Good evening, everyone.

I'm calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting today's Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, and it is 6.05 p.m.

Can you please take the roll clerk?

Okay.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Here.

Taplin.

Councilmember Taplin.

I see he's on.

I saw.

Let's see.

We can contact him.

Let's see.

Councilmember Bartlett is currently absent.

Councilmember Tregum.

Present.

O'Keefe.

Here.

Blackaby.

Here.

Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert.

Present.

And Mayor Ishi.

Here.

Uh Councilmember Taplin, are you present on the Zoom?

Can you hear us?

Okay.

Well, we'll see if he if he's able to join.

There's a quorum present.

Um Councilmember Kessarwani is participating under the just participating remotely under the just cause exception in the Brown Act.

A quorum of the council is participating in person at the physical meeting location that was noticed.

Councilmember Castarwani, if you could provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely.

But please do not disclose any medical diagnosis, disability or other confidential medical information.

Okay.

And uh Councilmember Taplin is here.

Councilmember Taplin, if you could provide a brief general description of the circumstances relating to your need to repeat appear remotely.

Such as a contagious illness, family caregiving need.

Can you hear us?

Not at this time.

Okay.

Councilmember Kessarwani, if you could publicly disclose whether there are any individuals 18 years of age or older present in the room from which you are participating, and if so, their relationship to you.

Okay.

And council members uh Kessarwani and Taplin uh will participate uh through both audio and visual technology for the duration of the meeting.

Councilmember Taplin, are you able to hear us?

Yes, can you hear me?

Okay, if you could provide a brief description of your circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely, such as family care giving need or uh contagious illness or something similar as allowed by the Brown Act.

Family care.

Family care giving need, thank you very much.

And if you uh councilmember Taplin could publicly disclose if there is anybody 18 years of age or older in the room from which you are participating, and if so, the nature of their relationship to you.

There is not.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you very much.

We can we can proceed, madam mayor.

Thank you so much, Mr.

City Clerk.

Um, we are in the first meeting of April, and so we will read the land acknowledgement.

Um we're taking turns as council members reading the land acknowledgement, and this time it is Councilmember Brent Blackby's turn.

Great, thanks, madam mayor.

Uh, this is the land acknowledgement statement.

The city of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of Huchiun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo speaking Olone 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 Olone 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 Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.

We recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the city of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.

As stewards of the laws regulating the city of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Olone 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 so much, Councilmember.

So for our ceremonial items this evening, we have two adjournments in memory.

We are actually going to start with Cynthia Brantley Pierce first, who is a community activist.

And I believe we have one of our council members who's going to read something for that.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

It is my honor to read our adjournment in memory of Cynthia Brantley Pierce.

We are adjourning tonight's meeting in memory of Cynthia Brantley Pierce.

If folks are here for her, you're welcome to come up to the podium to receive it if you'd like.

As tomorrow marks her 62nd birthday, we hold her memory close this evening in celebration of a life defined by purpose and passion.

Many here know of Cindy as a formidable political fundraiser who helped power the campaigns of California State Senator Lonnie Hancock, Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, and East Bay Regional Parks District Director Elizabeth Eccles.

She dedicated her career to closing the gender gap in our legislatures, championing pro-choice democratic women, and playing a pivotal role in the early success of Close the Gap California, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing women in the California legislature.

More recently, and despite her cancer diagnosis in 2019, Cindy's commitment to our democracy never wavered.

She volunteered regularly with the local chapter of Flip the Vote and turned her 60th birthday celebration into a massive fundraiser for the cause that drew hundreds to her beautiful backyard.

Closer to home, she was a staunch supporter of the Berkeley Public Schools, lending her expertise to the to the PTAs at Berkeley Arts Magnet, King Middle School, and Berkeley High, while also fighting for the passage of local bond measures to support the school district.

Perhaps the greatest testament to Cindy to Cindy's legacy is her children, Clayton and Will, who are in the chambers tonight.

They carry her spirit and passions forward through their own work.

Clayton, as a lawyer with the ACLU working on voter rights, and Will working with the Movement Voter Project.

Cindy was a devoted mother, wife, sister, daughter, and dear friend to many of us.

She was a community builder and a tireless advocate for change.

We honor and celebrate her exceptional life and will miss her dearly.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I think we have a couple of folks who are going to speak.

Only two of us are going to speak now.

But I was asked to be one of them because I think Cindy might have been well, she and I worked together for a number of years.

She, of course, became a friend and a force to be reckoned with in this entire community.

As Rashi said, Cynthia lived a life of passion and purpose, and she was the most focused person I ever knew.

She had two great passions, really.

One was that women's voices be heard and represented when decisions were made about the community.

And the other was her family.

And her, I'll say her extended family and community.

She had several houses on one lot, something we're looking at doing now, more of in Berkeley, with family members living there.

It was beautiful.

It was a community, and many people involved in Berkeley's future were there.

I'm really honored to be here.

Good evening.

My name is Betsy Cotton, and I'm the former executive director for Close the Gap California, an organization focused on creating gender parity in the state legislature by 2028.

I'm honored to have the opportunity to speak tonight about my colleague and friend, Cynthia Brantley Pierce, who is one of our organization's early fundraisers and instrumental in propelling the organization forward.

Cynthia was also the go-to fundraiser for democratic pro-choice women in the Bay Area.

There was no one better at political fundraising than Cynthia.

She was smart, organized, and most importantly, knew how to get a crowd in the room.

There was no saying no to Cynthia.

I'm particularly grateful that Cynthia chose to share her talents with Close the Gap.

We were a young organization with a big mission to get to gender parity in the California legislature.

In recent years, gender gender representation in the California legislature had slipped dramatically to less than 25%.

And we were determined to reverse this trend.

With Cynthia taking charge of our fundraising, Close the Gap grew exponentially, allowing the organization to hire much needed recruiters and get our name out across the state.

And it paid off.

California has now reached gender parity in the state senate, and we were on track to achieve gender parity in the state assembly in 2026.

None of this could be achieved without Cynthia's skill and leadership.

I had the opportunity to work with Cynthia last year on a gubernatorial event between her treatments.

She got to work and made the event a huge success, showing up with a large network of women from the community she's developed over the years.

I'm struck by the impact of deeply principled change makers like Cynthia, who spend their lives working to make the world a better place.

I know that all of us in the East Bay and across the Bay Area will miss her example of professionalism, commitment, passion, and most of all friendship.

Thank you.

Come on in.

I know I was sure you can see the camera.

Apparently, my first day with the phone.

Thank you.

And uh Mayor, I see that uh Councilmember Bartlett has joined, so we just need to do the just cause exemption script for uh Councilmember Bartlett as well.

Um Councillor Bartlett is participating remotely under the Just Cause exception.

Um Councilmember Barlow, if you could provide a brief description of circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely at this time.

Yes, under doctor's orders, I'm remanded to the home.

Okay.

Uh and uh if you could you disclose if there is anybody 18 years of age or older in the room with you, and if so, what is their relationship to you?

Uh there's a professional nanny in the adjacent room with my six-year-old.

Okay.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

We can proceed.

Thank you.

We have another adjournment in memory that Councilmember Traegu will read.

Thank you so much to Councilmember Kesserwani for reading the previous one.

Um go ahead, Councilmember.

For Winston Burton.

And so Winston's family or friends, if you're here, you're welcome to also come up to the podium.

Thank you.

Winston Edward Barton, a devoted father, community advocate, and lifelong educator, passed away on January 26th at age 77 after a long battle with diabetes.

A proud father of three, grandfather of four, and great grandfather of two.

Winston loved his family deeply and dedicated his life to serving others, especially those on the margins of the Barkley community.

Born in Philadelphia, and I'll never forget his torn reminder, whenever I did anything wrong, or not up to his standard, that you can take me out of Philly, but you can't take Philly out of me, he would say.

After moving to the Bay Area in 1982, Winston dedicated himself to expanding opportunity for others.

He began with advocates for women in Hayward, then in 1983, developed and led the refugee employment program for Catholic charities of Oakland.

In 1988, he became employment coordinator and program director at Boss, Building Opportunities for Self-Sustainability, where he focused on creating job training and employment pathways for unhoused individuals across Alameda County.

Work that reflected his lifelong commitment to dignity, equity, and community impact.

Winston also became a leader in community service, working with organizations like Boss, but also serving on numerous local boards, including the Berkeley Public Library Board of Trustees, and the NWACP Barkley chapter, where I got to work with him when he was its president.

He was also a musician in his youth, a devoted sports fan, a beloved organizer of family and community gatherings.

He believed in bringing people together across differences with honesty, humor, and respect.

He is survived by his three sons, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and extended family, um, who are here today, and all of whom carry forward his legacy of compassion, equity, and community.

May his soul rest in power, may his legacy continue to inspire the Barkley community, our beloved Barkley community that he loved so dearly.

Thank you.

My dad taught me a lot of things, but most of all, he taught me to never give up and that nothing is ever easy.

He would fight with the DMV or Kaiser for hours on hold and always stay on the line rather than receiving a callback because it was faster.

Very persistent, immovable, like a stone in a riverbed.

He taught me how important it was to stay level-headed in every situation, or as he called it, the middle path.

Here are a few of my favorite parables he would say that are now instilled in me, and hopefully they will stay with all of you as well.

Anytime I was frustrated or anxious about something, he would tell me a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Or his version, by the yard is hard, but an inch is a cinch.

Neither too high or too low.

Sometimes when you stop, the faster you go.

If you're trying to get ahead, don't let the sun get you lying in the bed.

Or my favorite and most calcified within my conscience being once a job is once begun, do it well until it's done.

Be it big or be it small, do it well or not at all.

Last but not least, his favorite and shortest quote, obstacle, popsicle.

For a long time, I didn't understand the meaning of this, but as I grow older, to me it means no excuses.

All I ask is you remember my father for the man he was and what he has done for you and the community.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much.

I appreciate everyone's um being respectful while we do the ceremonial matters.

Very sad when we lose people in our community, especially those who have been so involved.

We will now move on to city manager comments.

I don't have any comments tonight, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we will now take public comment on non-agenda matters.

Okay, so we'll pick uh five cards uh here in person, and then we'll go to the first five hands raised um the Zoom, and each speaker will have uh one minute each.

And again, this is only for items that are not on the agenda.

Can we confirm that people online can hear us?

Oh you can hear.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

For for uh it's on no, if it's on the agenda, you don't need a card.

Okay, so the um the five uh in-person speakers, and you can come up in any order.

Uh we have uh Ravi Bath, and we have Perant, uh PJ Singh, Amric Singh, and Jared Essig.

So you can come up in any order to talk on items that are not on the agenda.

And you have one minute each.

If you if you can you can come and line up here if if you'd like to even Madam Mayor, City Council members.

I'm here again to talk about how important it is to tell stories.

We've heard two stories, wonderful individuals are being celebrated because they've done such a great job.

And I'm here to request that when we celebrate, we need to make sure that we celebrate those individuals who have accurate stories.

Stories is what makes us who we are.

And I am requesting you to um consider how Galapagai Way was named.

It's very disheartening to our community, and I have spent 14 months finding the evidence which doesn't support the narrative that was presented to the city, and we are willing to share the evidence.

Thank you.

And request the city correct the historical inaccuracy.

The current designation is based on the narrative of the poetry as a social activist who suffered discrimination as an immigrant from India.

However, factual documentation suggests a different history.

After an individual who authentically devoted their life to fighting discrimination and so much.

I urge you to read and be after an individual who authentically devoted their life to fighting discrimination and good afternoon, city councilors, mayor, uh city manager.

My name is Jared Essex.

I'm here to speak to you about accessibility for government services.

Um I was here uh um about a decade ago, and I recently came back.

Uh and uh looked for a map of Berkeley, and it was very hard to find.

This is available in your visitor center in Addison.

But it took me two hours to find this.

Went to City Hall.

I went to the Civic Center on Center Street, and no one even knew where the visitor center was.

Someone looked it up eventually and pointed me there.

Eventually I got a map of Berkeley.

Um, but then I came back and looked for uh the location and the agenda for the city council meeting, and also both in the city hall and civic center, no one knew what the agenda was or where the meeting was.

In fact, you don't even have a city employee in the lobby.

You have a you you have a uh a security contractor.

And they did a very good job, actually.

But you need a city employee as a concierge or ombudsman.

Thank you.

Otherwise, it's not accessible.

And I question whether you even meet the employees.

Okay, your time is actually clause.

This might be in legal assembly for all I know.

Thank you so much.

Our last speaker.

Thank you.

I stand with the PT and uh Rabinder Bat uh comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that was okay.

Um now we'll go to the speakers uh with their hands raised.

Uh, this is for uh public comments for items not on the agenda.

We have three hands raised.

First is uh Joseph.

People uh think Temple OS is a joke because of the graphics, but as a matter of fact, that's God's uh plan because like uh I have to explain this over and over, right?

Oh, why does he get a fiction graphics, right?

No, God wants a 640 by 480 forever in uh only 16 colors, though, because uh um let me explain the logic.

Um my uh my mom taught preschool, and uh they used to uh do crayon uh colorings, right?

And uh she said it's kind of weird, like as soon as the kids made something with colors, for some reason it takes a black crayon and put it all over, and like you get a really ugly thing covered with black.

And uh she just said she just was wondering maybe some feeling of power or something, you know, black is a can overwrite the other colors and stuff.

But uh so, like inevitably, when you give the kids a black crayon, they're gonna like cover the whole thing with black.

And so she used to take away the black crayon.

And uh that's that's kind of the logic here.

God's favorite game is Donkey Kong, right?

So, like uh it's like, dude, you give them you give them that high resolution and stuff, and what do they do?

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we also have another the the next raised hand is also a speaker named Joseph.

Joseph, you should be able to unmute hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, my name is Joseph Fwad Rafiklu.

I am a proud Azerbaijani immigrant, and I would like to talk to you about a problem that has been plaguing our city.

My family owns a Medicare business where we help facilitate Medicare to people who need it.

And our city is being overrun by Armenian rats who come in and use fake Medicare businesses to destroy our systems and take over our country.

We need to stop the Armenian.

Okay.

Next is uh Della Luna.

Yeah, I guess I'll start by speaking on that.

I wish whoever was in charge of that could be faster on getting those bogus calls out of here because they can be offensive and racist quite easily.

I wanted to speak about the pedestrian crosswalk at the Ashby Bar.

Construction started, I guess finished over six weeks ago, but all the cones were taken down, and the crosswalk has not been painted or finished.

And I'm requesting that you put construction cones back to indicate that there is a crosswalk for the drivers.

I feel like pedestrians are quite confident in that space.

But the drivers not seeing the crosswalk is quite dangerous for the pedestrians.

Secondly, at the last meeting, there was a lot of like trying to direct public comment or speed it up, but that is part of the process, and this body needs to acknowledge that when you put something on the agenda, that means you're going to listen to public comment.

So we doesn't have to be directed or redirected or get everyone in line faster, faster, faster.

All of that is unnecessary.

If there's no time for something, then put it on another agenda.

Um changing the what gets put on the agenda will impact the public comment rather than trying to speed direct it one by one every person.

That energy should not happen in the meeting.

Thank you.

And then we have um Pauline.

Pauline, you should be able to unmute.

My name is Pauline Bandano Cross, and I own a community health education.

I'm the executive director of community health education institute.

I wanted to comment on item 13 on uh the voting this evening.

Item 13 will not be on the agenda.

We'll be taking up comments on the consent calendar soon.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Uh that that's it.

All right.

Um, thank you.

We are now going to move on to public comment by employee unions, which happens at the first regular meeting of the month.

And I believe I saw more.

I brought a few friends with me in case I need some more time.

Five minutes is the max for this portion.

Uh good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Amori Langmom, and I'm the president of the Berkeley Firefighters local 1227.

Tonight I want to use my time to speak on the notice of proposed position eliminations I received last Friday.

In total, 20 positions have been proposed for elimination along with the closure of fire station four.

I want to make the case tonight for why this is incredibly dangerous position for the city to take.

I also want to highlight something that should not be lost in this conversation.

Over the last 18 years, the citizens of Berkeley have given the city a clear mandate to fund public safety.

They passed two dedicated fire department tax measures, measure GG in 2008, and measure FF in 2020, bringing in nearly 16.2 million dollars annually.

That is the public telling the city repeatedly that they value this service.

Tonight's proposal moves in opposition of direct direction of that mandate.

These cuts roll the department back 20 years.

These proposed cuts don't just reduce the fire department, they roll it back 20 years in a city that has uh grown dramatically in every direction since then.

The call volume in the same period of time has gone from 11,000 incidents per year to 17,500.

The city is growing and we are moving backward.

Berkeley is the second most densely populated city in California's top 50, behind only San Francisco.

We are adding 500 new housing units every year, roughly 1% of total housing stock annually.

Population swells to over 150,000 when you see it is in session.

That's more people, more calls, more incidents, fewer firefighters.

Station four is not a low volume luxury.

That includes 28 fires, 966 medical emergencies, and 17 cardiac arrests.

Forty-seven percent of the time, citywide, there are multiple simultaneous incidents.

Units are already committed when the next call drops.

Engines two, five, and six are already at or above recommended maximum call limit.

Station fours, 1,538 annual calls don't disappear when you close it.

They get pushed onto companies that are already maxed out.

The life safety math.

Every minute of delay in cardiac arrest reduces survival by seven to ten percent.

Modern home fires reach flash over in nine to six minutes.

Fires double in size every 30 to 60 seconds.

Traumatic injuries, responses, response over 20 12.

I'm sorry, 12 minutes are linked to nearly double the fatality rate compared to response under seven minutes.

These are not abstractions.

Engine four responded to 17 cardiac arrests last year alone.

The cities of an expert said the resource if we need to add resources, not cut them.

In 2023, the city paid for an independent standards of coverage study.

City gates conclusion, Berkeley Fire Department is organized for yesterday's mission and is struggling to meet today's today's demand.

Their recommendation add four person per four-person stopping tally's four or seven engine companies and both truck companies.

Four person crews complete fire ground tasks 5.1 minutes faster, 25% faster on life life safety tasks like fire attack and search and rescue.

The bottom line, the citizens of Berkeley have voted twice in 18 years to fund the department.

They've given the city a 16.2 million a year mandate.

I'm asking the city reject the proposed position eliminations and the closure.

The closure of fire station four.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here from a union that wants to speak?

Or maybe sometimes folks are online.

No other representatives.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here.

Okay, we're moving on to the consent calendar.

So I will start off to see if my council colleagues have comments.

Starting with Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And I'm making reference to the item on the action calendar number 18.

Um, which is a Mills Act contract for 2845 Woolsey, which was continued for March 24, 2026, the agenda for that meeting.

I'd like to request unanimous support for the item being returned to the consent calendar.

Based on conversation with staff, I feel comfortable with the Mills Act contract being approved.

The application came in before the pause, and the LPC's lack of action appears to have been the result of some absences, as well as uncertainty created by the PAS and how to dispose of Mills Act applications already in progress.

For fairness's sake, I think it's reasonable to approve this one.

Understanding that once all outstanding applications received before the cutoff are processed, we won't be reviewing or approving any more for the foreseeable future.

So I'd ask unanimous consent to place that back on consent.

Thank you.

Um I see no opposition to that.

So okay, we will move that to consent then.

Thank you.

And then I have just one more comment on the consent calendar.

Um 250 dollar contribution to number 15, which is sponsored by council member Bartlett, the celebration for Sylvia Mendez, the spring cultural celebration.

250 dollars from our office account.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um moving on to Councilmember Backabee.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Just uh two brief comments.

Umilly on item 14, uh, the colour art um relinquishment.

We'd like to uh relinquish 250 dollars from the district six account and item 15 on the Sylvia Mendes Spring Cultural Celebration.

Similarly, we want to delinquish uh 250 dollars.

Uh and I wanted to thank um council member Kessarwani and team for bringing item 13, the referral to establish a citywide local density bonus program to facilitate lower cost ownership homes.

The the the condo item.

I'm really interested in um hearing back from staff on what might be possible there, and I wanted to thank Councilmember Castroani for bringing it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, Councilmember Trab.

Uh thank you so much, Madam Mayor.

Um, and thank you to City staff for all your work uh to bring um a number of uh items on consent.

I'm very happy to support item number four, which is the downtown Berkeley Association bid renewal, this vital well, or funding funding allocation, uh gap funding allocation.

This vital organization is making so much good happen in our beloved downtown from continuously keeping up with our businesses and property owners to keeping our downtown clean and cared for to relentlessly and creatively beautifying it.

Um thank you so much, John and the entire DBA staff, uh, as well as our economic development department for your ongoing support and help.

On item 12, uh, which is um to start a process to rename Cesar Chavez Park.

Uh, I'm happy to support this item.

I believe it creates a path for thoughtful community engagement while ensuring that we continue to honor the legacy of farm workers uh and their essential contributions and um I think of farm workers like um the father of my life partner, a Manong, who immigrated from the Philippines to start a life here for him and his family and support them.

On item 14, um I uh would like to thank um Councilmember Kess Havani um and my co-sponsors uh for this item uh which relates to um making it easier to um move stout projects including in our downtown forward.

Um I'm supporting this item because it is our duty to explore all vital viable solutions to make sure that our precious downtown um properties are not sitting vacant and abandoned.

Uh this is a referral.

And I look forward to staff returning with the information that the referral requests.

Um this process will um I think uh continue to benefit from all the thoughtful community engagement that we received, and I look forward to seeing it when it comes back.

On items 14 and 15, I'm happy to contribute 150 dollars from my council office budget to support these important community initiatives.

And lastly, on item 17, which is uh support for amendments to the Berkeley Green Code.

I um grateful to Councilmember Luna Parra and Taplin as my co-sponsors, and I'm grateful to um staff, uh, particularly Jordan and uh the uh Office of Um Environment uh Environmental Sustainability for your work in this item.

Um these amendments will help uh ensure that Barkley continues to be a climate leader um when it comes to uh green buildings, including uh both new and existing construction.

It also includes opportunities to streamline the permitting of green features such as heat pumps and to make it easier for residents and builders alike to adopt more sustainable technologies.

I'm pleased to see this item moving forward in a way in a way that advances our sustainability goals while also making implementation more practical and accessible.

And I'm grateful to those who have called in or written in in support of this item, including the Sierra Club.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Linapara.

Thank you.

Um I would like to donate 150 dollars um to item 14 and 250 to item 15.

Um and thank you to the authors.

I also want to thank Mayor Ishii and the community for their work on item 12 to rename the Cesar Chavez Park and align our holiday with the states, and thank Vice Mayor Tragub for his work on the Green Building Codes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I'd like to be recorded as donating $100 to Kala and $100 for the Sylvia Mendez Spring celebration.

And uh I just wanted to thank my colleagues for their support of the local density bonus item to promote condo development.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Bartlett.

Uh hi.

So um uh please.

Excuse the background noise.

Uh the uh I'd like to 150 dollars to item 14, the Color Arts Center, beautiful place.

Uh item uh 13, really happy about the local density bonus for affordable condominium ownership.

We heard that at the landers committee uh that I chair, and I'm really pleased with the the outcome and look and thank you for putting us forward, uh, Council Member Kessarwani.

Uh the uh I'd like to um of course uh thank you all and for supporting the Sylvia Mendez cultural celebration.

It's uh you know it's a bilingual school.

So this is a really good party every year.

Um so I'm gonna, of course, at 250 to that for myself.

Um I confirm this thousand dollars for my budget here for this one.

Uh and then uh also Dolores Cooper uh is a stallboard member of the community.

This is item item 16.

And so the people came forward and asked us to consider naming this plaza over there uh after Louis Cooper.

Dolores Cooper, of course, um is uh the longtime head of Juneteenth and has and has really made maximum use of that location, and so it'd be a wonderful uh treasurer if the commission decides to name it after her.

And then last but not least, I do want to call out I couldn't speak earlier.

Uh Winston Burton was a lifelong friend of mine from from childhood, and uh, he was a wonderful human being, a powerful advocate, uh a true Berkeley original, and uh he he will be missed.

And if his families listening are still there, uh my prayers go out to you, and I just saw him in the hospital just four months ago, and I was really stunned that he didn't come out come out of it the right way.

And my prayers are with you.

God bless Watson.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Um just briefly, um, I would like to be recorded as donating 200 for um items 14 and 15.

Both seem like worthy causes.

And uh my only other comment is I really want to thank Councilmember Cassarwani for item 13.

I think this is um a really important policy hole for lack of a better word.

That um this is uh it's a very important correction to be made.

So thank you so much for bringing that item, and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you very much.

Um Councilmember Humbert, did you have something else you wanted to add?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I missed um number 14, the calaw, I guess is how you pronounce it, art 2026, and would like to donate 250 from my office account to that item.

Thank you.

I'd also like to add 250 from my account for item number 14, and thank Councilmember Taplin for bringing it and uh thank you to Councilmember Bartley for bringing item 15 for the Sylvia Mendes Cultural Celebration also donate 250 to my office's discretionary funds for that item as well.

Oh, I missed Councilmember Taplin.

Go ahead, Councilmember.

Uh thank you very much.

I was a little late there.

Um I would also like to relinquish 500 um for item 15.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

And also, since I know some of the folks are here, I really want to thank everyone who um I we'd have conversations with about Cesar Chavez and the renaming of the various different holidays and sites within our city.

Um we've had many community conversations over the last week.

Um, and I'm very grateful to everyone who's waited in and given us their thoughts.

So um thank you very much.

I know this has been a really challenging um situation for the community.

So thank you.

Um with that, I will see if there's any public comment on consent calendar and information items only.

Come on, come forward, line up along the wall there, and you can come forward to speak.

Yes.

One minute per speaker.

Good evening, uh, Madame Mayor, Council members and uh city manager.

I'm here to uh um go by Durant.

Uh I'm here to talk about item 13 local density bonus program.

And uh I believe you cannot legally establish a new local density bonus program while the mayor and the council actually actively enable a documented density fraud at a 24-25 durant.

I'd like to understand why you insist pass and uh uphold the permit while I was here testify that there's uh um this uh material fraud in terms of how they apply the for um permit with the 19 unit.

You give the high density bonus while in reality there's only 15 operation safety limit existing at the cost of uh tenants uh life safety with preventable emergencies taking place is already and uh thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Ursula Schultz, and I'm a Berkeley resident, and I'm speaking on item 13.

And the one thing I think is very useful about the recent projects with density bonuses is they require a minimum amount of reduced cost housing.

The problem I see with the inlu fee is it just reiterates the red lining that was there before.

Because what's gonna happen, you're suggesting that these fees go to the Ashby Bart station.

I'm sorry, can you hear me?

Um I don't think it's beneficial to the working families who need housing in high resource districts, or the small business employees who would like to live near their jobs.

And the fees go elsewhere.

Also, there's a percentage of the fees that are administratively consumed.

So the condominiums stay exclusive, and the previously redlined neighborhoods remain so.

Building market rate condominity uh condominiums.

You got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm requesting two extra minutes.

John and Harvey.

Sorry, I couldn't see who's who is the second person?

Harvey.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Apty.

I'm a Berkeley resident, speaking to item 13, the proposed citywide local density bonus for condominium development.

This proposal asks the council to allow condominium developers anywhere in Berkeley to elect to pay in new fees instead of building any affordable housing on site for every unit in the project, not some units, all of them.

I want to raise three specific concerns.

First, where the affordable housing affordable housing goes, the proposal directs those fees into the city's housing trust fund to be spent on affordable housing elsewhere.

It explicitly names SPE's parking lot in West Berkeley as a destination.

West Berkeley is a historically lower income, historically underserved neighborhood.

So the structural outcome is this the market rate condominium development in Berkeley's wealthiest neighborhoods generates zero on-site affordable housing while the affordable units get redirected to lower income areas.

The wealthy neighborhoods get exclusive market rate condominiums.

The affordable housing goes where it always has.

Second, whether the affordable housing gets built at all.

This is the part of the proposal I found most troubling.

Nowhere in item 13 is there a specific dollar commitment, a minimum funding requirement, or a binding timeline for how the collective fees must be deployed.

The proposal says fees can fund affordable housing elsewhere.

Can, not shall, not must.

The council would be authorizing developers to avoid all on-site affordability applications in exchange for fees whose actual deployment to affordable housing is entirely discretionary.

Third, what the data tells us, Berkeley's own RENA records show us that in the last completed eight-year housing cycle, we built 228% of our market rate housing target.

Only 28% of our low-income target.

We do not have a market rate production problem.

We have an affordable housing delivery failure.

A citywide policy that allows market rate condo developers to avoid on-site affordable units in exchange for discretionary fees of unspecified destination does not address that failure.

It is institutionalizes it.

Councilmember Keshelwani has been strong, a strong advocate for housing equity in the city.

I respect that commitment.

But I would ask her and this counsel to reconcile tonight's proposal with it.

Genuine equity means affordable housing built in high resource neighborhoods, not discretionary fees that may or may not fund housing somewhere else someday.

This proposal should not pass as written.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And where's Julie?

All right.

So hi everyone.

Donald Simon, three minutes, please.

Thank you all, and I do mean thank you.

Because after meeting with a lot of you, you have a pretty thankless job.

You're responsible for the whole city, and seems like no matter what you do, somebody's gonna give you heck for it.

And you've got to put up with a lot of stuff, and I think we saw a little bit of that earlier today.

So I do not mean this to be critical.

I hope that it will be insightful.

You've heard from others already about a glaring deficiency in this condo density bonus proposal.

And I want to make sure it's very, very clear as to what the outcome is if you push this forward.

You all identify as progressives, which is appropriate.

This is Berkeley, California.

You have rightfully identified the sins of the past where practices such as redlining enforced a segregationist housing system where the wealthy live over here and the poor live over here.

And I know this is the last thing you want, but if this thing goes forward, you will be creating the new Jim Crow of housing segregation right here in Berkeley.

Now, why is that?

Because in some meetings I've seen that it's not clearly understood.

The state has set a policy that to advance fair housing, to promote the desegregation where we all live together as one, which is what everybody in Berkeley wants.

They don't want this continued ghettoization where the lower income are over here and the wealthier over there.

The state has set a policy with the state density bonus that gives developers what they want, which is the ability to build more than twice as high as what cities allow, but in exchange for that, they have to provide affordable units.

But every time you raise height limits, whether it's with this density bonus or the CZU, you obviate and take away that incentive because the developers get the height they want without having to include any on-site affordable units.

Now I understand that puts money into the city budget in times when we were running short.

I understand that you think that it's going to increase property taxes, but it should not be done by enforcing reinforcing the housing segregation that got us into this problem to begin with.

We need to provide the mixing of people living together, and the only way history shows in Berkeley that you get lower income people living in market rate housing projects is when developers use the state density bonus, just as Patrick Kennedy is doing in the project on Virginia Street that you just recently approved.

This was presented as a way to get the stalled projects in downtown going.

So why is it being presented now as something that would be applied citywide?

If you go forward with directing staff to develop an ordinance along these lines or a proposal on these lines, you are going to reinforce the very housing segregation that you have stated it is your intention to eliminate and that we all would back you on.

And so we I'm asking you, on behalf of, say Berkeley shops and on behalf of myself as a Berkeley resident that has lived in this area.

If you forward this, limit it to the downtown that it was designed to help accelerate and do not allow it elsewhere.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Joel Myerson, a Berkeley resident.

Let's describe this local density bonus in simple terms that are not false comparisons to the state density bonus.

Currently, if a developer wants to build in Berkeley and not include any on-site affordable housing, they need to pay an inloof fee based on the size of the project.

The bigger the project, the higher the fee.

Under the new plan, they get to pay the same fee, but they get to build a project that is at least twice as big and not include any affordable housing.

Effectively, this cuts the fee in half and doubles the size of the project.

And the developer gets the number of concessions and a literally unlimited number of waivers, like waiving the height limit or whatever.

This is not a density bonus.

It is a density giveaway and a backdoor rezoning plan.

This plan should not even be being considered, much less being sent to the city manager.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think it vigorously support the land use policy committee's recommendation to uh that refer to the city manager to have affordable housing on site through below market rate condos.

This is necessary for both apartments and for condos to have economic diversity and other diversity in our community.

And once that is done, no action should be taken until we have identified the city has identified a formula that to get to design so that there are below market rate condos on site.

Thank you.

I'm going to cede the rest of my time to Merle Siegel.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh Council members.

Thank you for this time.

I just concur with the very eloquent speakers that spoke about the density bonus.

I too see that if this change called the local density bonus goes through, it will further segregate our city.

And I don't think any one of you want to be involved in no in that kind of resegregation or re-redlining of our city.

Furthermore, I just wanted to say something about middle housing.

We passed the middle housing, and this would also be a boon to middle housing.

In other words, people who are now making middle incomes could possibly afford to own something.

Can you imagine how wonderful that would be for people?

I can, because I was one of those people who could not afford anything when I had started my career.

So I really suggest that you take another look at this, think about ways that those condos can create affordable condos.

I think it would be a wonderful gift you could give to the city of Berkeley.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christopher Kroll, West Berkeley.

Um I won't repeat everything you've already heard.

I am actually shocked that this is on the consent calendar and that none of you have raised any of these concerns that the people you have just heard have raised, very viable issues.

And it's not appropriate that this comes back in six months after the staff has gone off and developed it.

These issues should be developed on the action calendar now, today, before you approve sending it off.

This is horrendous that you were doing this without even adequate public input.

Um I guess that's all I have to say.

You you've heard it's like how will this program, why is this program for downtown?

Is it for downtown?

This is it a citywide program.

The affordable housing will likely decrease if this program is passed.

But the only way we're getting housing now, affordable housing, is through the density bonus, right?

Or am I wrong?

Um this and why is again is this should not be on the consent calendar.

There's so many issues that are unresolved, and you're gonna send this to the city manager, and the staff's gonna spend staff time building this program.

Thank you.

Hi, can I come with my coworker together?

Two minutes.

Go ahead.

Uh hi, council members and mayor.

Uh, my name is Mayumi Hamanaka, and uh with Ellen Lake, uh, we are coexecutive director for at uh Kala Art Institute.

Um we're just here tonight to thank your support and your support really help us to do our programs, which supports local young artists and uh teens and adults who are really eager to create art and engage with the art in community.

So thank you.

Uh not too much more to add, except for a big thanks for me too for supporting Kalat Art Institute.

It's our 52nd year, and we've been in Berkeley since 1979 in the old Heinz Ketchup Factory building, um, supporting arts and culture in West Berkeley and all over Berkeley and beyond, and so it means a lot for um all of you to support our organization and a special thanks to Councilmember Terry Taplin and to all of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming.

Uh good evening.

Uh my name is Santiago Casal.

I'm one of the founders of Latinos and Latinos and Eduardos in Berkeley.

And I'm also the founder and and um director of the Cesar Chavez Delar's work to tribute site and solar calendar at Chavez Park.

All names that are going to change.

I'd like to read this uh statement.

As part of the commemorative committee that originally spearheaded the naming of Chavez Park over 30 years ago, we sincerely appreciate the mayor's item request to engage with the Chavez work, the commemoration period partners and Latinos and Either's the Berkeley regarding the renaming of Chavez Park after the toxic news of March uh 18th and the abusive harm caused by Cesar Chavez.

Mostly important uh most importantly, as outlined in the mayor's direction to the city manager and the parks and recreation commission.

We also support the name change, continuing to honor the legacy of uh labor organizing and solidarity among farm workers and recognizing them as the backbone of America.

Gracias.

My name is Yetri Sleva Cutler, and I'm part of the commemoration um committee and also former Berkeley School Board member.

We're a sanctuary city embracing and advocating for our immigrant community, and we are proud of our farmers' markets, which enliven and nourish our city every Saturday, Tuesday, and Thursday for decades.

We support and are committed to the renaming to reflect this outcome.

Give you a los campesinos y las cosechas, the farm worker movement continues.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the commemorative committee, which broadly represents the city, BOCD, and the community.

Gracias.

Thank you.

William Hollakas give me his minute.

Council members.

I um I'm asking you to move uh number 13 to the uh action calendar.

And the reason why is uh when we talked at the land use committees, a lot of people understood that there are issues that need to be redressed, and that as I explained, there are flaws in the report that was presented to you.

Uh so my concern is that you everybody's saying, oh, this is great, we're gonna put it on, we're gonna do consent, but nobody is asking the questions that haven't been asked.

The purpose of the local density laws uh that were in the report and adopted by other cities was to increase affordable housing, and that's what was in there.

And yet this one takes it away.

Uh it doesn't address the issues that seniors and family will not want to move to downtown Berkeley or what I call Cal Central.

Um it's geared for the upper middle class single from outside the city because they're the only ones who can afford market rate.

Will it be used for absence landlords who will then buy it and then raise rent?

Uh what happens if it doesn't get built?

Is the city going to take away the permits?

They haven't so far.

Is there a penalty if it converts to a rental?

Uh those and more need to be put in an amended referral that not you can't do because you're keeping it on the action calendar.

Um what the real issue is here.

Are you guys excuse me?

Are you intending for equity?

Are you intending for inclusiveness?

This is based on a flawed report.

I'm asking you to take it off the consent calendar and talk about it and ask all those questions that you haven't asked.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chrissy Hoffman.

I think I'm here regarding item number 20, which says amendments to BMC title landmark preservation commit commission to revise procedures.

Sorry, I think that that is on the action calendar.

So we're right now on consent calendar and information items only.

Oh, okay, gotcha.

So if you okay, thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Hi, John Kane or Downtown Berkeley Association.

We've had no condos in downtown development in the last 30 years.

We've had 2,000 new uh rental units.

We have 3,000 more in the pipeline, all student rental housing.

We go up to students, but we need economic diversity in the downtown.

We need people to move out of their homes in the hills and the flats.

We need young professionals so they can build equity.

We need economic diversity.

We need to support our arts district.

We need to support our restaurants and shops.

Please support item 13 so people can have home ownership in our downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see you're smiling when you hear support.

Um I've been following the city since the olden days, you know, since I was younger.

And in those olden days, the in Lufi was the Nexus studies were on uh 5% return on investment.

That's how they were calculated.

But now we're looking at um 20% return on investment for construction as kind of being the bottom line and 30% being even better for investors, uh better investment.

Uh so if we were looking at the density bonus for only the downtown, um, I would probably be agreeable to that.

But citywide, I think it's a huge mistake, and just like so many others have said, this is really the new redlining and ghettoization.

And as one person suggested, there should be a sunset.

Thank you, Calendar if it's passed at all.

Thank you.

Are there folks online who have public comment on consent calendar information items?

We currently have seven hands raised.

This is public comments on consent and information items.

Uh first speaker is David Schear.

Um hi.

I want to speak in favor of item 13, if my children will let me.

Um this is uh this is a smart and innovative program.

We are talking about tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on homeless services.

That will be spent leveraging state and federal funds to build affordable housing that will be spent on things like the small sites program that will be spent filling in the gaps, uh, some of the gaps created by our crippling structural deficit.

This proposal will create hundreds, if not thousands of more affordable for sale units so that people can have some stability in their lives instead of being tenants for the rest of their lives.

And you know, I think a lot of folks are gonna drive home tonight and walk into homes that cost one and a half million dollars, two million dollars.

Um they should think about the fact that they are talking about how building homes that cost half that is somehow comparable to redlining and gym.

Um, I think that's outrageous.

And I think that this is a really great proposal, and I appreciate it.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next is Justin Randall.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Shuston Randall.

I'm serving as co-president of the PTA at Sylvia Mendez.

And so I just wanted to thank you all.

Uh, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has been supporting our celebración futral for the last uh well, this is our fourth year, and uh everybody has been uh very supportive of this uh at the city council level for our um uh last few years.

And uh this is a great way for us to have a spring event uh where we're able to uh celebrate the different cultures that are not necessarily uh related to heritage, but also just um the the many different ways that um the the members of our community um uh express themselves.

And uh so if you guys are available, please come through April 26th between 11 and 2.

We'd love to see you at uh at Sylvia Mendez.

Uh we're still currently under construction, but uh it's still a great time to to come and uh and see what the Sylvia Mendes community has to offer.

Thank you.

Thanks so much for the invitation.

Next is Pauline.

Pauline, you should be able to unmute.

Hi, um my name is Pauline Bandano.

I'm uh the director of community health education institute, and I wanted to comment on item 13.

Council members, I appreciate your time and attention and your hard work right now.

Um, I believe item 13 will not increase low-income housing.

As has been said before, it's market rate housing, and we desperately need low-income housing in many areas of Berkeley.

Um, not just market rate housing.

I think there are so many unanswered questions that have come up in this session with council that this needs to come off the consent calendar, and we need to answer some of these questions first and think about you know how how are we representing the people of Berkeley and all of their needs?

Are we really providing them with housing that they're going to be able to afford?

And I'm gonna thank you for consideration of this.

Thank you.

Uh, next is Matt O'Brien.

Yes, thank you.

Many have expressed their opposition to uh doing away or uh the inlu having the inlu fee for these condo projects because it will uh foster ghettoization and uh apartment buildings full of people who can spend four and five thousand dollars a month or you know, pay pay uh uh market rate mortgages.

Uh, and then there would be other buildings uh that just have low-income people and they're in a different part of the city.

And so the ghettoization and the and the and the false argument that it addresses previous discriminatory housing uh policies is a problem.

And so the public starts thinking, gosh, why why why are they doing this?

And many have concluded that it's just another sort of giveaway to the real estate interest to make up for the failures of of all the stalled projects, the boarded up dead zone on center street.

And we think that we want affordable housing.

We don't want our city council to just be pleasing the real estate interests.

We understand you know, they have a lot of money and a lot of influence, but we want our city council to work for the public.

We want affordable.

I appreciate your comment.

Next is Della Luna.

Yes, I would like to request that item 13 be pulled from the consent calendar and put on the action calendar.

After hearing that this is now being proposed citywide, suddenly that seems like a surprise.

And before anything would be proposed citywise, there should be more discussion on it.

And that has not happened.

Um I think that even with the area that it's in, even if it were for students, there's still our low-income students.

So it I doesn't seem a reasonable to move the low-income uh units to another part of the city, presumably, or you know, through the funds.

And I think that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next is valued customer.

I'm uh I'm valued customer, also known as Martin Nicholas.

I'm CEO of the Shaves Far Conservancy, and I'd like to support uh the statement by Santiago Casal and Beatrice Labor Cutler uh in support of uh a process to uh change the name of Cesar Chavez Park.

Uh I hope this goes forward fairly speedily because uh it's very itchy to be uh to have the name Scissor Service Chavez Park Conservancy when you really don't want that name anymore.

So we hope that this goes forward in a speedy way.

I also have a couple of things I want to say about items two and three, uh, which uh hire out our animal services to Emoryville in Albany who's gonna bring in 1.2 million dollars to animal services.

That's terrific.

I hope that that money is used to hire additional staff for animal services.

The couple of times that I've called Berkeley Animal Services, I've been told, oh, I can't really help you.

We're we're running three different time's up.

Okay, next is David Song.

Good evening, council members.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I I don't want to re restate what has already been stated about the item 13 on the consent calendar.

I do support that item being pulled and there being more discussion.

Affordable housing is tough.

We all understand that.

We all want affordable housing, and it's tough to make it happen, but we've got to put our energy into figuring out how to make that happen, and we need to figure out how to get affordable housing into some of these neighborhoods that it's been pointed out.

We're guilty of redlining in the 40s, and we're trying to figure out ways of addressing creating more opportunities.

This is not about that.

This is not about that.

This is gonna provide market rate condominiums and or rentals in wealthy neighborhoods, and it'll create more money for the fund, which will then go out and purchase lots and build housing in less wealthy neighborhoods in Berkeley.

That is not what we're trying to do.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Okay, that's all of the speakers on on the Zoom.

Thank you very much.

I see that Councilmember Kessarwani has her hand raised.

Yes, uh, thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I uh I want to thank the public commenters for your feedback and and I I do want to note as has been noted, this is a referral uh to uh of a concept that will come back to the council so that we can uh review the details and have more um community input at that point.

I also want to note that this item was heard by the land use uh committee, where um we did hear from the the public as well at that point, and we accepted I think all of the amendments that were proposed in that committee.

I want to thank the the members of the council who serve on that committee who provided very helpful input.

I I also want to thank the co-sponsors of this item, uh Madam Mayor, uh, Councilmember Tregoob, and um I believe Councilmember Bartlett, you would also like to join this item, correct?

As a co-sponsor.

Okay, so clerk, if you could record that and and uh thank you very much, everyone thank you.

Okay, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Okay, thank you.

Can we take the roll, please, Clerk?

Okay.

Uh to approve the consent calendar, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Yes.

Tregab, I O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

The consent calendar is adopted.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

We are moving on to the action calendar.

Let me just scroll down.

Um, we already, by the way, move moved item number 18, which is the mills contract item to consent, which we just passed.

So I am not sure if anyone was here for that, but wanted to make sure you knew that that passed.

Okay.

And did you want to still give a public comment or no?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, okay.

Very good.

And so on here as new business.

Actually, I really would like us to take a stretch break.

We're gonna take a 10-minute stretch break, and um that will allow the city attorney's office also to set up.

So 10-minute stretch break.

Thank you.

Yeah, sometimes they'll get a lot of people.

Thank you.

So yeah, I think that's a new note.

Hello, I think we're ready to return.

Okay.

Folks, Julie, Kelly, Carol.

Okay.

Please have a seat.

Thank you.

All right.

So we are now on the action calendar for new business.

So I will pass it over to the city attorney's office for the proposed, excuse me.

Hello, thank you.

For the proposed resolution limiting use of city property to authorized authorized uses that further city purposes and protect access to city services.

All right, passing it over.

No worries.

Would you like me to read my introduction now?

Since maybe that will give you a little bit more time.

It would be wonderful if you introduce it and then we'll launch into the rest of it.

Sure.

That sounds good.

So in light of the invasions and military-like surges of federal immigration authorities in American cities last October and since then, the city council unanimously directed the city manager to identify city-owned and controlled properties and to coordinate with the city attorney to develop a policy or ordinance that would ensure city properties and facilities are only used for city purposes and those purposes approved by the city manager or their designee.

We asked them to draft an administrative policy or ordinance to ensure that city property is used for city purposes, restricting the use of city owned property for civil immigration, the use of city owned property for civil immigration enforcement, staging areas, processing locations, or operation bases, absent lawful court orders.

This policy, which is now passed in counties and cities across the Bay Area and the country, is often termed ice-free zones.

We are pleased to say that the city attorney is presenting a resolution limiting use of city property to authorized uses that further city purposes and protect access to city services for our consideration.

We're trying to start the first slide here, but for some reason it's appearing on my computer, but not up there.

Okay, no worries.

It's working now.

So first importantly, what would the resolution do?

So primarily what it would do was prohibit exclusive use of city property without city authorization.

And so that that term is defined in the resolution.

So it wouldn't be any use, it would be limited to exclusive uses, which essentially prohibit others from using the property.

It would not apply to sort of traditional uses and ways in which city property has always been open to the public.

So this is a sort of narrow restriction on exclusive use without city authorization.

And what it would do is it would bar city employees and other city officials from approving exclusive uses of city property that would either disrupt city operations or discourage access to city services, unless that proposed use furthers a city purpose.

So that is this all sounds kind of complicated, but essentially it would make it so the kinds of uses that someone might propose to the city and ask for authorization that would discourage residents from being able to access city services or in other ways disrupt city operations in ways that would harm the city that the city will not authorize those uses unless there's some other important city purpose that that use furthers.

And in essence, um the resolution also has findings, and those findings are that civil immigration enforcement disrupts city operations and discourage discourages access to city services, and that such enforcement operations are not a city purpose.

And so, in putting all that together, in effect, it prohibits authorizing exclusive use of city property for things like immigration enforcement staging areas or operation spaces where they would be essentially taking over or trying to exclusively use city property for their own purposes.

And finally, what the resolution would do was direct the city manager to post clear signage on certain lots, identifying them as city property and specifying that unauthorized uses are not permitted.

And so this would apply to certain city properties that aren't otherwise access restricted and where it may not be clear to the public that it's a city property and that in order to use it you would need to seek city authorization.

So turning to the next slide.

Essentially, as the mayor mentioned, really the purpose of the resolution is to preserve city properties for city programs and services, or to further other city purposes that are specifically authorized by the city, putting more control and making very clear what purposes are and aren't authorized.

It would protect access to city services by preventing approval of certain kinds of outside uses that could disrupt city operations or discourage access.

And importantly, the purpose is also just establish guidance and clarity for when city officials may or may not authorize exclusive use of city property.

So the important takeaways on this are that this is a purpose-based and use base resolution.

It governs approval for the type of use and exclusive uses in particular.

It's not about general presence or activity, and it's not uh targeting the identity of any particular user.

It's really about the purpose of the use.

It applies generally to any exclusive uses that would interfere with the city operations or access to services and do not facilitate a city purpose, and that's a broad range of potential things.

Um civil immigration enforcement takeovers of property is only one such example.

Um it's designed to preserve the city's own use of its own assets, preserve the city's resources, and to facilitate effective service delivery, and it ensures consistent application of existing principles and clarifies authorization requirements and works in concert with the city's other related policies.

So with that, um that is the presentation, the short of it, and um happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from my council colleagues?

I can't see our other council members online.

So if you could just keep an eye out for me, Mr.

City Clerk.

Yeah.

I don't see any hands.

Okay.

Um, Councilmember Blackaby, did you have a question?

Yeah, one quick question, thanks to the city attorney's office for uh for this work.

Uh and it all you know makes uh a lot of sense.

I understand kind of the um how we approached it this way and and tackle it this way.

My main question is this issue of uh exclusive versus non-exclusive access.

Um are there times, for example, um if it's not a parking lot and it's not a city building, uh and it's not exclusive.

What is our ability to um what kind of ability do we have to regulate that use if it's not exclusive in a facility like that?

I think the any use that would is not exclusive would be outside of the scope of this particular resolution.

Um, and I think if it's the kind of use that would typically not require a permit, because there's certain things that already, you know, under city policy already require a permit, so there could be some regulation of that if folks were to be using um a property in a way that currently requires a permit, and we're not doing, you know, we're doing so without a permit, but otherwise, if it's a non-exclusive use, it would be outside of the scope of this uh particular policy.

Got it.

So we couldn't sort of say, hey, no, you can't uh gather in that part of the park.

You're not you know, you're not impinging on other people's right necessarily to use the park, but we couldn't instruct people that they can't, that we couldn't instruct immigration personnel or any other personnel that they could not use that space under this policy, though.

That's right.

The resolution doesn't generally restrict federal activity in public spaces in public areas.

Um, you know, it it specifically does state that the city doesn't interfere with or obstruct lawful immigration enforcement, so it wouldn't it wouldn't allow us to say, you know, see an officer in a particular public place and say that they were not allowed to be there.

Now we do have our sanctuary city ordinance, which does regulate the entry of officials into private city spaces, so non-public areas of the city and the the sanctuary city ordinance would continue to regulate that access.

So uh like I I wish we could.

I mean, I wish we could say that.

And our concern is it's we would run afoul of constitutional issues if we is that where we start to cross the line that would be um that would put us at risk.

I think there are there are important reasons to to keep the resolution to um to sort of exclusive uses and sort of take over of public property um and you know, generally you know, just local jurisdictions are are not permitted to actually interfere with the federal uh government's um lawful undertaking of its activities.

Right, even if we can choose not to use our resources to facilitate that.

So even if they're using city property in a non-exclusive way, we can't we couldn't instruct them otherwise.

That's would definitely be outside of the scope of this resolution.

Thanks for helping me clarify.

Thank you.

And just to take that once up, just to make sure.

So if they took over a space at like a park, it would require a permit, essentially.

If that particular use already would require a permit under city law, this wouldn't change that.

But this would, you know, this we're trying to make clear that any use of our property in these ways would require city authorization.

Got it.

And this what this resolution regulates is city officials and employees' decisions around that authorization.

So this directs city employees and city officials not to grant that authorization should it be sought.

Thank you.

If you have a conversation, if you could just please take it outside.

Thank you.

Umber Humbert.

Yeah, I just have a quick question.

It's kind of a hypothetical.

I remember in Los Angeles, um, the federal immigration authorities were using Lafayette Park as kind of a staging ground, and it became sort of the battlefield, and they were kind of marching in phalanxes through the park and rousting people.

Is that something that we could under this ordinance or under our permitting um uh regulations do something about?

So there it depends on the the nature of the property and sort of the nature of the activities the undertaking.

I think sort of general um enforcement activity in a public place is not something that this resolution would reach, even if it um even if there were sort of like multiple officers or multiple operations in a particular area, this resolution wouldn't reach sort of preventing um immigration enforcement from happening in a in a public place on a public street or in a public park or sidewalk.

And so it's important to understand the sort of relatively narrow scope of the resolution.

Um there, I think in in Los Angeles there were some questions at various times about what constituted federal property that um that federal officials could sort of stage on their own federal property.

But I think a lot of these policies around the country are cropping up in response to situations where without the authorization of a particular jurisdiction, uh immigration officials took over parking lots, took over areas and sort of use them for their own purposes without the city's authorization.

And that's what this would be designed to get at.

Thank you.

Another question, Councilmember Treg.

Yeah, thank you so much.

I'm just one I'm I'm aware that Alameda County is also considering a policy, and I'm curious if you could speak to just to the extent that you're able, if this particular architecture of regulation, how is it similar or does it differ from other jurisdictions contemplating this?

That's a good question.

There are various jurisdictions in the Bay Area and across the country that have adopted policies that relate to this subject generally.

Alameda County is one of them.

The city and county of San Francisco is another.

That similarly is very purpose-based, use base and purpose-based.

Some other jurisdictions have sort of uh executive orders, they're very state executive orders, and other jurisdictions have policies that very directly say it is the you know the board's policy or the you know the county's policy not to permit staging areas or um you know particular types of enforcement activity on city property, and there they more are more direct in disallowing that.

This particular um resolution is not limited to any particular type of activity.

It's a it's a regulation of uses of city property that are inconsistent with city purposes and and would cause disruptions and you know that kind of immigration enforcement activity is only one such example, and and there could be many others as well.

Thank you.

Um okay, so any other questions before we move on.

Okay.

I see no questions.

Um, can I take public comment on this item?

Any public comment on it number 19?

Anyone online?

There's no hands raised.

Okay, any comments on this from my council colleagues.

Oh, I have some comments.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I just I want to thank um I want to thank uh the city attorney and and Katrina as well and city manager for and their staffs for bringing this forward pursuant to council request.

I think it's very important that we make clear that our city facilities are generally safe and welcoming for all and and and don't uh invite uh inconsistent inappropriate uses and and that they we ensure that they're not being used for activities specifically that harm anyone or undermine the public trust.

So I'm proud to support this this evening.

Uh I think the approach is is really a wise one, and thank you again to everybody who worked on this.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Blackby.

I'll be brief.

Um, thanks again to City Attorney's Office uh for bringing this forward and for crafting it in a way that's gonna, I think, again, pass the legal and constitutional muster that we that we need, being thoughtful about that.

Um so um and again making a statement that is um uh very much in line with with our sanctuary policy, and we're continuing to look for other ways that we can strengthen our sanctuary policy and uh uh kind of standardize and and you know basically lay out our rights uh as a city and how we're we're protecting our people.

So thank you for writing this, and I'd uh move adoption of the resolution.

Second.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Thank you.

I just really wanted to thank our uh the team at the city attorney's office for their work.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Mayor Tragub, I'm so sorry.

Fine.

Um I just want to associate myself with the previous uh colleagues Clonlands.

Uh thank you so much to the legal team, and I'm very proud that Berkeley is moving forward with this.

Uh this is very much part and parcel a statement of our values.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And I also just want to add my comments to say thank you for your work.

And also, I know Paul, I appreciate your your input as well.

Um, I think this is just another opportunity that the city attorney's office had to also work with the public.

And I really want to thank you for for hearing the feedback as well.

Um, and thank you to Julie Sinai from my office, who I know did a lot of work to keep moving the ball forward and and get feedback from the community.

Um I see this really as just one tool in our two tool belt.

Um, there are many things that we've looked at, and I really want to thank the community.

Our sanctuary city task force has been meeting monthly, and this is something that came up during during those conversations as well.

So thank you so much to the community.

Thank you.

Um, okay, so we have a motion on the floor.

If we could take the roll, please.

Okay.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Tregub, aye.

O'Keefe.

Yeah.

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humber.

Yes.

And Mary Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will now move on to item number 20, which is amendments to BMC Title 3.24, landmarks preservation commission to revise procedures for designating landmarks, historic historic districts, and structures of merit and incorporate technical edits.

And we will hear first a presentation from our city staff.

Oh, we might need more chairs, actually.

And uh then we will hear a presentation from our landmarks commission chair.

Uh Faye, if you could raise your hand on the um online, that will help them find you.

And then um, from there we will take council questions, hear from hear from the public, and then we'll come back and do uh discussion.

Did you want to say something?

Uh just wondering if we need to vote to accept my supplemental item three on this.

Yes, thank you very much.

We do need to do that.

I I move to accept uh my staff is in the back, and hopefully they can come take care of this.

Apologies.

I'll introduce you.

And for the council members online, I believe that your sub three is actually already posted on the uh on the um on the page.

Yeah, thank you.

And I move to accept supplemental three second.

Okay, can we vote on that, please, Clerk?

To accept the revised materials from Vice Mayor Tregab for item 20.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Uh Councilmember Kessarwani to accept the supplemental materials.

Uh she's there.

Uh well, we'll come back.

Uh Councilmember Taplan.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

I'll keep.

Yeah, sure.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Umbert?

Yes.

Uh Mayor Ishii?

Yes.

And Councilmember Kesarwani.

Yes.

Okay.

The motion carries the materials are accepted for consideration.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

I will turn it over to Jordan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Councilmembers.

Jordan Klein, Director of Planning Development.

I'm joined here at the staff table by Faye Mingham, uh Assistant Planner, Ann Hirsch, Land Use Planning Manager, and Justin Horner, Principal Planner on the policy team.

And also here with us is uh Dennis Hall Montgomery, who is the chair of the landmarks preservation commission.

Uh in November, City Council adopted a referral to ask staff to make amendments to the BMC to adjust the threshold for the number of signatures required to initiate a landmark designation and also consider uh establishing a limitation on designations for properties with active SB 330 applications.

Uh and so we in crafting those amendments, we also made a number of other changes uh that were proposing this evening.

And so that's the item before you tonight, and I'm gonna turn it over to Faye for a brief presentation.

Thank you, Mayor Ishii and members of the city council.

Tonight I will present proposed amendments to the landmarks preservation ordinance to respond to the council referral and supplemental materials adopted on November 10th, 2025.

The proposed amendments revise procedures to designate historic landmarks and incorporate technical edits.

I will begin with a summary of current effects and background, followed by the proposed ordinance amendments.

After I will share staff's recommendation and will be available for questions.

Currently, a landmark designation can be initiated by the landmarks preservation commission, the city council, the planning commission, the civic civic arts commission, an application from the property owner, or an application from at least 50 residents of the city.

Similarly, appeals of landmarks decisions can be brought to the city council by the same entities.

The landmarks ordinance has seen few updates since its adoption in the 1970s.

Many of the procedures have remained unchanged and require updating.

Outdated provisions of the ordinance pose administrative challenges relating to public hearing notice, notice of decision issuance, and permit review.

Many of these procedures are out of alignment with the zoning adjustments board and the city's sunshine ordinance.

Additionally, fees for landmark designation initiation have not been updated since 1985.

These fees are currently set in the ordinance, which requires an ordinance amendment whenever a fee is updated.

The November 10th, 2025 council referral directs staff to update the procedures for initiating landmark designation and appeals on the basis that the 50 signature threshold is too low.

The referral and supplemental materials propose revised designation and appeals procedures by way of an increased signature threshold with options dependent upon owner consent.

In addition to the increased signature threshold, supplemental two proposed a five-year stay of landmark initiation for development proposals vested under SB 330.

The referral noted that some landmark designation attempts conflict with the intent of state housing laws meant to streamline the approval of housing projects, such as SP 330.

A development application vested under SB 330 locks in the zoning, design, and preservation standards that are applicable at the time a complete application is filed.

SB 330 ensures that future changes to landmark status, zoning, or other regulations would not affect the project's vested housing development proposal.

Since 2019, when SB 330 was adopted, nearly one-third of all landmark initiation attempts have responded to an SP 330 application.

Earlier this year, staff brought the council referrals to the landmarks preservation commission for their discussion.

At that meeting, the LPC formed an ad hoc committee to formulate a statement about the referral.

The ad hoc committee's recommendations were brought to the full commission and adopted at its March 5th meeting.

The commission's recommendations are included in the staff report as an attachment.

Upon review, staff have not identified any conflicts in the proposed changes with the SHIPOS guidelines, nor do the proposed changes constitute the amendment or removal of any qualifying criteria for the CLG program.

In response to the referral, um the referred options for consideration.

In response to the referral, the referred options for consideration, staff have proposed two versions of BMC section 3.24.120 designation initiation and 3.24.300 appeals to reflect the two policy options for signature thresholds.

Alternative one includes two thresholds for initiation with 200 required signatures with owner consent and 400 signatures without owner consent.

Alternative two includes a singular signature threshold at 200 signatures, regardless of owner consent.

Both versions of section 3.24.120 include an exemption which requires a five-year delay of landmark initiation for SB 330 projects.

For both alternatives, designation initiation powers are maintained for the landmarks preservation commission, the city council, the planning commission, the Civic Arts Commission, and the property owner.

The proposed amendments to appeals reflect the referrals recommendations and mirror the changes proposed to designation procedures in the previously discussed section.

The proposed technical edits are summarized on the table on the screen.

These edits consist of typo corrections, sentence capitalization, consist updates for consistency with the city's commissioners and board members' manual, and the removal of language that is no longer relevant since adoption of the ordinance in the 1970s.

For some sections, staff propose organizational changes like renumbering for consistency and clarity and procedural updates to align the landmarks preservation commission practices with the zoning adjustments board and the city's sunshine laws.

Some sections have proposed technical edits to codify existing practice.

For example, bringing LPC decisions to city council for certification.

Other sections contain proposed amendments to align landmarks fees with land use division's fee schedule.

These proposed edits remove the fees set in the ordinance and reference the council adopted fee schedule instead.

This fee schedule can be more easily updated and is used to set all other land use division fees.

Staff recommends that the city council adopt the first reading of an ordinance to amend BMC Title 3.24 to revise procedures for designating landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit, and to incorporate technical edits.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ferry.

Um, all right.

I think we have a presentation also from our chair, uh Denise Hall Montgomery.

Press it again.

Okay.

Yes, there we go.

Presto.

All right.

My name is Denise Hall Montgomery.

I'm the chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

And thank you, Council, for taking the time to hear from the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission.

We serve our commissioners serve in this role as professionals dedicated to safeguarding some of our city's most important historic properties.

As commissioners, we convened as a panel to reflect on our experience over the years.

We found strong alignment with the city council's goal of minimizing the risk of retaliation, whether from neighbors or those opposed to development against individuals who initiate landmark applications.

A key part of this balance is determining an appropriate threshold for signatures when an application is not initiated by City Council, the Commission, or the Civic Arts Commission.

After careful discussion, we recommend setting the threshold at 100 signatures.

This represents a meaningful increase, doubling the current requirement while still remaining achievable.

Gathering 100 signatures is a significant undertaking.

It requires time, effort, and direct engagement with community members, particularly given the need for individuals to provide personal information.

We are concerned that raising the requirement to 200 or 400 signatures is not grounded in practical experience.

These higher numbers appear arbitrary and risk creating unintended consequences.

Most notably, they could effectively eliminate the ability for community members to initiate landmark applications altogether, leaving that authority only to official bodies named in the landmarks code.

This seems at odd, this seems to us to be at odds with Berkeley's long tradition of participatory democracy.

Regarding the owner-initiated path, LPC's LPC recommends that the process remains unchanged and so does not require public signatures as proposed in packet number two, or at least as we understood packet number two.

It was a little confusing to us.

Regarding SB 330, the LPC has at times been placed in the middle of differing interpretations between the city attorney and the planning department about when a property may or may not be landmarked during the permitting process.

Since we have received clear guidance from the city council, the properties are not eligible for landmarking while on SB330 permit is active, we will follow that policy.

In that vein, LPC recommends that incorporating SB 330 requirements directly into the ordinance complicates the text and also could create unintended consequences, which I'll go into in just a minute.

We recommended that stating the relevant policy with the application in the application in the city website is a cleaner way to get the uh result that we're looking for.

So part of the part of our concern about putting the language directly into the ordinance is that the proposal is to simply restrict landmarking designations for five years following the preliminary use permit application, and it lacks the necessary accountability measures as applied to SB 330 projects generally.

Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposal does not require the submission of a complete use permit or building permit application, and it does not mandate that construction begin within a certain time frame, and it risks inviting bad faith applications into the solely to block landmark initiations, and finally allows any new preliminary application to restart the five-year clock indefinitely.

So those are our recommendations, those are our concerns, and thank you for your consideration and your commitment to thoughtful balance policy.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for the presentation.

And I will see if my council colleagues have any questions to start with.

Councilmember Humbert, do you have questions?

Well, I don't have questions.

I wanted to present my um our SUP.

Oh, yes, thank you.

No, you're right.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

And I would ask Councilmember Casarwani, since I'm a Luddite, to um put up the um the SUP on the screen.

Thank you.

Um and and we um prepared this SUP after getting um some really helpful feedback from um uh the landmarks commission as well as um uh folks from um Baja.

Um so this SOP, and I I can just read it.

Um the landmark preservation ordinance amendments in item 20 would create the possibility of indefinitely chaining together five-year exceptions to landmark initiation procedures through the submittal and resubmittal of SB 330 pre-development applications, and that would be highly unusual, I think.

I'm kind of paraphrasing here.

Um we um uh but to avoid that we uh uh added the proposed sections additions to Section C.

Uh these exceptions would serve to foreclose the possibility while ensuring that active development applications and entitled projects would continue to benefit from the protections provided by SB 330.

So we would add two subsections to BMC chapter 3.24.120 section C.

The first one um uh well the the uh general language, any such designation shall not be processed for five years following the receipt of a preliminary development application under SB 330 by the city of Berkeley unless initiated by the property owner.

One, this five-year exception period is established at the time of the preliminary development application submittal pursuant to SB 330, the housing crisis act of 2019 and may only be applied once for any property.

Any subsequent preliminary development application submitted pursuant to SB 330 shall be subject to limitations on landmarking in SB 330.

Um, following the submittal of the formal zoning application, any landmarking designation request shall not be processed for as long as the application is active or as long as the resulting permits and entitlements are valid, whichever is longer pursuant to SB 330.

And in response to some additional comments that we received from um Isaac Wash Warshour very recently, um we and and they were they were good uh good points and and we accepted them.

Um his concern, and and and and we've heard this um from others as well.

His concern was that a property owner might simply use this five-year period to demolish a residential property as I understand it, and then and then build um uh build a non-residential property using this this opportunity that 330 um really wouldn't wouldn't give them, wasn't intended to give them.

So we would add this additional language to our SUP, and I will I'll move to to add it later.

If the property owner submits a formal zoning application for a wholly non residential project on the subject property during the five-year exception period, the acception period shall immediately terminate, and the processing of any landmark designation may resume.

So thank you.

That's our presentation of our supplement supplemental with some additional language.

Thank you very much.

And I'd also like that um Vicemor Traegu introduced his supplementals as well.

Uh thank you very much.

So it is what you see before you.

So apologies.

Um it's not on the screen, but um at the outset, I'll just say that it is my um it appears that my suggestions are fairly um similar to um the uh council member Hambert Keshavani proposal in some way.

Um I think both uh came out as a result of additional conversations that we had with members of the LPC and with Baja.

Um I think the um so I will just read into the record um the uh suggested exception language in Supplemental 3, and that reads any such designation shall not be processed following the receipt of a preliminary development application under SB 330 by the City of Berkeley unless initiated by the property owner of record.

This exception shall expire A, if the preliminary development application is withdrawn, or B three months after the final approval of the housing development project for which the preliminary development application was submitted.

Um the two and a half years comes from uh SB 330 directly, which it appears for market rate housing.

Uh that is the period of uh pendency uh in the application.

Um the five years um may create a uh perverse uh uh incentive to um attempt to entitle the um do the SB 330 application without um uh but then um if the uh application is not acted upon, still have an additional two and a half years um during which um landmarking is uh disallowed.

So it it conforms uh that provision in SB330 around timeline.

Um the difference between supplemental two that I also submitted in supplemental three uh is really based on a close reading of the proposal um by the uh city attorney's office, which I'm uh grateful for their close reading, and they suggested additional amendments to ensure that um this language um complies with all applicable provisions of SB 330 um, not just uh the one specific to the timeline.

Um I think uh we probably may be able to meet in the middle and potentially combine some of these proposals.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um questions from my council colleagues on the supplementals or either presentation.

Yes, uh Councilmember Brockabee.

I said two questions.

Um either for the city attorney or for um planning staff.

Um chair of the landmarks commission had referenced the idea of um rather than putting the SB 330 language in the ordinance to have it on the website and then on the application itself, what's kind of the pro and con of putting it in the ordinance versus not putting it in the ordinance?

I would observe that I think there's some ambiguity in the government code as to what um municipalities are permitted to do uh in terms of landmark designation.

Um for a project with an active for a property with an active SB330 application.

Um therefore, if the city council wants to establish it as policy that the city will not accept or process applications for initiations of designation for properties with an active SB 330, I think it's valuable for for council to codify that position.

Stating it on a website or in an application, I think doesn't effectively establish it as official city policy in the way that codifying it by ordinance would do.

Would it could it lead us leave us open for something where the person the applicant you know says, well, you know, it's not illegal.

I'm just curious.

I'm just again, I'm trying to think about the edge cases here.

Uh I would just echo what um uh the planning director mentioned that I think having it codified just makes the implementation easier and more clear and straightforward for everyone involved.

Okay.

Um great.

And my other question is back on the signature 100 uh or 200 or 400 the right number.

Is there a um is there a clock um under which we've got to collect the signatures, or is it pretty open-ended in terms of the time?

In the ordinance, there is no uh time threshold.

Okay.

Theoretically, they could be collected over any period of time.

So that that also like okay.

So I mean uh I'm um a little less concerned of setting again, we don't want to set an extra ridiculously high number, but at least it's not adding extra urgency in terms of a time clock that like if you don't reach that number, you you can take extra time to reach that number without penalty.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Councilmember Linopara.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to ask how other cities do this.

Like are there any other cities that how how do other cities in our area do the similar processes?

Sure.

So in our research to prep to prepare for this, we looked into a dozen or more other cities and how they initiate landmark designation, and it varies widely across the state.

Um, for example, in Sacramento, I believe it is the planning staff who initiates a landmark designation.

In San Francisco, a member of the public can initiate a designation and it is then reviewed by staff and the LPC before the designation is formally initiated.

Um based on our research, there were not any other jurisdictions that had a signature threshold for petition.

Um this is something unique to Berkeley.

But it varies.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember O'Keefe.

I was about to not have this question, but now I based on that answer, I still do.

Um so okay, the my question, I accept a shrug as an answer.

I don't know if this is a fair to ask you, but I have this curiosity.

It's about the signature threshold.

Um I don't I don't have a sense of what is reasonable.

Like I just I don't I don't know.

I'm hearing I see 200 sounds good to me.

I definitely am in favor of raising it.

I think it's it's too low right now.

I think we can see that from evidence, but you know, I'm hearing a suggestion that we do only raise it to 100.

And I would personally like to raise it to something that was achievable if there was broad support.

And I guess I'm wondering if you feel comfortable opinion on this.

Is is 200 reasonable or is it very hard to meet?

But I if you if you I don't know, it's not a fair question, but I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Yeah, it's really tough to answer that because as Bain mentioned, there's not there's not other communities to look at.

I think a notable point here is that at about a third of the initiations that we've seen over the last few years have been in response to SB 330 applications.

So I think that's an argument that it's too low, but that doesn't really help you land on what the right number is and what's achievable.

Okay, well, thanks for trying.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um Vice Mayor Tracup, did you have a question?

Yeah, thank you.

Um so I thought that some of these questions that my office received might also just for transparency and everyone's certification be helpful if I just asked them in daylight to the city attorney.

Um the question uh the first question is is a preliminary is a preliminary development application with run after 180 days without a complete development application for SB 330, or does it simply expire?

And then um the second question is if you could apply um in SB330, and I um I grant that I actually uh didn't realize this nuance until I took a closer uh reading at of the law.

Um so a hundred per if the uh SB330 project was 100% affordable housing, it would actually be protected for three and a half years or 42 months after final approval.

Um can you speak to um how the um language that was suggested by the CAO and incorporated in Supplemental 3 uh still addresses that or if any additional um changes are needed?

I think I need to look at the question that you sent me.

I hadn't really had a chance to look at it, so let me think about it and may need to talk to my team as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll I'll give you an answer.

Did you have another question?

Uh I'll I'll I'll I'll wait for an answer on those two, but I think we can go to things.

Sure.

Yeah, Councilmember Humber, did you have questions?

Yeah, I do.

Just one very quick follow-up really to Councilmember Blackaby's uh question about whether or not to include the requirement merely simply in the application, and this would be directed to the city attorney who's now working on another looking at another legal issue, but this should be relatively easy uh to answer.

I think my concern about including it in the application and simply putting it on the website is that that doesn't constitute law.

Um that might be in my view, and maybe I'm wrong, um, sort of an underground regulation.

Um, you know, promulging rules and policies informally and and and and I think that invites a lot of you know potential challenges.

Is that is what what's your what are your thoughts about it?

I definitely think it's a a cleaner practice to have it codified instead of having to refer to some other document or website.

Um the less the more clarity you have, the less opportunities for misunderstanding it, misinterpretation.

So I I definitely think it's a better practice to have it codified.

Okay.

Um I have questions for the supplemental authors.

I'm just I'm curious if you are both amenable to the one time only per SB330.

Um application.

Only allowing for one time.

Which I think is in the Kesserwani Humbert one.

Uh so you're asking me.

So I guess I'm after yes.

Yes, I just mean I have other questions for the uh yes, I am comfortable with that.

Okay.

And I'm also curious to know 30 months, by the way, is two and a half years.

I feel like I've there's so many numbers being thrown around, I just want to say that out loud.

Um, and if you could all speak to um why two and a half versus five years, I just wasn't sure if like two and a half was not enough, or uh I know that two and a half lines with the state, but perhaps council member Hubbard can address that first.

Yeah, I think you know, sort of generally we know how long projects take, and there are many delays, there are permitting delays, uh there are financing delays, and two and a half years may simply just not be enough.

I think five years um is is an appropriate timeline for you know the that level of protection, but then only you know, then only the one time.

Because I am concerned about a project kind of going on for too long and not being built, and I I hear what your point is for sure.

I I may want to make sure there is enough time for a project to be it's it's until the project is complete or until their final until they submit a formal application as opposed to just a preliminary application.

Once a formal application is submitted, then you know then it it's a new game.

Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead, Councilman.

And I'll just say on my end, uh, when I first submitted uh my supplemental for the as part of the referral, um I uh um I mean in in the intervening months I've been able to uh take a much closer reading of SB 330, but at the time um five years was just something that um appeared on its face to be a reasonable time period, but was not based on anything other than my perception of what is reasonable, and that is uh how I came to the conclusion that uh 2.5 years for a at least in the case of a not 100% affordable residential project um might be a more objective standard in congruence with SB 330's provisions.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from folks?

Okay.

All right.

Well, we will go to public comment then on this item.

So we are going to May I'm sorry.

Oh, yes, mayor.

I think I can provide some clarity on your question.

Um the team was able to look at the government code section.

Uh which doesn't, it turns out it doesn't use the term withdrawn, but rather expire to cover when proponents when the proponent doesn't submit a complete application.

Um we have some proposed language that you could maybe read from the dais to to clarify the issue.

Um I can send that via email if that's yeah, it would be helpful to see that language, I think.

So thank you.

Okay.

All right.

We are taking public comment on item number 20, amendments to BMC Title 3.24, etc.

etc.

Okay, Kelly Hammergren.

Um I attended the April 6th LPC meeting.

I attended online and listened to the entire discussion that evening, and that was um quite a remarkable meeting.

Oh, and I do have a minute from the back.

So you can change the clock.

So Berkeley is a certified local government.

The staff made it sound like they dotted all their I's and crossed their T's and did everything.

But when I listened to that meeting and they were asked if they ever contacted the state office of historic preservation or talk to a state historical officer, uh, they didn't do that.

And so I I think you all need to know that that they did not do all of the work that seems to be implied from the presentation here this evening.

Uh I heard a question about do we have a ridiculous number?

And I'd say 400 is a ridiculous number, it's placed there to make it difficult if not impossible to landmark.

And in comparing Berkeley to other cities, we are so often talk about Berkeley being a special place, and Berkeley is a special place, and it doesn't matter whether I'm in Minnesota or whether I'm in Palm Desert or whether I'm in Munich, Germany, as what happened a few years ago.

And I said I was from Berkeley.

People have a vision of Berkeley no matter where they are in the world.

And so landmarking this city is different than landmarking other cities, and we shouldn't be comparing it to other cities.

This is important that we not erase the history that started here.

And thank you.

Thanks, Kelly.

Hi, my name is Chrissy Hoffman, and finally at the right time.

Um I am really supporting the proposal of 100 signatures that um Ms.

Montgomery here, thank you so much.

Um I was also at that meeting as one of two people present in person.

I would like to invite everybody here to start coming to more of these meetings.

Um I think that Berkeley is an exceptional place as well, and I think that the city council and all of the experts that are on various different panels and commissions are here to help the uh quality of life to help thriving in Berkeley.

It needs to be holistic.

There needs to be a balance between preservation and development to keep the quality of life is equally as important as providing housing that is affordable or middle market or expensive, whatever that may be.

And so I think that um a hundred signatures makes sense to me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Julie Noctway, and when I moved to Berkeley, I heard about Julia Morgan.

I learned about Maybeck, I learned about John Hudson Thomas, and I learned that Berkeley with the university since the before the turn of the century had tuned out so many outstanding architects and so many incredible buildings and structures, and these are known across the Bay Area and across the state of California as being a signature for Berkeley, respecting these architectural heritage that we have.

And I definitely support Denise Hall.

You choose people that you want to be in charge of something, you let them be the specialist, and you have a fantastic specialist here, and you need to listen to her because isn't that why you appropriately have somebody in charge of the landmark commission?

Um it seems like the it's a sort of like more than a hundred signatures seems unreasonable to me.

And so I hope you'll think that thank you.

I could if I she would give me another minute if you that's fine if it's okay with you.

Is the mayor okay?

So I just want to say that it seems like trying to undo this ordinance is kind of like an underhanded way for developers to make preservation of our historical architecture much harder.

And why do they want to weaken the provisions of Berkeley's much-loved architectural heritage?

So you follow the money.

So it's more profitable to demolish Berkeley's architectural gems and build apartment towers than it is to respect and work with what I think Denise Hall and the landmark preservation commission try to establish.

So I respect her.

That's it.

Thank you, Julie.

Good evening, Council.

My name's Claudia Hunka.

I am very concerned about this proposal when, sir since 1970, no issues regarding landmarking have been changed or taken place.

And now that we have corridor zoning that's being proposed in one of Berkeley's most historic commercial districts and neighborhoods.

Now all of a sudden we're looking at making changes to zoning for I'm sorry, to the landmarking requirements when nothing's been done since the 70s.

I find it a little ironic that those two are happening simultaneously.

I do support the lower number of signatures as proposed by the landmarks preservation commission.

And they're very disappointed in the hi.

I so this is a you can pull up the mic so you can this is actually a question for the chair.

Um there is uh a speaker, there is a participant on Zoom named Layla Moncharsh who wishes to yield a minute of time to me.

Um if that's if she could raise her hand.

Is she online?

Um Layla um Montrash.

You have a do you need just two because someone from the audience is gonna give you a little bit of a.

Layla, are you Leila?

Would you like to yield your minute to the speaker?

You should be able to unmute.

Uh yes, I cede my time to uh Isaac Warshower.

Okay.

Okay.

You can have three minutes.

One from the audience, one from online.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um my name is Isaac Warshower.

I'm here to represent the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.

And um I'm sure you've seen my name and you've met with and some of you have met with me.

Um, and uh I've been trying to advocate for common sense measures uh when it comes to the problem identified by council.

Um I very much appreciate the um the feedback that the council has made so far.

Um I'd like to make some general points about preservation and also make some points about the signature threshold.

So I think there are there are three misconceptions that that kind of float around or mischaracterizations that float around with relation to um to preservation.

One is that preservation and landmarking puts things in amber.

Um that's simply untrue.

And in fact, with state law, the limitations that it places on on housing are actually very quite small and can't even affect density in many cases on a parcel.

It's really about making sure that the historic um nature of uh the structures on the site um factor in to proposals um in the future.

Um the the second is that uh a property, but if a property isn't landmarked yet and clearly isn't worthy of being landmarked, um the the real reason for that is that there's been very little comprehensive planning and preservation, and often preservationists are forced to focus on the most threatened buildings, which also happen to be the buildings that have planned developments, and that's where the conflict emerges.

It doesn't imply that preservationists are in are cynically pursuing um preservation, it's just that it's a triage-like approach to the process.

And then third, um, it's that rights of property owners should take precedence over um efforts to landmark buildings.

Um and that runs in the face of of principles of land use planning in general, which are that there are resources, commons, other resources that we share that need to be managed collectively and historic preservation, historic resources are just one of those, and they should be managed for the collective good, and that the individual property owner doesn't really have the incentive um to manage those on behalf of the public.

And the the last point I'd like to make is that focusing on increasing signature requirements is a really flawed strategy to addressing landmark efforts that cover for Nimbiaism.

In fact, landmark petitions that easily reach, say, 400 signatures are actually precisely those that are most likely to really be have an underlying impetus that's driven by larger political divisions and not by real preservation concerns.

And it's those efforts by local community historians and archivists, some of which Baja has worked with, that would truly be sort of shut out of the of the process by an inordinately large uh signature requirement.

Um thank you.

Okay, is there anyone online who would like to make public comment on item number 20, which is the amendments to BMC title 3.24.

Oh, another person in person.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm Steve Fennicum.

I'm a member of the landmarks commission speaking as an individual.

I want to associate myself with uh our chair's remarks tonight, uh, which were very cogent, and the I want to say that the commission um voted unanimously in favor of the recommendations that she was presenting.

Um the signature requirement, um, we did recommend a hundred.

Uh I do want to say there is not a um uh a huge uh deluge of landmark applications.

I've been on the commission for nearly nine years, and some years we've had zero landmarks, um two, three, four.

Uh even recently with a lot of development, there have not been that many applications.

And um I noted when I came into the room this uh this evening, I went through a gauntlet of signature gatherers.

I didn't didn't ask them what they were gathering signatures for, but it's really hard to get signatures um even in Berkeley.

So 100 is a reasonable number.

Thanks so much.

Um are folks online um raising their hands for comments?

Yes, we have five hands raised.

First is Bryce Nesbitty.

Hello, this is Bryce Nesbitt.

I have two points.

One, absolute support that the fact that you manage to collect a certain number of signatures is not a good predictor of merit of a landmark application.

So absolutely echoing what the Baja chair said there.

I think you need to find a better method.

Second, there's an opportunity in some cases to move a building to a place where it is at a better home.

So you have a development application, there's some incompatible structures with that development on the block.

But in recent years, the threshold for moving a building in terms of the number of permits and city process have made that all but impossible to actually achieve.

And so you'll lose a structure that you could have preserved because of city processes.

And so I think a good pair, if you're going to take this action, is to look at permitting reform for moving of structures of merit.

Nobody moves an unworthy structure.

Okay.

Next is Matt O'Brien.

Yes, I'd like to point out that Berkeley is one of the oldest cities in the Bay Area, and as such has architecture that other cities don't have.

You can't find it in Arinda, El Cerrito, Cupertino.

And it seems that we're not our city officials, our city councils don't really appreciate that or don't understand that the residents really appreciate that.

And so this seems to be an effort to uh encourage demolition of these gems because money can be made.

And so the public has a perception that our city council is fostering sort of this frenzy of greed and allowing the real estate industry to make a lot of money at the expense of the quality of life and the beauty of the city itself.

And the residents are not in agreement with a lot of these efforts that the city council is taking.

Um that fosters a lot of money to be made by the real estate industry, but leaves the residents uh poorly.

Next is Arlene Silk.

Arlene, you should be able to unmute.

Uh you you unmuted me, Matt O'Brien.

I think you got a unmute.

Okay, there I am.

Um I'm I'm here tonight because I was I chaired the very first public hearing of the landmark commission in 1975 in December 15th, when we designated the first nine landmarks.

And by the way, they were all public buildings, every one of them.

Um there were four churches, old city hall, which I see councilmember Bartlett is has behind him, our beautiful building.

Um 50 signatures are really, really hard to get.

It's not as though you stand in front of a supermarket and collect them.

And I I'm really I suppose I I support what Denise Montgomery and the Landmark Commission proposed to raise to 100.

But if if it's raised any higher, essentially you're getting the landmark ordinance and you're getting preservation in Berkeley.

And by the way, we we have we learned the ordinance really carefully because it was brand new.

We and we held our first public hearing in old city council chambers.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh next is Janice.

Thank you.

Um I I'm I appreciate the conversation around the um the timing of the lapse applications, as this is a common problem that we're seeing more and more that um applications are put forward and then they are allowed to lapse.

Um so I appreciate that it's um that councilmember Traygroup or vice chair um is trying to reduce that.

And I don't understand why we would want to double the um time frame established by the state.

And secondly, I agree that um a hundred signatures seems like a reasonable amount, and that 400 signatures would prevent any landmark um proposal from uh being put forward.

So um I hope that you'll consider the two and a half years on the um the lapse applications.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Monique.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and community members.

Um, I am speaking to uh support the hundred signatures as a reasonable member.

Um that is much more difficult for a small group like Baja, which is quite a formidable organization, but small versus multimillionaire um developers.

Secondly, uh the five-year period kind of stalling landmarks and making it very unclear whether we're going to protect our history is harmful, counterproductive, and not essential to the growth of the city in the beautiful way that it should, which is to preserve our historic buildings.

I've been to a meeting for historic landmark of a building on my street.

I didn't know its history until the landmark commission went through the fact that it was a Chinese community that was around the corner from where I live, and there are all this historic aspects to that property, which were protected as a result of our legislation.

So I urge you to ensure that the Julia Morgan buildings and LABEX and all the others that are so special in Berkeley are protected and not me to develop.

Uh next is a phone number ending in 211.

As I mentioned before, as I mentioned before, it's been Berkeley for 60 six years.

Our beautiful old city of Berkeley is dead.

It is dead.

All the mobile theatre are gone, all the city hall and run by a bunch of corrupt landlords, private equity firms, and money-making machine, all of this new building build a bit cheap.

I have PhD in new engineering, hearing as well.

This building all going to collapse in seven plus magnitude.

That's quick.

Wake up everybody.

We don't really have a good situation at all.

Corruption and incompetence.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Next is Rebecca Mervish.

Um, what up, Council?

I don't know what the right number of signatures is, but I have a feeling it's probably easier to get signatures.

Like not during this exact um season, election season where there's lots of people getting signatures.

That is just my guess.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca.

That's it.

That's the last speaker.

Okay.

Um right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um to all of the public commenters.

So I will now open it up for uh my call colleagues.

Um okay, go ahead.

Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

My button doesn't work for some reason.

Um my comments all are somewhat lengthy.

Um I'll try to get through them as quickly as I can.

Um I want to thank Councilmember Kessarwani for bringing this uh forward to begin with.

Um I think these are overdue reforms to help prevent abuse of the landmarking process, encourage housing development, and help conserve city resources.

There have been multiple city recent instances where landmark initiations have come before council where I believe the most basic criteria for a landmark were not met.

And it was clear that the initiations only took place as a response to proposed housing development, and we heard some about the percentage from um the planning um director and department earlier, um, one out of three recently, the past few years.

I strongly believe that landmark preservation should be about broadly shared public benefits, not the preferences of a narrow group or purely for the sake of the buildings themselves.

When we landmark a building, it should be an expression of the high value we we collectively place in that historic resource in the way it contributes to our city.

Right now, roughly the same group of 50 people, that's equivalent to 0.04% of the city's population can initiate landmarks, forcing the landmarks preservation commission, staff, the city council, and the people trying to build homes into a protracted process.

I think that's anti-democratic.

I think it undermines the city's housing production goals and it frankly cheapens the entire concept of landmarking and what it's supposed to represent.

And even with Councilmember Casarwani's proposal, we're still talking about 0.3% of the city's population being able to initiate a landmark.

Put another way, even under 400 signature threshold, and I'm not necessarily wedded to that number.

This means that only one in roughly every 300 people in Berkeley needs to think a building is worth landmarking to initiate it.

And this is before we consider that the LPC and City Council can themselves initiate landmarks.

If even a hundred people attended an LPC meeting to ask a certain building be landmarked, I think the LPC would at least look into it.

And and I guess I would ask Chair Hall Montgomery if if you got that kind of a response with would the LPC itself consider initiating a landmark application.

Of course.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So if we had a hundred people who were really excited about a building, I think there's a there's a ready route, even after if we pass this, um, uh to achieve landmark status or at least to get the process going.

Um so that the notion that this proposal is somehow foreclosing a public process doesn't seem correct to me.

And nothing about this proposal fundamentally decreases the opportunities for public involvement or input.

With respect to the exception to the landmark initiation project following the submittal of an SB 330 application, um, I appreciated the feedback that we received from the LPC and from Mr.

Warshour and and Baja.

Um and we we took some of those things into account and put them in our supplemental.

Uh looking over Councilmember Traygroup's multiple supplementals.

I think I now have an understanding of his approach, but I would still tend to favor the approach I put forward with Councilmember Kessarwani.

I would prefer to grant a a longer local exception period, because I know that economic cycles can at times significantly delay movement on a project.

We've seen that lately, and it's kind of an unhappy result, but it happens.

And because I would also like the local protections for proposed projects beyond five years to be tied to the actual submittal of a formal application.

And you know, for smaller developers, for mom and pops, you know, who aren't used to dealing with city procedures and permitting, you know, things take things can take a long time.

And so I don't think five years is is unreasonable at all.

Um I think that Councilmember Trugoob's approach is also broadly reasonable.

Um, but I'm disfavored toward it partially because it would automatically have the protection lapse at the 30 month mark.

Two and a half years, Madam Mayor, regardless of the state of the entitlements.

For example, if the staff and ZAB granted an extension, it seems the protection would still lapse under um Vice Mayor Trugoob's version.

Whereas our under hours of protection would last as long as the entitlement.

Anything less, I think would be actually preempted by state law.

So under the the Trigou version, we would still potentially see staff needing to process landmark applications that could not actually be enforced.

I also understand the inclination to align the exception period to the length of time.

I just have another paragraph.

That the pre-application remains valid, but I generally prefer to leave the longer protection, especially to account for smaller missing middle projects, for example, where the applicants may be mom and pops, as I mentioned.

I think that having the full five-year protection from a pre-app be a one-time per property exception helps both to give people adequate time and to discourage people from game playing and using frivolous SB 330 pre-applications to prevent a worthy landmarking.

So that's where I come down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um yes, uh going to Vice Mayor Trackup.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna try to share screen.

And then just so you know, Councilmember Bartlett, I see you as well.

Okay.

So this is for additional discussion with the city attorney.

Um I would like to introduce into the record uh this uh the additional two words in red suggested by the city attorney, so it would now say um yeah.

How is this?

Yeah, that's pretty good.

And I will read it into the record just so that everyone is on the same page.

So exception any such designation shall not be processed following the receipt of a preliminary development application under SB 330 by the City of Berkeley, unless initiated by the property owner of record.

This exception shall expire if the preliminary development application is withdrawn or expires, or B 30 months after the final approval of the housing development project for which the preliminary development application was submitted.

Uh I think um on this dias and in general, I do my best to balance the three Ps of housing, uh production, protection, preservation.

Um yes, we can argue preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, what that means, but um I uh digress.

I think um I am most comfortable with the um and and by the way, I appreciate council member Humworth and Cashavani's efforts to um try to find the appropriate balance, and I broadly agree with the thrust of uh the the rest of their um proposal, including um limiting the exception to um one time.

I do believe that going beyond alignment with uh the confines of SB 330 introduces some risk and introduces some objectivity or some additional subjectivity.

Um it also may make um the work of staff um harder.

Um it may be marginally harder, but trying to keep track of the different timelines, one provided by the state and another provided by us locally, um, may uh uh challenge the effort to um try to objectively administer um this hardness.

I do uh I am sympathetic to the um how long it takes to move a preliminary uh application to a full SB 330 application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Bartlett, I can't see you anymore, but I know you had your hand up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and uh and thank you, my colleagues, for these um really interesting and um thoughtful suggestions.

Um it is a balancing act, and I for one am curious about the signature piece.

Um the so can the can the signatures be gathered electronically?

Can anyone tell me that?

No.

Okay, so okay, so here's the issue.

So, you know, I I I grew up as an organizer and I've collected signatures and done things like that throughout my entire life.

And you know, I just I I see it being I see that being overly burdensome once you have past 100 persons or 125 or so.

Like my neighbor's house is beautiful, it's from the 1800s, it's a wonderful, uh, incredible structure.

And you know, I can't see these little ladies over here going around getting, you know, going door to door, like street soldiers um and organizers to get these signatures once you get past a certain number.

And I think it kind of thwarts um towards democracy in many ways, many ways.

Uh and again, there is a balancing act because it has been abused.

We know this, we've we've covered this together as a body before.

Uh, but I'm leaning towards uh a softer number around a hundred signatures, one twenty five a hundred.

Um, and the development timeline uh uh you know, looking at the realistic uh economic outlook uh around for the near future and the credit markets, etc.

Seems it seems kind of sort of um ill advised to rush the development timeline on these on these very expensive projects.

So I tend I tend to agree with the five-year mark um that I heard from uh from uh uh Humber and Caserwani.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um also we have Councilmember Dunapara.

I have a question um for Councilmember Trage.

Um do you mind pulling up your language again quickly?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Um shouldn't we have if it shouldn't there be like a a clause that says which of the two is favored for like this exception shall expire?

A if this or B if this whichever is sooner or later, because or is it just like how how do we how do we how does the planning department decide which one of these satisfies this requirement?

Does that make sense?

Yeah, um I I have no problem with adding that, but I wanted to defer to the city attorney.

I think it would be either if either occurs.

Is that right?

Yes, I'm seeing nods.

In that case, I'm wondering if we can add whichever is later to avoid what council member Humbert was talking about.

Is if the application is extended by ZAB, um, then it can still be covered under this exception up to five years.

Sure, yeah.

Yeah.

I I I would be open to that to try to you know have a pathway to some commonality here.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, any other comments from my council colleagues.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm completely clear on you were saying so B instead of 30 months would be five years after the final approval, or is there something you had mentioned earlier about two and a half years and then something for ZAB?

I just want to make sure I understand it's a question for me.

It's a question for me.

Um yeah.

The well, probably the clearest way to deal with this is to say whichever is sooner just in the language.

Um I've been thinking about how to make this align with the five years proposed by in council member Humbert's referral, and I'm not finding a way to do that.

But if someone has ideas, I'm open.

Okay.

Um it it doesn't sound like you have a particular time frame in mind, then is that correct voice.

I was talking about modifying clause A, right?

Sorry.

Um is this what you meant?

I mean I did I I was wondering if we could clarify.

I would prefer for it to say whichever is later, but the I I did want to just be clear about which one how which way we would be favoring the decision.

I see some movement at the staff table.

Yeah, I think I think it might be helpful to give you a little bit of background about the SB 330 preliminary application versus complete application process because I I think A and B in these cases are kind of uh might be mutually uh exclusive, actually.

Yes, so the preliminary development application um is what vests the rights for the project.

What we receive is the application and effectively a project concept.

Once that information is submitted and it's consistent with the submittal checklist, we issue a letter that identifies the vesting date for which we've received all the materials.

From that date, the applicant has 180 days to file the formal application, which is the fully developed application that would go before the zoning adjustments board.

Um that obviously has a longer timeline because there's more exhaustive review, um interagency coordination, conditions of approval, um, and that there's more variability in terms of that timeline processing.

And just to clarify, can you speak to where does this two and a half, five years fall in this process?

Yeah, I mean I think so.

I I think correct me if I'm wrong, council member Traop, but I I think you're identifying the two and a half years from the date of the what would be the formal application approval.

Is that correct?

That's the law.

Um the government code establishes once you so you have 180 days after your the submittal of the preliminary application to submit the complete application.

Then it's kind of in indeterminate number between that point and when the property is approved, the project is approved or entitled receives its entitlement.

That starts the 30-month clock by which the permit needs to be exercised beyond which the vested rights expire.

Got it.

Or five years, depending on which we agree on.

Right.

That 30 months is actually from the government code under SB 330.

And so yeah, Councilmember Tregoop's proposal is to is to match the time period guaranteed under state law, the Kessarwani Harbor proposal is to extend that to five years from the date of the preliminary application, but then also extending through the life of the entitlement, I believe.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I think that was helpful.

Um in that case, so I would really love for someone to make a motion so that we can work off of something here.

I'd like to move this conversation forward and kind of get clarity because I know there are a few different areas of contention.

Sorry, uh, Councilmember Taplin, did you have your hand raised?

Uh sure.

For the purpose of the discussion, I'm happy to move the councilwani Humber supplemental.

But I was hoping to ask a question.

Sure.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Oh second.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead.

What was your question?

Um I and thank you all so much.

Um I was just wondering if someone could restate what benefit there would be to having a shorter window of protection than established by state law.

I think that's a question for Vice Mayor Trigab.

Correct.

The benefits of two of uh shorter time period.

Uh there's no shorter level of protection than what is established in state law under my item.

It completely matches state law.

Right.

But um, could you speak to why you'd want it to stay to with state law as opposed to being five years to reduce the ability of someone to game the system and just uh submit a preliminary SB 330 application, then uh exercise the uh final application, but um deli and I'm not talking about having um challenges and financing a project.

I'm talking about just deliberately using debt to foreclose the opportunity of uh to landmark the property in the future.

And no, um, but then not build a residential project on it.

Okay.

Did that answer your question, Councilmember Taplin?

Um it's just not clear what our mechanism would be to address uh some of the market reality that council members Barlett and Humbert spoke to earlier.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I have Councilmember Humbert, and then I have Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I it's a question, uh clarification question to Councilmember Taplin who moved um uh the Humbert Kessarwani supplemental.

My question is Did you mean to move the Humbert Kessarwani alternative in the in the staff proposal along with our supplemental, along with the additional language that I read into the record to prevent game playing?

Uh yes.

And was that also what you were seconding?

Absolutely.

Okay.

All right, thank you very much.

Um Councilmember Kissarwani.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I I want to thank the um the planning staff for bringing the response to this referral back uh relatively quickly.

And uh thank you to the public commenters.

Um I I think the fact that a third of the landmark initiations have been the result of SB 330 applications speaks for itself.

The the need to um just tighten up this process.

You know, we did review the uh some of these applications and they and with the threshold of 50 signatures, you know, we were seeing um you know almost the same group of people for a number of these applications.

And so that is why we looked at increasing the signature threshold.

I do want to remind folks that um gathering signatures is not the only way to initiate landmarking.

The landmarks preservation commission, as has been noted, can initiate um a landmarking themselves.

Um, if you know if a particular site comes to their attention, the city council can do so if you know, for instance, there's a site or a property in in a district and the council member becomes aware of the need to landmark it, they can do it that way.

Um, and and also the property owner, importantly, the property owner can also initiate it.

Uh what we are trying to uh guard against is um a group of residents, you know, relatively small group right now with 50 um initiating it and um and then initiating a lot of staff work and staff time um that you know ultimately with with some of those applications that came before the council were in conflict with the um the vested rights under SB330, and we couldn't actually enforce the landmarking, even if they warranted a landmarking, which I think in both cases they did not.

So I just wanted to offer that perspective.

Um having said that, I you know, I know Councilmember O'Keefe sort of asked the question, you know, how many signatures is a good one.

And I did hear council member Bartlett um sort of say that you know, even getting 125 signatures can be difficult.

So, you know, I I recognize with council member chaplin's motion, it is locking in all of the the the Castorwani signature concepts and the the Kessarani Humbert supplemental.

So I am open to um you know hearing from more colleagues about the signature thresholds in particular um as we land this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would also like for us to kind of get let's just narrow down what we're gonna do with the signatures, and then we can talk about this two and a half versus five years piece.

Um I I will say that for myself, um I understand that there are many different ways to initiate this process, and it doesn't have to be through signature gathering.

I also heard what folks were saying about this being a democratic process and this being the city of Berkeley, you know, appreciating that.

So I understand that.

Um I I do feel like this 200 to 400 is is quite high.

Um and but I would be amenable to something along the lines of like 150 and 300 or something like that, because um it's interesting.

Rebecca who called in earlier, she does signature gathering, like that's a huge part of the work she's doing, and she knows how challenging it is, and also with no time constraints, there is the ability to gather signatures.

Um I understand that that that can be hard, but I'm just gonna say I'm I would be favorable of 150 to 300.

And just to clarify, that's 150 with support from the property owner and 300 without.

Um okay, so council member Trackup, you're next.

Uh thank you.

If if we're gonna separate out the discussion between timeline and signatures, which I uh I support, um, I will say uh I I do have um a little bit of misgiving around um having a dual track for signature numbers.

I feel like anything that introduces additional um, you know, just requirements for staff time.

Now staff has to monitor to see whether the property owner is supportive or not.

Um I um I would support a number closer to 100 or 150.

Um I don't do as much signature gathering as Rebecca, but uh I I do enough signature gathering to um be sympathetic to the challenges of collecting even a hundred signatures.

I do believe that 50 is too few.

Um I think 100 or 150 is uh probably the right number.

Um, and I think with the SB330 application, which we will talk about in a little bit.

I I I think it's it's just going to reduce um the concerns that uh led to probably you know the council having to act on this to begin with.

Okay, thank you.

Um councilmember O'Keefe.

Okay, um, thank you.

And thank you, Councilmember Tregou, for saying that, because I was gonna say the same thing, but for different reasoning.

So let me um I'll just articulate my position.

I actually really do want to have one one number of signatures also.

I don't, I'm not interested in differentiating between um owner consent and my reasoning.

Oh, I like appreciated our reasoning, but um, my reasoning is sort of like if we step back and think about the theory of what we're doing, like the legal theory, um, historic resources are a public good.

It's not really about ownership, it's something that's for all of us.

And so if you look at it that way, it doesn't really make sense to like let the owner basically like count for 200 signatures, like they're just one other person.

Yeah, they get live in it, but I don't know, it's it's a public good.

So I actually am more comfortable with one single number.

Um, I'm not gonna, I don't want to bargain over 50 here and there.

I I think 200 is fine.

Uh that's what I would propose if I was Queen Ferday.

Um, and I know it can't, I I hear the arguments that it's high, but I do take the points, um, two points have been made that address that.

One is that um there are other ways, I think I appreciated Councilmember Humbert's point that if you know they get close but not quite, that indicates a strong public interest in the process can be initiated other ways.

And also that there's no time limit.

I think you know, if you have enough time, you can get 200 signatures.

It's not it's not as onerous as thinking about doing that within a certain amount of time, which is what we're used to with you know, things that go on the ballot, things like that.

So I really want to see one number, and I would say 200, but if people want to do 150 or something, that's fine.

That is, I don't, as I said before, I don't really know what the right number is.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bacaby.

Thank you.

I just want to echo one number, and I'm in the 150 to 200 range, uh, one number across the board.

Okay.

Um, where are we?

Sorry.

Um, Councilmember Humbert.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I you know councilmember O'Keefe makes a legitimate point, you know, this is for the public good, but it's for the public good that imposes a private cost on the the owner of the property.

Um and so that's that's a different kettle of fish than um if it's different situations where the owner agrees versus where the owner uh fails to agree, and in response to um council member Vice Mayor Tregoub's point, um uh um that it's difficult to to determine whether the owner consents.

I I don't think that's true.

I think all you need is an additive attestation or the owner's signature.

So that's that's easy enough.

I don't think it's a a problem for administration.

Um, and I would tend to agree with the mayor's suggestion um of 150 and 300.

That that makes sense to me.

Um, I think those you know, moderating our proposed figures um in that regard makes a lot of sense.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Lunapo.

Thank you.

Um I I agree with Councilmember Trago and Councilmember O'Keefe on the on the two different numbers, but for different reasons for than both of you.

I think the owner can initiate a landmark on their own.

They don't they don't need to gather signatures.

So I don't really think that there's a point in having this whole other number if the if the owner can initiate it on their own.

Um and in terms of the number of signatures, I would like I'm indifferent from 200 to 400, but would like to see at least 200.

Okay, so um oh, I wanted to address this point of two different things.

So two different numbers.

And so uh so yes, it's true.

One of the things I was struggling with this this um afternoon morning was that um yes, it's true that someone who's the owner could initiate, but that also involves work on their behalf.

And so to me, that the reason for two is actually to say I acknowledge that I'm going to have to have an additional burden of keep maintaining this property and keeping it up.

And so, you know, I'm consenting to acknowledging that that's gonna be a piece of it, and um, and also I, as an as a landowner may not have the ability to go through the whole process myself, and therefore it should be easier.

So that's that's why I'm okay with the two different numbers, just to clarify.

And then um, there are folks online, so I'm gonna go council member taplin, Kessarwani, and then back to Humbert again.

Uh thank you.

Um I would like to amend my motion such that the signature threshold is 200 across um whether there's owner uh consent or not.

200 signatures across period.

And I accept that.

Okay.

And um I don't, you know, I don't love imposing additional costs, um, but that seems like a logical um synthesize what I think I'm hearing on the diet.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much.

So I um I really appreciate hearing everyone's uh various perspectives.

I perspectives on this, you know.

I just want to bring it back to the referral that I authored.

We included a number of case studies there, um, in which we deemed that the attempt to landmark was done in bad faith.

Uh, one of those attempts was somebody's single family home that they wanted to remodel so that they had space for their elderly mom, and they had their neighbors initiate a landmarking that was unwarranted with 50 signatures.

So I don't think it is appropriate to have the same number.

We cannot have a group of neighbors who are upset about a remodel, gather signatures and prevent somebody from being able to house their elderly mom.

That is the motivation for having a differentiated signature threshold when you can't get the property owner's consent.

So you know, I would respectfully request that we we go to what the mayor had proposed, which is 300 signatures if you cannot get that property owner's consent, and 150 if you can.

And and the thing is the I I hear what people are saying that the property owner can go ahead and do it on their own.

They may not want to, they may not believe that their home is worthy of landmarking, but when the neighbors suggest that it is, and they decide, oh, okay, I'm okay with it.

If a bunch of neighbors decide, hey, we we think your house is worthy of landmarking because we don't like the remodel you've proposed.

I think they should have to go and get more signatures, double the number than if the the property owner was supportive.

That that is the motivation.

So I I just want to respectfully request that my colleagues think about that and consider the 150 if you can't get the property owner's consent and 300.

I'm sorry, 150 if you can, if you can get the property owner's consent and 300 if you cannot okay, thank you.

So uh we're coming back here to Councilmember Humbert and then Council Member O'Keefe.

I'm gonna reset this again.

I think it's not working.

Yeah, I'm gonna defer to Councilmember O'Keefe and let her go first.

But I put a jelly bead on my mouth, thinking I wasn't ready.

Um I just want to respond quickly um to Councilmember Kisarwani.

I appreciate that argument.

Um certainly a compelling scenario.

I just want to remind us that we, you know, we're raising it from 50, which is pretty easy to do, to 200, which has already been um at least considered as possibly too high a threshold, even under normal normal circumstances.

So I think that it's a compelling argument, but I'm gonna personally stick with the 200 threshold because it's just hard for me to imagine finding 200 people to be so vindictive as to as to use it in such bad faith as was described.

You know, if it was 50 that that's a reasonable thing to imagine, and of course it did happen.

Um, but 200 is high enough that I think um we're really preventing the sort of bad faith weaponization.

I think it meets that goal.

Thank you.

Um I I want to let council member Bartlett speak, uh, and then I'll come back to Councilmember Humbert.

He hasn't weighed in yet on the signature numbers.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Uh question, when we talk about the the property owner's consent, uh, 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 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 uh, you know, a proper number for an ordinary person to succeed with work at 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 uh what everyone has said, it seems that there's some coalescing around this 200 number across uh 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 934 and I know we can get this done.

So who would like to speak on that?

We already know where you stand, Councilmember Jacob.

Um you're looking at me.

You want to know what I think?

Um, oh shit, I had sorry, excuse me.

I had a um I had thoughts about this and they've 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 Kessarwani proposal because I did get kind of called out.

Um let me give me a minute.

Let me I don't want to just sure that's fine.

Let me think.

Um else want to address okay, Councilmember Bartlett.

I'm sorry, what was my hand still raised?

Sorry about that.

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 project 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 Piet 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.

I think I I was moved by Councilmember Humbert's argument that you know weird things happen, and we should try to make make space make it as um we don't want people to like have it like time out early, and I the five years seems fine to me, and I think they've just solved the problem that we're looking to solve in a different way.

So if I have to pick, I pick that one.

Although Vice Mayor Trigobs is also very good.

Okay, thank you.

Um yes, Councilmember Kessarwani.

So, yeah, so I I just um I I want to say that you know I wanted to give my rationale for the differentiation on whether you have the property owner or not, but I can live with the 200.

Um, you know, because I I want to salan something and and be able to have some dessert or a drink and go to bed.

So um, so I just wanted to say that, and I and I of course I support my five years, and then um and extending it through the life of the um I don't know what the term is.

I think it's called um the life of the entitlement, I should say.

So um, and and I believe that's all in Councilmember Tablin's motion.

So I I think we're ready to vote, but I I don't I don't want to get ahead of anyone who might still be in the queue.

Totally, yeah.

I think that uh folks here are fine with this number.

Go ahead, Councilmember Humbert.

Yeah, I I was wondering if I might ask um Councilmember Taplin to accept a friendly amendment to have, you know, if we're gonna it sounds like we're heading for a uh a result here, um whether to have staff report back in a year about our experience with the administration of the new uh modifications to the ordinance.

Yes, I will accept that.

I will also accept that.

Thank you.

Very good.

Okay, councilmember Tracub.

Vice Mayor Traegup, thank you.

Um I I appreciate all the eroded work that has been done and to try to get closer to uh consensus on this.

Um I can uh accept the five years with the one time uh proviso on the property.

I have I continue and I recognize um that it was in fact my referral that suggested 200 across the board, uh albeit that was in response to the original item based on the testimony that I heard today.

Um I uh continue to feel or I no longer feel comfortable with 200.

I feel much more comfortable with something like 150.

Um I respect if um my colleagues want to stay at 200, I will just not be able to vote for this.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then also for the motion makers, I know that there was some language that Councilmember Traegu had brought up that the city attorney had recommended.

I know that there was some language that Councilmember Trage had brought up that the city attorney had recommended, so I just want to make sure that besides the numbers themselves, because I know we're not talking about the 30 months we're talking about five years, but I just want to make sure that that would be included.

I don't think so because it doesn't fit into our language.

I guess I'd ask um council member Kesselwani to I'm sorry, don't worry about it.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right, there is a motion on the floor.

Are there any other comments?

Okay.

All right.

Can we take the roll, please?

Okay, so this is uh the staff recommendation with the supplemental changes from Councilmember Kessarwani and Humbert, and also including the language introduced by Councilmember Humbert this evening uh with the change to have it be 200 signatures as a single standard and a request for report uh in one year on the status of the of the uh new regulations.

Um so that's the motion that we have.

Uh councilmember Kesserwani.

Yes, taplin, yes, Bartlett.

Yes, abstain.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Blackaby, yes, Lunapara.

Yes, Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you all so much.

I know that was a lot of sausage making.

I really appreciate all of you very much staff, and then of course, our chair.

Thank you very much for being here and for the public comment.

Okay, so um that was our final action item, but we will take public comment on items not listed on the agenda, starting with Carol.

So uh speaking of signature gathering, uh, today I saw a signature gatherer for a petition.

Gathering signatures on the side of the Chase bank.

Uh, I looked at by recruiting people by giving them energy drinks and similar other drinks that were lined up on the table.

This has gotten some media attention.

I looked at the text, which he was very on seemed to be very annoyed by my reading reviewing the text.

It appeared to be the competing proposition for the billionaires tax.

This is illegal.

I mean, the penal code states uh money or valuable compensation.

Obviously, to receive a signature, you're not gonna give somebody a suitcase, a brief a briefcase with uh $50,000 in it, you're gonna give them a four or five dollar energy drink.

So I did go to the city clerk's office, they referred me to the DA.

I went to the police department, and the police department said if it's not money, they're not gonna go there.

I thought we should have thank you.

The city should get the appreciate you bringing that.

Hello, Kelly Hamigren again.

I found the comment at the beginning of the evening from our fire department and our unions very concerning.

And I I know we have a budget deficit, and I took a quick scan of what's going to come to the budget committee on Thursday.

And I mentioned I have mentioned before, and I'd like to mention again that when I attended the planning department, planning commission meeting, and Jordan Klein as the director of planning department spoke and explained the goals of the department.

He said how the planning department didn't have to work with the constraints of the rest of the city because of the way we have handled their budget.

Is that we have that 74% of their budget goes to permits and that comes to them directly?

So they don't have the constraints and they can hire as they wish, where the rest of the city that depends on the general fund has to pay attention and has to come under those constraints.

And I think it's time that we evaluate reevaluate how the planning department is budgeted, and that they face the same constraints as the rest of the city, and that we are not sacrificing our emergency services for a department that says they don't have to abide by the constraints of the rest of the city.

And so they may have I think they almost forgot that I was in the audience because I was the only person that stayed to the end of the meeting.

Um but those were the comments, and I ask all of you that you start paying attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any are there any public comments on items not listed on the agenda online?

There's one hand raised.

That's phone number ending in two one one.

Caller with phone number inning in 211.

You should be able to unmute.

Hi, now I need to talk about this horrible situation.

Why wouldn't you run?

Iran is a great country, ancient civilization.

Five years five thousand years of civilization.

The word thematic referred to language.

The John Hopkins University made the DNA study on Israelis and Palestinian.

Israelis came zero to two old Hebrews.

We need peace.

Netanyahu is a criminal.

He'd been dreaming to bomb Iran for years.

He's a thief, he's a criminal, and no difference to kill people because of the religion than to kill them because of their color.

Imagine the Palestinians were black and the Israelis were killing him because of the black.

Islam, Kushanti, and Judith are brother, language, a brother, religion.

And the fairy tales from Egypt.

Yeah, fairy tales.

There's no God.

You guys are just getting screwed by everybody.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

That's all.

Okay.

Um is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second second.

Can we take the role, please?

Okay.

Uh to adjourn.

Um no, it's pardon.

Council member Castarwani.

Yes.

Chaplin.

Yes.

Or let's lacky.

Yes.

Luna Para.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mary Chi.

Yes.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

We're adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.