm the decision of the zoning adjustments board and vote to dismiss the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and uh thank the staff for your presentation and uh and thank the the applicants here, the well the the community for your efforts, your diligent efforts, and um, you know, and while I sympathize with you, I empathize with you, um I don't see any real basis to deny the project.

Um, and and further, I want to encourage this project because although although it will be a difference in your life, it will also be a positive positive difference in the lives of many other people, uh, particularly those who live in the building.

And the decades that we have stopped housing in Berkeley have led to the scarcity that has driven so many people out of town, and so many people who become uh accidental millionaires, homeowners who are benefiting from the scarcity.

Um, you know, none of that's equitable, and too much of um the development has been born by other districts, and so there is a larger equitable argument here to be made that this project is uh kind of benefiting our efforts to make an equitable development scene in Berkeley.

Um, and just so you know, um the the district that we're in right now for this building here is the only district that is had as that has experienced an increase uh in racial diversity because it has built the most apartments.

So this is where we're at.

This is um a necessary thing to to increase our coffee as a city, because these are tax revenue gener tax revenue-generating entities and also higher culture, more equity, lower rents, more opportunity, and ultimately your neighborhood will benefit from this.

Hannah, thank you for your diligent efforts, and I'll be voting to approve the building.

Thank you, Councilmember O'Keefe.

I believe uh Councilmember Taplan had his hand up before me, and I wouldn't mind an extra minute if that's okay.

Yes, that's fine.

Councilmember Taplin.

Uh sure.

Thank you very much.

Um, I mean, I don't want to be labor or drag this out, but you know, not gonna ring hands.

But um it's pretty straightforward.

I do just have to say that this is not a low density neighborhood.

There are many apartments in this neighborhood.

I think on this single block, there are probably more apartments in my entire neighborhood combined.

Um, it's on a major corridor, and that those are things I think make this area attractive and appealing.

Um I think it's a fine location for multi-million housing, but I'm excited for the the opportunity for older homeowners to downsize.

Um, like council member Bartlett was saying, a lot of our districts, a lot of our neighborhoods have been uh building housing, have been constructing housing for for years and decades, and it's not there's there's no there's like we should not see new neighbors or the growth of our neighborhoods as some kind of burden.

These are people who are part of the fabric of our community, and these homes are gonna be part of the fabric of our neighborhoods.

Um, we voting uh to deny the appeal.

Thank you, Councilmember Brockabee.

Sorry, I'm sorry, going back to you, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'm ready now.

Appreciate that.

Um, I did want to state briefly, it's already been stated, but um uh it's important to really reiterate that we don't really have the option of upholding this appeal legally.

There's a many dimensions of state law that are at play that make that um not an option.

Um but if that was my only response, I think that would be a cop out, actually.

I'm gonna say more.

Um the fact is I I'm happy to support this project and to deny the appeal.

Um, even if I had leeway to deny it, I wouldn't.

Uh I am I identify as a pro-housing council member.

Um I was very openly pro-housing when I ran for this position, and I was elected with 75% of the vote.

Um I make that point, not to brag, but uh there's a sentiment that this sort of um approving this sort of project is somehow against the will of the voters, and it's not democratic, and I I have to push back against that.

That's just not the way I see it.

I think it's clear from the makeup of the council that the people of Berkeley, and also people who don't live in Berkeley, by the way, who wish to uh want more housing, and they want housing projects like this one that are close to transit, it's not displacing anyone or any businesses.

It's it is displacing a mural, and I'm salty about that, but um overall, it's it's a good project.

Um uh it also includes a really meaningful amount of actual mathematically affordable housing, a very significant amount.

Uh, with all okay, so with all the respect to the appellants, most of the arguments in the appeal, um, uh many of them demand that our staff go above and beyond following their own established procedures, which if we were to um agree to that, I think it would be a huge blow to fairness and equity.

That's a really important value of running a city.

Um, and a number of the other appeal points, you know.

I don't want to dismiss, I don't mean to dismiss the um importance of them.

They they make sense, they're real complaints, but having been on the zoning board for more than 10 years, these same complaints, these objections are raised for almost every single large housing project.

Construction impact, shadows, traffic and parking.

These things are brought up every single time.

If we denied projects based on these factors, we would have built almost no housing in the last 15 years.

And that, as I mentioned in the beginning, would be unacceptable to me because I want more housing in the city, and I'm going to continue to support more housing.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Brockaby.

Thanks, madam mayor.

I'll be brief.

We've all had a lot of time to express our comments.

And so to be clear, you know, look, like Councilmember O'Keefe mentioned, I also was elected pretty clearly because I do support development of new housing in Berkeley of all types.

We've made a lot of progress as a community over the last few years, but we know that there's a lot more to do, not just by the way, on the rental housing, but also on condos and housing for purchase.

It's also why I was so appreciative of the work we've done on the ADU ordinance, where people can now we're making that available for ADUs to be purchased separately as a potential starter home for folks who need uh housing at that price point.

So trans-oriented development, middle housing, our ADU policy, that's all part of this housing solution, this kind of mix of different tactics that are in uh in the arrows in the quiver, as it were, and projects like this are also part of the solution.

Um I do appreciate the concerns that have been raised by um the appellants, and it's why I kept coming back to uh ideas that my colleagues have also mentioned, which is you know, what's the standard?

What is our discretion?

Like, what's the threshold that we would need to determine to say that it rose to a level where we would need to somehow uh move this back to ZAB or or support the appeal?

But given in my view that it appears as I've read the record that the environmental review process steps have been met.

Um I don't see how this meets the level of adverse specific adverse impact on health and safety.

I I just that's a very high standard, as other people have have said.

That's to me the the prong that the appellants are asking us to rely upon.

And I I I'm sympathetic and I understand the concerns, but I don't see that it rises to that level as I as I do my analysis.

One other point, I I also do appreciate the feedback that folks have given about the corridors project.

Um, you know, I'm I'm very sensitive to the argument that current zoning and the current density bonus already support developments of seven or eight stories along SHATIC.

Um, and um so it does raise the question what is the point of doing further up zoning if we're already ending up with housing at the level of seven or eight stories, which feels appropriate to me.

Um, and so as we move forward again, I'm I'm in a dialogue with a lot of folks on this subject.

I've met with the business owners a couple of times and meeting with residents in district six and nearby.

I you know, I I want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about this process because again, we are continuing to move forward on the development of new housing, and I think that is the right path, absolutely the right path uh as a community.

Um I also just want to make sure that we strike the right balance as we move forward beyond this project.

Um, and so um as we continue on that path, I'll just I wanted to sort of articulate um that as well because I I think this is a great project, um, and I'm really um I I think this will do a lot of good.

Um, and I think this feels appropriate for this um uh for this neighborhood, but it feels like it also may be about at least from my perspective and from neighbors I've talked to, that may be about the limit of maybe what's appropriate in this quarter.

So I, again, I just want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about what this means moving forward because under existing zoning, we're ending up with a really good project uh in this neighborhood, and I just I appreciate that fact and I appreciate the feedback that some others have shared about that tonight.

So I will be supporting the project.

I will vote to deny the appeal, but I at least wanted to get some of my thoughts on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Yeah, I just wanted to, I don't typically respond to the public commenters.

I I want to thank the public commenters.

Um I did want to respond to one um point that was made, which is um sort of questioning why would anyone who owns a home in the hills ever think about downsizing?

I just need to to help it.

Maybe I need to just help explain why that might be.

You know, as people age, it's no longer safe for them to drive.

As people age, they uh may lose their vision, they may lose their hearing.

You know, we have people with disabilities who aren't able to drive.

So it is very important that we think of the the full array of people who live in our city and make sure we think about opportunities for people to be able to, if they want to, downsize and live in a neighborhood that is more walkable.

I mean, this is at the corner of Virginia and Shatdock, it's walkable to multi multiple grocery stores.

It's uh it's a public transit corridor.

So it's it's really um an important resource to be able to locate housing here.

And um, you know, and somebody said, you know, why would you do that on a financial basis?

Well, there's now Prop 19 that allows homeowners over the age of 55 who have disabilities or who are victims of wildfire to transfer their tax base anywhere in the state.

So there are a lot of reasons why uh for aging homeowners in the hills who can no longer drive down to get their gallon of milk.

This makes a lot of sense for them.

And uh Councilmember Black, if you talked about it, we are trying to actually provide other opportunities for people to downsize and own a starter home or a downsized home across the city.

So excuse me.

There are we are going to now with the second reading that I recuse from have accessory dwelling units for sale as starter homes or a downsizing opportunity.

I think next meeting we're gonna look at subdivision as it relates to middle housing, so that there can be multiple small cottages on a lot.

And um, I have an item that's gonna be heard by the land use policy committee to look at a local density bonus so that we could make it easier to create some of these larger condo projects in the downtown or in other uh public transit corridors for this very reason.

And and the reason why I think it's so important is because Berkeley, the Thousand Oaks neighborhood, it's the oldest neighborhood in the Bay Area, and so we have a very aging population, and you think of the Thousand Oaks neighborhood, you know, parts of that neighborhood are not necessarily walkable uh to grocery stores.

So I think this is really important.

Excuse me.

Uh so I think this is really important.

All the council members are speaking.

Uh you know, to to be able to provide this opportunity for people.

It doesn't make sense for everybody.

Um, it is uh it does make sense for some people, and some people are really telling us that they want these opportunities to downsize and stay in the in the community that they know and love, and so I just wanted to make that point and uh thank all my colleagues, thank the staff, and thank the public commenters um for all of your uh comments.

Thank you, council, for your comments.

Um, I do just want to add that I know some folks are saying that they feel like this process can be confusing and they feel like the information is difficult to get and um to understand, and so I just wanna just want to say that you know we are working to continuously make these processes more transparent and clear, and I really want to thank staff because I know you also answer a lot of questions for for folks from the community, but also um from council members.

Um, and thank you for the presentation as well.

I didn't get to say that earlier.

Um, okay, so is there a motion?

I move approval, those are the second clerk.

Can you please take the roll?

Okay, to um deny the appeal and affirm the zoning adjustments board decision uh on use permit ZP 2024-0066.

Councilmember Kessarwani, yes.

Taplin, yes, Bartlett.

Yes.

Trego.

Aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Unapara.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay.

We are now moving on to public comment for items not listed on the agenda.

Is there anyone online?

Yes, there's two hands raised for non-agenda public comments.

First is Tony.

Yes, I'd like to talk about the um the uh the upgrade that's recommended that's being suggested for the Carters.

Um, and I tend to agree that if seven or sorry, Tony, give me one second.

Could you pause?

I I folks, I know you're you're heading out.

Could you please have your conversations outside so that we can hear from the public commenters?

Thank you.

Sorry, Tony, go ahead.

I just want to say that it seems ridiculous to up zone more, because if we can get seven or eight stories with the current corridor zoning, including San Pablo Avenue, why would we risk not getting the affordable housing units that we get uh with the density bonus?

If we raise the base unit to seven or eight stories, we're not gonna get affordable housing under the density bonus, and so it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to upzone um when we're already getting benefits.

Thank you, Tony.

Okay, and last public commenter is Eid.

Go ahead.

Hi, you know, when you walk or drive through Berkeley, it looks like really pretty much a box down.

It wasn't like that.

Beautiful town it was in the 60s, 70s, and even the 80s.

This hierarchies, the all make the 50 very ugly, as the more built, the more increases.

I want bedroom now, goes in breakfast for over two thousand dollars.

That is disgusting.

The fact is the mega landlords, one of which David Roy, it was a bicycle shop owner, small town and basketball shop when I had my big business.

We have control.

And many others.

It's wrong.

It is wrong.

This big grise boxes are very big risk and bigger quicks, which are coming.

Also, it doesn't help anybody.

We need to go forward.

Again, my phone number is my company phone number 510 848-500.

50 52 uses all phone number.

I wish everybody well.

But it's two there was just one more speaker, Cheryl Davila, former council member.

So, is this uh public comment after the meeting on non-agenda items?

Yes.

I can't hear you.

Yes, it is.

Okay, can you start my clock over, please?

Yeah, so um it's interesting that you know the people are against or something or for something, and you'd never vote the way that the people vote.

Um to me that sounds like collusion, possibly corruption, possibly a monetary gain of some sort, in order to get these developers to achieve the goals that they want to achieve and not listen to the people, and the fact that you still don't care about Palestine, Palestinians, people dying every day, still being martyred.

There was no ceasefire, so free Palestine.

And you know, how are you preparing for comments up?

Thank you.

One more.

This is the last, the last speaker after the oh, nope, hand went down.

Uh okay, that's it.

Thank you all for your public comment on non-agenda items.

I will now entertain a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

Second.

Can you take the roll, please, clerk?

Okay, to adjourn, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Wait.

Council Member Taplin.

Council Member Taplin.

To adjourn.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Trago.

Hi.

Okie.

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you, Berkeley Community Media.

Recording