Berkeley City Council Meeting: Petition Signature Threshold Debate – April 14, 2026
Berkeley City Council Meeting – April 14, 2026
The Berkeley City Council met on April 14, 2026, to discuss modifications to the petition signature ordinance, including the required number of signatures and the time period for gathering them. After debate, the council voted to adopt a standard of 200 signatures with a five-year validity period, including a one-time extension through the life of the entitlement and a requirement for staff to report back in one year.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Carol reported observing a signature gatherer for a competing proposition for the billionaires tax recruiting individuals with energy drinks, which she described as illegal. She stated she reported the incident to the city clerk and police, but police declined to act because no money was involved.
- Kelly Hammergren expressed concern about comments from the fire department and unions regarding the city budget deficit. She noted that the planning department operates with 74% of its budget from permits and is not subject to the same constraints as general fund departments, and called for evaluating the planning department's budgeting.
- A speaker commented on Israel and Palestine, calling for peace and criticizing leadership, and used the term "criminal" in reference to Netanyahu.
Discussion Items
- The council debated changes to the ordinance regarding the number of signatures required for petitions and the time period for gathering them. Councilmember Humbert raised the issue of property owner consent and suggested 100–150 signatures as a more realistic range for ordinary persons, while others coalesced around a 200-signature standard.
- Councilmember Kessarwani and Humbert proposed a five-year validity period with a one-time extension through the life of the entitlement, which Councilmember Taplin's motion included. Vice Mayor Traeger stated he could not support the 200-signature number and preferred 150, but indicated he could accept the five-year period.
- Councilmember Humbert requested a friendly amendment for staff to report back in one year on the administration of the new modifications, which was accepted by the motion maker.
Key Outcomes
- The council voted on a motion consisting of the staff recommendation with supplemental changes from Councilmembers Kessarwani and Humbert, including a single standard of 200 signatures, a five-year validity period with a one-time extension, and a request for a one-year staff report. The motion carried with all present voting yes (Councilmembers Kessarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, O'Keefe, Blackaby, Munapara, Humbert, and Mayor Ishii), though Vice Mayor Traeger indicated he could not vote for the motion.
- The council adjourned after public comments on items not on the agenda.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you. And then I'll come back to Councilmember Humbert. He hasn't weighed in yet on the signature numbers. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Question. When we talk about the the property owner's consent, are we are we are we making consideration as to whether the property owner is like a normal person or a business entity? I think it doesn't matter either way. Sorry, you were saying you think that should be a consideration. Yeah. Yeah, so I think I think that's a worthy consideration because I mean the chances of you know some Chinese owned LLC that's buying up all the block uh consenting to this is gonna be uh nil, right? But the but my neighbor who's a sweet lady um she might be into it, right? So I'm wondering in terms of just you know market realities and also um you know our policy of creating you know local ownership, right? Um I wonder if I I think that should be that should be consideration in this topic. And I still say that um, you know, a proper number for an ordinary person to to succeed with work getting signatures is in that you know 100 to 150 range, possibly 200 with unlimited timetable and true passion. But um 200 is gonna be really hard as well. Okay, um council member Humbert Sure, that's fine. Yeah, um so just just taking a look at uh what everyone has said, it seems that there's some coalescing around this 200 number across whether someone is um uh whether the whether you have the consent from the property owner or not. Um so I'm gonna just say that out loud. I understand that that's what's also on the motion. Um I would like to address this two and a half versus five years piece as well. Um so if we could quickly go through that just because it's 9 34 and I know we can get this done. So who would like to speak on that? We already know where you stand, Councilmember Tracob. Um you're looking at me. You want to know what I think? Um shit. I have sorry, excuse me. I had a um I had thoughts about this and they left left my brain. Uh I know I was leaning towards um they're both reasonable, they're both like reasonable approaches to solve the same problem. So it's hard to sort of pick one. Um I was leaning towards the Humbert Kisserwani proposal because I did get kind of called out. Okay. Let me give me a minute. Let me I don't want to just find ha. Let me think. Uh anyone else on address. Okay, Councilmember Bartlett. I'm sorry, what was my hand still raised? Sorry about that. Oh, okay, yes. Councilmember Taplin. Yeah, thank you. Um I I would support the the five years. Um I think this this phenomenon we're seeing is very real where the economic winds shift and people get their rug pulled out and and projects stall and things escalate and I with the the scale of projects we're likely to see with these. I have more confidence and faith that we'll be seeing good faith builders. Thank you. Um okay. Um council member Keefe, back to you. Yeah, I I didn't have a really groundbreaking reason. Um I think it just um the sort of the one-time aspect of it, I think solved the problem and it and I appreciated that it was a little more forgiving.
openpublica.com