Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2026-01-21 19:31:27 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_1576147a-1162-44fe-bc6b-c60f869a7b56.ogg

Segment 1

Good to go? Yes, we are ready.
All right, very good.
I'm going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.
Today is Tuesday, January, excuse me, January 20th, 2026, and I'd like to start off with the roll, please.
Okay, calling the roll.
Council member Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Present.
Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? Here.
Blackaby? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay, all present.
Thank you very much.
So it is the first meeting back after our winter council recess, and we have been taking turns saying the land acknowledgement statement.
So I'm beginning the year, I'm going to start us off.
So the city of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of Huchun, the ancestral and unceded lands of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the 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 law regulating the city of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lishan tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Now, moving on to our ceremonial items.
So for our ceremonial items this evening, we have the presentation of Berkeley's Poet Laureates.
So tonight we recognize Aya DeLeon, Berkeley's 2024-2025 Poet Laureate, and thank her for her extraordinary service to the city.
Aya's work has powerfully uplifted poetry as a tool for justice, storytelling, and community connection.
I had the honor of having her present a poem at my inauguration ceremony a little over a year ago.
I thank her for her leadership, generosity, and vision, which have strengthened the Berkeley's literary arts community in lasting ways, and we are deeply grateful for her contributions to our community.
We are also honored to welcome Hanan Masri as Berkeley's next Poet Laureate.
Hanan is a long-time Berkeley educator, poet, and cultural worker whose practice centers land, ancestry, and intergenerational learning.
Her work reflects a deep commitment to youth, community, and creative stewardship, and we are excited for the voice and also the mentorship that she will bring to the city in this role.
At this time, I'm pleased to invite Aya DeLeon and Hanan Masri forward for the ceremonial passing of the laurel.
I do want to acknowledge that we have Berkeley's first Poet Laureate in the house, as well.
So, this was supposed to be a ceremonial passing of the laurel, but because I'm always doing too much, we have an actual laurel.
Hanan Masri, I am overjoyed today to pass on the mantle of Berkeley's Poet Laureate to you tonight.
As many of you know, I am no fan of royalty, as my multiple No King's Line dances will attest, but I want to actually crown you tonight, not with gold or jewels, but with a garland of olive branches.
Representing olive trees, which are so important to your people's homeland of Palestine, and as symbols of peace, which is so desperately needed in these times.
I look forward to working with you during your term, as cultural workers together in the fight against authoritarianism and injustice everywhere, to support and inspire our movements for democracy and liberation, which are growing in our commitment and capacity to win.
Thank you, and may God bless you, and may you be aware of the laurels, because I'm not an experienced laurel maker.
Did you want to say anything? Yeah, you've got, there we go.
Okay.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you, Berkeley, for this honor.
What greats before and ahead, but maybe it's not a line of succession.
Maybe we're all standing in a circle and facing one another from all our star points.
Thank you, Aya, already, for your encouragement and blessings.
You are one of my aspirants, and to be relating as we are is a dream in its rose stage.
Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, the city's first, and a member of my chosen family that I have just come to understand, thank you for your work, which reorients my heart when it is lost.
I carry one of your poems with me this eve to give me courage.
There are so many people and places that are sacred to me, many of them rooted in this city.
To Birkwood Hedge, the first racially integrated school in Berkeley, the place of my teaching grounds for nearly three decades, thank you, Jane Friedman, Betsy Wilson, Marty Mogenson, Deanne Burke, and Donna Mickelson, for taking a chance on a teacher in her embryonic stage and giving her ample guidance and room to grow.
Laura Farha, Heben Nimmer, Dunya Alwan, Zappo Dickinson, Patricia West, I am alive because of you, and I mean that.
High Road Scholars, my dream camp, let's keep packing up suitcases and keep uncovering the resplendence of this world.
And to my moose, my beloved, my life Valentine Samantha, I am with you and I am for you.
Remember that.
This poem is called Green.
Oh, Berkeley, you gorgeous boheme, with your Tibetan bling and your cracked pepper fil fil falafel, you know, the center, crispy and green, because I know you got that parsley from the Arab spring.
Berkeley healed my heart.
It was here that I met her.
My heart leapt out of my chest like a hawthorn tree in winter.
We listened to Al Green, foraged for city sorrel, stuffed that verdant tang in dough and called it dinner.
Ample, make this bed.
I trace my finger across this map, past wars and gardens, azores and emeralds, from Huqian to here, a love note nestled between ancient humps of breaststone.
Beirut city's green line, there are no grenades.
Instead, sages, mint, thyme, marjoram, the shepherds keep a pinch of za'atar in their pockets, steady the nerves, sumac brightens the blood, and olives stain our DNA.
Five hours, and I'm not sure when I'm going to leave this room, all of us there, midnight's children.
How do you make your grass grow? Show us your W-2s.
Do you pledge allegiance to any flag with a band of green? In between the minutes, I think of you, Berkeley, your placard-filled windows, your justice unhushed.
California poppies blooming in your front yards will never put you to sleep.
I think of something I wish my mother had said as Saturn's rings began to fade from around her neck.
We, tender rascals of women, electric wires of green, red splashes, we will make our own incisions.
We will never beg for thread.
My daughter, find the loudest people in the room and make friends with them.
Thank you.
Applause Applause Can we get a photo with the previous and current, please, Ford Laureates? Applause Applause Thank you so much, everyone, for that beautiful moment.
I'm guessing so many of you are here to support them, so thank you all so much for coming as well to see the ceremonial passing on and physical passing of the laurel.
So we are now moving on to the rest of our meeting.
Oh, one thing I want to say is that we have a new vice mayor.
So Vice Mayor Lunapara is going to be the vice mayor for this next, how many months is it? I forget, but anyway, for the next few months, quarter, next quarter.
Yeah, so welcome to your new role.
Applause Thank you so much.
And so the next thing on our agenda is our city manager comments.
City manager, do you have any comments? I don't, thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
So now I will take public comment on non-agenda matters.
Okay, we'll draw five cards for the in-person speakers and then have one minute each and then go to the speakers on participating remotely.
Silence Okay, there's five speakers for in-person public comments.
Read your names, you can come up in any order.
We have Diana Vendor, Luis Cuneo, Steve Tracy, Betsy Morris, and Willie Gee.
So come up in any order.
I know you're excited, but I'm going to ask that you continue your conversations outside, please.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, especially to our young visitors.
Okay, if you heard your name, please come on up to the front and whoever's up first can go.
Good evening, city council members.
My name is Betsy Morris.
I'm speaking here as a member of the East Bay Great Panthers and a member of the Statewide Affordable California Coalition.
About a hundred, seemingly a hundred, but it might have been fewer, went up to Sacramento last week and six, eight Great Panthers, some of us hobbling like very slowly, testified in support of AB 1157, which was brought forward to the Judicial Committee.
Four Democrats voted for it, three Republicans voted against it, and four Democrats simply did not show up for this measure, which would have lowered the cap and lessened the risk of homelessness and immiseration among our seniors and disabled members of our California community.
Thank you.
Thanks, Betsy.
Thanks for being here.
Okay.
Do we have a video feed this evening? We broadcast every meeting.
Oh, okay.
I don't see it up there.
Happy New Year.
Steve Tracy here.
We're halfway through an old year, the budget year.
I'm wondering how we're doing.
Are we on target for a balanced budget? Lots of fun programs like a poet laureate, but they've got to be rooted in living within our means.
Last year, $27 million deficit.
Has that been paid back to the pension fund and the workers' compensation fund? Paid back? Not paid back.
Anybody know? Are we still? We've still borrowed the $27 million, and what's this year doing? Hey, fewer employees.
The health department redundant to Alameda County was $12 million last year.
Do we really need a $12 million health department? Thank you.
Look for ways.
Thanks for your comments.
Who else is on? Come on up.
Go ahead and move the mic down so we can hear you.
Okay.
Hello, city council members.
How are you? My name is Kelly, and I have been a vendor out on telegraph with Diana.
We're together, Diana and Kelly.
These are the other vendors that are here.
There's Louis.
That's Diana.
To me.
Should I start over? Okay.
Yeah, go ahead and start over.
Sorry, just to clarify, can you pause it really quickly? Okay.
So whose names were called, the two people who are sitting, is that correct? Yes.
Okay, and they're giving both of their minutes to you.
It's all of us together.
All right.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Hello, city council members.
My name is Kelly, and I have been working out on telegraph for about 16 years every weekend.
I am here representing not only the merchants but also the vendors.
I'm not sure if you're aware that they changed the coding on the vendors to business licenses.
The problem is with that is the fact that the business license that you guys are handing out now are competing with our merchants.
That has never happened.
There are a lot of rules out there that we all must abide by to make it a smooth operation.
We have, and the reasons for this situation for our merchants is the example I'm going to give you.
We have Anastasia's closet.
We have Dorothy's closet.
And we have all these clothing stores.
But when you guys changed the code, you allowed all people to be able to vend.
That cannot happen because it competes the vendors with the merchants.
So you take Anastasia's closet, and here they are, a used clothing store.
You give a business license to another person who is a vendor to sell clothes, which has always been unlawful to do.
Because if you give them the business license, you know, they set up in front of Anastasia's closets.
One pays $8,000 in rent.
The other one's paying $55,000.
This causes conflict.
I am here today to ask you to reinstate the code that says you can only sell on Telegraph Avenue with handmade goods.
And it's hard to negotiate out there, as I have for the last seven years, which is just asking people, have you gotten their license yet? And usually people will answer you yes or no, and they go back.
The city of Berkeley has always defended us because..
Am I done? Yeah, thank you.
But I do hope that you'll write us and let us, send us more information if you have any.
Yeah, I'm not even sure if you guys know that they changed the code.
Yeah, thank you.
I'm sorry.
Your time's up.
But feel free to write us and give us more information.
Anyone? Do we have any other names? Okay, Willie G.
Okay.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Andre Special, and Willie G has given me his time.
One minute's kind of short, but I operate the Cannabis Buyers Club of Berkeley, which is America's oldest dispensary.
We're about to celebrate 30 years of operations, and I'm here to ask that the council consider bringing back the Cannabis Commission, take away the city cannabis tax, allow consumption, including smoking at the dispensaries, and allow only licensed Berkeley cannabis entities to deliver within the city of Berkeley.
We are currently surrounded by businesses that don't charge tax for their cannabis sales, such as psychedelic churches, smoke shops, hemp shops, and businesses like a chain of CBD stores, whose ownership is based out of Florida, that sell many of the same products that we do, but without the 30% tax.
Another example of this hardship is that San Francisco recently did away with its 5% tax.
They don't allow businesses from out of the city of San Francisco to deliver there, but they can come here and deliver in Berkeley for 5% less than we can.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so now we'll go to non-agenda comments from people participating remotely, and we'll call on the first five hands.
So if you'd like to speak to non-agenda public comment and you're participating remotely, now is the time to raise your hand.
The first speaker is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
So Berkeley City Council, that was the longest break.
Other councils in the area have returned already within the last couple of weeks.
So happy new year.
2026, no more tricks.
Let's fix.
You should be ashamed.
Today is day number 832 of the freaking genocide.
Olive trees.
Yes, that represents Palestine.
But you don't give a flying flick of a flea about Palestine or the babies that are freezing to death and starving to death.
And it's just really shameful.
And please keep the tear gas ban in place.
That passed unanimously with my friendly amendment when Jesse was trying to just ban it for a short period of time.
It needs to stay in place and shame on you.
Thank you.
Next is Maria.
Maria.
Hi there, it's Mariah.
Sorry.
My name is Mariah Yates and I live in District one.
And I was relieved to see the proposal by District one council member Casarwani to repeal Berkeley's ban on tear gas removed from today's agenda.
And I applaud whatever prompted this course correction.
And I hope that we have a permanent and not temporary reprieve from the proposal.
Thank you, former council member Davila.
As former mayor and current California Senator Eric Gain said at the time, tear gas is banned and warfare and should not be used in our streets or in our protests.
And I did note that my email expressing my objection to the pro tear gas agenda item is missing from the correspondence list in this agenda.
In addition to any email on that topic.
And I honestly I don't understand which correspondences get make it into the agenda.
But I was disappointed to not receive a response from any member here and not to see it noted there.
I guess I'm not sure how that works.
But again, I wish to express my gratitude to whomever is responsible for getting this item removed from our agenda.
I hope the council's attention can remain.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mariah.
Thank you for your comment.
Next is a caller with a phone number ending in 211.
Hi, good evening.
So our business manager handed us some paper today.
Please read it carefully.
Second, we may settle for if the city could lease a place for us anywhere in the city of Berkeley.
Not only that, think about it.
Think about it.
Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, Berkeley and Bay Area residents need our business.
As far as the monstrosity in the White House, no way to describe it.
It is not.
This man is a Russian frozen horse.
We are losing our country in real time, and I never have expressed fascism to talk about this country, especially that quickly.
We have ought to stand up.
Immigrants built this country.
Immigrants.
During the first administration, 1.2 million Americans died from COVID because they denied it.
Both Moderna and the other Pfizer, two wars.
One was Greek American.
One was Lebanese American.
This is the end, not only of America, end of civilization, because he has the bottom of the nuclear war, and he will do it.
Thank you.
Thank you, and have a good evening.
Thanks for your comment.
Okay, last hand raise is Madeline Roberts-Rich.
Hello, everybody.
My name is Madeline.
Hello again, I should say, because you've heard from me before.
I'm calling once again about the urgency that I feel about reviving the downtown Berkley Corridor on Shattuck Avenue.
You heard me and many, many others fight to preserve cinematic facilities on Shattuck Avenue as specified and accounted for in the downtown area specific plan.
There are no operating elevators on Shattuck Avenue.
There's one remaining in Berkley, that being the Rialto and College.
I really encourage you to collaborate with developers.
If you've got a way to get some chips off the table, in the public's favor, from the developers, the developers budget for this, the budget for providing what is called proffers to the community benefits, and really try hard to support nightlife uses and cinema again on Shattuck Avenue in some creative fashion.
Thank you for your time is up, but thank you for your comment.
That's all the speakers online.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, everyone for your public comment.
It is the first regular meeting of the month.
And so I want to see if there's there are any employee unions that would like to speak today.
Employee unions here are online.
There's no hand raised.
Okay.
I just want to give them a little bit of time.
Nobody.
Okay.
All right.
We'll move on then to the consent calendar.
Can I start first with any council member comments, please.
Council member Humbert.
Wow, I delayed a little bit and pushing the button.
I just have a few comments on the consent calendar.
With respect to consent item nine, I want to say this is a really good thing.
We keep the restrictions against riding bikes on sidewalks, except for kids, but eliminate unnecessary and pass a bike permitting registration and licensing requirements.
So all in favor of that.
And with respect to.
Consent item number 17.
$150.
I'd like to contribute from our D.A.
account for this very worthy program.
I read a little bit about it.
That sounds like a really important program.
With respect to item consent, item 19.
Referral of the city manager to allow a tiny homes on wheels as permissible accessory dwelling units.
I want to thank council member Kessler, whiny and her staff for this creative and timely measure.
Tiny homes on wheels are much easier to put in place in 80 years on foundations, and they can work very well for individuals in very small families.
This is just a referral and city staff will clearly work out all the safety and logistical issues.
With respect to item number 20 comes consent item number 20, which is the city council employee recognition program.
Thank you to council member Blackaby and the co sponsors for this very thoughtful item.
We have such a wonderful group of city employees.
This will allow us to bestow our praise on them when it's wanted, which will be very often, I think.
Thank you.
That's all I have.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Vice Mayor Lunapara.
Thank you.
I am really excited that item 8 to allow the retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue commercial district is becoming law after two readings with unanimous support from council and the planning commission.
Thank you so much to Director Klein and his staff for making it a reality.
I'm also excited to donate $250 for my budget to Caminos Alexito at the Multicultural Center.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, for letting me co sponsor and thanks to your staff for who worked on this item.
Thanks.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Council member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
It's good to see everyone.
Happy New Year.
Just a couple of brief comments on item 17.
We'd also like to contribute $250 from our office holder account.
And on item 20, I appreciate the support of my colleagues in particular, Mayor Ishii, Council Member Lunapara, and Council Member Kastorwani for co sponsoring it.

Segment 2

It was important to me, and I think during my time on the Police Accountability Board, when you're thinking about, you know, often we are critical and thinking about, you know, ways we can improve performance.
But it's also equally important to uplift examples of where people are doing really good work.
We see that in our police department.
I think we see that in our city staff.
And I'd say especially in a time when we know we're going into some challenging budget conditions, the more that we can do to, again, recognize the amazing work that our staff is doing.
In many cases, we'll be doing more work, potentially with a little less, as we tighten our belts.
Just felt like a really important time to do that.
So again, I appreciate the support.
And I do think it's going to be a nice way to recognize one employee a month and have us all participate in the process of doing that work.
So thanks to the city manager and HR team for their input as well.
And I'm hopeful and looking forward to working with the mayor's office to implement that in the months ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Can I just check in really quick on our Zoom situation? OK, I'm very sorry, folks.
We are going to take a break and restart our system.
And I'm very hopeful that it will work so we can come back and finish our meeting.
Thank you.
OK, mayor, we can continue.
OK, I think we're back on, everyone.
Yay.
Yes.
OK.
Very happy.
All right.
We are on our consent calendar right now.
And we just heard council member Blackabee's comments, I believe.
Moving on to council member Trageb.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I want to express my enthusiasm in particular for item six, which will expand the Throne Lab Portable Toilet Pilot Program.
My district has one of the two thrones.
It is in Civic Center Park and it has gotten rave reviews and has been popular.
And I really appreciate the opportunity to host it in my district for a few months longer.
I also would like to thank Mayor Ishii for the opportunity to co-sponsor item 17, Caminos el Exito.
And I am excited to contribute $150 from my discretionary account.
And lastly, I wish to thank council member Keserwani for her item, the referral, item 19, referral to the city manager to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible accessory dwelling units.
And I'm appreciative of the opportunity to co-sponsor that item.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
This is a blank number, so I'm going to move on to council member Keserwani, please.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Happy New Year to everybody.
I also wanted to be recorded as donating $100 to Caminos el Exito.
I hope I didn't butcher that too badly.
And then I just wanted to thank everyone for speaking in support of the item 19 to allow tiny homes on wheels so that we are trying to expand the opportunities to add accessory dwelling units.
The permanent ones and even prefabricated ones can be very expensive.
So we know that tiny homes can be less expensive.
So we're trying to open up new opportunities.
And I did want to add council member Bartlett as a co-sponsor of that item.
Thank you very much for your support.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go to council member Bartlett and then I'm going to move online to council member Taplin and then back to council member O'Keefe here.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And it's great to be back after a nice vacation.
The number 13 in the consent calendar I'm really excited about.
This is the city engaging with emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers so we can help new people to access this industry and get some new talent in here from diverse backgrounds.
Really good.
Really happy about this.
17 I'd like to give $200 to the Caminos Alexito.
Did I say that right? Madam Vice Mayor.
Yeah.
And and again, thank you, Councilor Kesarwani for me to join you on the ADU item, the tiny homes on wheels.
Also Mills on Wheels on the same agenda tonight.
And Mills on Wheels is from Berkeley.
Do people know that? Yeah, it started here.
Very vital resource for seniors getting food.
And I'd like to also thank Councilman Blackaby and his co-sponsors and for your work to recognize employees.
They do great work here and they should be held up.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council member Taplin.
Thank you.
Good evening, everyone.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Michael Taplin.
I'm the city manager for the development of comprehensive transition design standards.
On item 17, I would like to be reported as relinquishing 250 from my 2013 account.
$250 on item 18, the referral to the city manager for the development of comprehensive transition design standards.
I want to thank you, Madam Mayor, for your leadership and your sensitivity and say that I am very happy to be included as a co-sponsor.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Just two quick comments.
I'd like to be reported as donating $250 for item 17.
Sounds like a great program.
And a lot of compliments being thrown around.
I'll just do one.
I really appreciate item 18, Madam Mayor and co-sponsors.
I just I'm a big fan of clear, well thought out laws as opposed to haphazard random laws, which is kind of what we have now.
And there's no fault.
I mean, all of it's all good intentioned work.
That's led up to where we are today.
But this is a really logical next step.
And I just really want to say how much I appreciate it.
That is all.
Thank you very much.
So sorry, the parliamentarian was out and that's why it said you were for.
So for number two, I want to acknowledge that we have contracted with Lake Partners.
I'm really excited to move forward in the poll.
So I really want to thank the city manager and your team for moving that forward while we were on recess.
I want to acknowledge that we got another grant from Americans for the Arts.
I think that's very exciting.
Our city works really hard to find other sources of funding.
And I want folks to know about that.
So thank you very much.
For number nine, we are removing some nonsensical bicycle licensing requirements.
So I think that's always a good thing.
I wanted to call that out.
And number 17 is Caminos al Exito, which I am sponsoring.
I wanted to just highlight that it was written by our intern, Jose Martinez.
And so I want to give him a shout-out.
And thank you so much for your work.
It's a one-day conference held at Berkeley City College, which is my alma mater, as well as Councilmember Kaplan.
I don't know if anyone else did.
And it's meant to demystify and provide resources for students and parents for life outside of high school.
It's a bilingual event that has workshops, working groups, and activities.
And it is organized with the collaborative efforts of the Chicanex, Latinx Student Development Center, Rooks Live, Latinos Unidos de Berkeley, Berkeley Public Schools, Berkeley City College, Multicultural Institute, and the Office of Family Engagement and Equity.
So I want to just thank everyone who worked on that event.
And thank you so much to the Councilmembers for also relinquishing some funds for that.
And then just for number 18, the Comprehensive Transportation Design Standards, which some folks had mentioned.
This is something that we had said at the last meeting that we were going to bring forward to this meeting.
So I just want folks to know we did it.
We said we were going to work on it during the break.
I really want to thank my staff for pushing that forward as well and working with the City Manager staff as well.
So thank you very much.
I'm really looking forward to that work moving forward so we have some clarity.
And then also just thank you also the ADU item.
So very exciting.
All right.
Now is there public comment on consent? Come on up.
My name is Carol Wolfley.
And I am here to express my appreciation to the Landmark Commission for their unanimous vote to make the KPFA building a historical landmark.
And I appreciate that they had such an in-depth understanding of Berkeley history, as well as knowledge of how 16,000 people protested and rallied in support of community media in 1999 to protect the KPFA building.
And KPFA as the first Lister-sponsored media organization, radio, in the United States.
So I appreciate your being here.
It was also recognized by the Nation Magazine in 2018.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do we get two minutes? Okay.
Thank you.
First, I wanted to speak in favor of item 13.
Hopefully this will address some of the racial and gender disparities that were revealed during the Mason-Tillman report.
Second has to item 19.
It's always good to have alternative housing options when everything is so expensive in terms of housing.
But mainly I want to address the Throne bathrooms.
And one of the issues, or a issue with them, is in trying it out, this would have been really problematic if I, having been taking care of my mother or bringing her everywhere for 19 years when she was blind and in a wheelchair and multiply disabled.
There is, you get a warning that says, I believe it's a 10-minute warning, where the music starts playing and it says you have to exit.
And that could be really problematic for a person with disabilities.
Thank you, Karen.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Candace Schott, and I'm a Berkeley resident and the secretary of the KPFA local station board.
And I am also here in support of the Landmark Commission's decision to approve the landmark status of the KPFA building.
And to note that it's the only broadcast radio building in Berkeley proper, which I think makes it an important building in Berkeley.
And just to note that all the very famous people that have come through that building have been through those airwaves.
And I really appreciate your consideration for approving it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I love that you all are coordinated in your sweatshirts, too.
I didn't even think about it.
I wear it so much.
Hi, I'm Colleen Mast.
Go ahead and move the mic up so we can hear you better.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Colleen Mast, and I'm a resident and also a new member of the KPFA station board.
And I'm here to speak in support of the Landmark Commission's decision to make the KPFA building an historical landmark.
Also, the KPFA building is a site of profound historical significance, not only for its pioneering role in the evolution of the community radio, but also a historical archive of the social and political movements that have shaped Berkeley and the wider world.
Since its inception, KPFA has been a steadfast platform for independent media, providing coverage and in-depth analysis of some of the most significant events in modern history.
And just one example being the station played a critical role in covering the civil rights movement, offering a voice to leaders and activists fighting for racial justice, and this at a time when mainstream media often marginalized their perspectives.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Hello, everyone in the City Council of Berkeley.
Thank you for having me.
My name is Antonio Ortiz.
I'm the interim general manager of KPFA Radio.
And I want to thank the Landmark Historical Commission to push forward making KPFA's building into a historical landmark.
I also want to thank these ladies here for all the work that they've done to make that happen.
KPFA was founded in 1949 by a pacifist.
Ever since then, our goal has been to build understanding between peoples.
And one of the main challenges, at least for me as a general manager, our interim general manager, has been how do we bridge the gap between people? And that's what I learned at KPFA.
That's the education that I got.
And my hope is that we can continue doing that.
The building becoming a historical landmark will be fabulous for us because it would show to our staff and the community that we exist, we're here, and that we've been part of the fabric of Berkeley since 1949.
And thank you all for listening to me.
And I hope you all have a good rest of your evening.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Good evening.
Thank you.
I'm Betsy Morris, and I'm wearing a third hat now as part of my consulting practice planning for sustainable communities.
I've been advocating and mostly just educating since 2014 on tiny homes.
And just thank you for bringing this up.
And I also very much appreciate that this is going for further analysis because the details, those guidelines and definitions are very important.
I also hope we'll come back and consider ways that these can stay as at least moderate income, not affordable to lower income people because, in fact, you can have a $300,000 tiny home.
People are selling very elaborate ones.
But I did want to say, just to reassure anyone, that most legal tiny homes in California are certified either with manufactured home standards or RV.
Thank you.
I still haven't grown.
It's such a pleasure to see all of you.
Happy, happy New Year.
And I know it's going to be a super year because, again, good mayor, you've opened it up on this first meeting with such a heart space.
And that's my bottom line, and I'm starting to cry.
I can't thank you enough.
And, secondly, KPFA, voice of the voiceless.
It's my university after university.
Thank you, KPFA.
All right.
My primary interest is in the tiny homes.
I've built a bunch.
There's lots of people that need them, and there's lots of people that actually have space and would like to share it.
It is cost effective, simple, on wheels, movable, alterable, flexible, almost immediately possible.
It's like, can't we simplify this, please? All day long I take pictures.
Oh, I have an extra minute.
I'm sorry.
I forgot to tell you.
From Taj.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
I'm constantly in the community, and I take, I'm starting to cry again, I take too many pictures of wasted resources and infinite needs.
And, again, there's a community of share because we care that's possible.
And it can be legal, and it can be safe.
And, again, I love the wheels.
So, and I would just, I'd build them for free, I'm telling you.
All right.
I really have to work very hard not to run over bicyclists with no lights, dressed in black at night, and or on these electric things that come out of nowhere.
It's like, what's happened? I still have my motorcycle license.
These things are amazing.
We need to be comprehensive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
On item 19, I would like to express my support for tiny homes.
However, you have this tendency to look problems and solutions straight in the face and not see them.
Tiny homes can be built by people right here in this community.
Unhoused folks have skills, lots of skills that can be put to use.
And if they are disabled and can't do it physically, they can teach.
And we can set up right here in Berkeley a little factory for putting out tiny homes, producing them, putting them in place, and get people a home.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments on the consent or information items online? Yes, we have four hands raised for comments on consent and information.
First is phone number ending in 000.
It should be able to unmute.
Star 6 to unmute.
We'll come back.
Next is Ben.
Good evening, Council.
This is Ben Gerhardstein with Walkbrake Berkeley.
I wanted to express our support, Walkbrake Berkeley support, for the transportation design standards item.
Thank you to the mayor and co-sponsors and city manager's office for bringing this item forward.
It's an important step for the city to take.
It's going to be a big project.
But I think it will yield dividends if we keep our eyes on the North Star of safety while meeting the operational needs of other road users, all road users.
And I want to draw your attention to a couple of comments we made in our letter.
First, that as we work through these standards, it's important that we field test what we're putting in, what we're developing.
Because that's where we can learn and refine, especially when it comes to bigger road users and bigger vehicles and how they maneuver various road features.
And then secondly, I think it's important that we maintain our commitment to delivering on projects that are in the queue and not take our eyes off of that as we are developing these standards, which will take time and be important.
Thank you, Ben.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Della Luna.
Yes, can you hear me okay? Yes.
Okay, I'm speaking about item number 13, and I'm here to say that more oversight is needed for these emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers.
The city needs to first verify that these developers follow through and display competence before dishing out more funds to them.
Some of these developers treat the city relationship as a creative writing assignment and submit feel-good proposals.
But the city is not doing their due diligence to vet these organizations, and the impact is that your vulnerable constituents are placed in the hands of the less experienced with no recourse.
City funds should be allocated to help constituents, not prop up nonprofits.
And people will form nonprofits just to get access to city funds.
Creative writing is not enough in proposals.
Fake it till you make it is harming your constituents.
Please provide oversight for these affordable housing nonprofit developers that are emerging.
The recent lawsuit resulting from the unfortunate homicide at the homeless shelter is an example of what happens when there's no time.
Thanks for your comment.
Let's go back to phone number ending in 000.
Hi, good evening.
I'm calling regarding number eight.
I don't like it at all.
As a college student, I was there for 14 years in physics and nuclear engineering department.
One time I almost died.
Student, sometimes going drinking binge.
Through a party we had, I had almost a full bottle of gin.
I almost died.
Please don't pass that.
We have bad enough problem with the pot shops all across the street on telegraph.
Now we need to add liquor as well.
What happens there? Think about your kids.
Think about your grandkids.
Stop it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have Cheryl Davila, former council member.
So yeah, back in when I was on council, I tried to get an item for tiny homes.
I tried to get them built, have the designs, I still have the designs.
So it's interesting that you're doing that now but that's not the first time.
Somebody has copied things that I had wanted to do.
I'm not sure.
I haven't read the item and don't plan to but I just think it's interesting that now you're putting this forward as you have done on other items that I put forward that you put forward.
All right.
Yeah, that's all I gotta say.
Free Palestine, free Congo, free Sudan, free Yemen, and free yourselves from all the hatred that you all have towards other people in your city that you're supposed to represent.
Next is Daniel Brownson.
Hi.
So, I don't know if others saw the news but the city of Santa Cruz has terminated their contract with flock, quote, safety, and Berkeley should do the same.
This is on consented information items which public comment, sorry, nevermind.
Okay, thank you.
That was the last speaker.
Okay, thank you very much.
Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Did you have a comment? Yeah, if you can indulge me for a minute.
I just wanted to congratulate everyone that has made the landmarking possible at KPFA.
Thank you so much.
While KPFA has preceded district elections, I for sure am very proud to be able to say that it is in my district and thank you for everything that you're doing.
Thank you.
Okay, can we take the roll on that please? Okay, on the consent calendar.
Council Member Keserwani? Yes.
Kaplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Is currently absent.
Trageb? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
Mayor Ishii? Yes.
And Council Member Bartlett, would you like to record a vote on the consent calendar? Yes.
Okay, motion passes.
Consent calendar is adopted.
We are going to just take a quick five-minute stretch as we're switching into the next item.
Thank you.
Are we ready? Are staff ready? Staff? Jordan? You ready? Oh, yeah.
Okay.
All right, very good.
We are going to, yeah, we are going to call this meeting back into session.
And we are moving on to the action calendar, starting with action item number 21, which is amendments to Title 21 subdivisions to allow separate sale of ADUs continued from December 2nd, 2025, which is why you're going first.
And as it says, items contained for revised materials.
Okay.
We have Council Member Keserwani has a statement.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I've been advised by the City Attorney's Office, as well as the Fair Campaign Political Practices Commission at the state level, that I have a conflict of interest and therefore will be recusing on this item.
Thank you.
Okay.
And Council Member Trago? Similarly, pursuant to this advice from the City Attorney and the Fair Political Practices Commission, I will be recusing myself from this item as a tenant in an ADU in Berkeley.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to make sure we allow them to leave, but then open the public hearing and have staff give their presentation.
Okay.
Go ahead, staff.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Council Members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm Director of Planning and Development.
I'm joined at the table by Justin Horner, Principal Planner on the Policy Team, and Branka Tatarovic on the Policy Team, who will be presenting on behalf of staff.
Take it away, Branka.
Thank you, Jordan.
Thank you, Mayor Ishii and the members of the City Council.
My name is Branka Tatarovic, and I am an Associate Planner with the Land Use Planning Division.
Tonight, I am presenting the Ordinance to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs under Assembly Bill 1033, as directed by City Council referral and Planning Commission input.
The Planning Commission reviewed the ADU condominiums item in spring and summer.
The Commission first discussed AB 1033 in March and recommended adoption of the new section, ADU condominiums, as BMC Section 2129, in May.
Berkeley Municipal Code currently doesn't allow ADUs to be sold separately.
AB 1033 gives cities that option if they adopt local regulations.
City Council asked the Planning Department staff to create that pathway to broaden moderate income homeownership and help homeowners build equity.
The new Chapter 2129 is Berkeley's opt-in to AB 1033.
It is nested in Title 21 subdivisions.
The Chapter applies only to the separate sale of ADUs on eligible lots and creates no new development rights.
It provides a path to condoize what is already allowed.
The process is ministerial where applicable under state law and our objective standards.
State law also requires a lien holder consent, a safety inspection, and buyer disclosures.
If the ADU is a covered rental, the ordinance preserves tenant protections, the right to.

Segment 3

First Refusal and the Right to Remain for Chapter 21-28 Condominium Conversion.
CCNRs and any necessary access easements are needed as required under the David Sterling Act and Subdivision Map Act.
Under the proposed ordinance, condo converted ADUs would be exempt from the condo conversion mitigation fee.
Overall, the ordinance complies with state law, adds no new standards, and provides a practical path to attainable home ownership.
Finally, staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the first reading of the ordinance to implement AB 1033 by allowing the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums through amendments to Title 21.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you, and I'm available for questions.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the presentation.
I would like to now go to Councilmember Lunaparra so that she may present her supplemental.
Great.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Vice Mayor.
I think we might have to take down the staff presentation in order for me to share my screen.
I have a presentation.
Okay.
Sorry, one moment.
All right.
AB 1033 and the goal of the ADU condo conversion ordinance is to provide opportunities for more affordable home ownership, which is a critical piece of the puzzle and one that I personally relate very closely to as a young renter with some hope that I'll be able to afford a home in the Bay Area eventually.
I think the fundamental question right now is around how to balance the stability of ADU tenants and the opportunities for potential future ADU homeowners.
I don't believe that we should be incentivizing putting ADU tenants in jeopardy of displacement in exchange for home ownership opportunities.
That was not the purpose of AB 1033, which allows cities to pass ADU conversion ordinances to encourage more developments of ADUs to be sold independently.
Renters in affected ADUs should be provided with protections similar to those of tenants and other units proposed for condominium conversion based on our existing condominium conversion ordinance.
Based on feedback from tenants, housing supply advocates, and our legal teams, this supplemental material proposes adding the following tenant protections to this ordinance.
One, to add a condition of approval to prevent no-fault evictions.
Two, to establish the right of first refusal for 90 days for all ADU tenants.
Three, prohibits condo conversion if there has been an owner move-in eviction for the past five years.
Two, disincentivize using owner move-ins to avoid other tenant protections.
Four, provides a choice between paying the affordable housing mitigation fee or agree to rent control the condoized ADU if it is rented out.
And I'll explain more about that in a moment.
And five, more clearly define which ADUs are eligible for conversion.
Zooming into the last point, these definitions would limit ADU conversion to ADUs built after 2002.
And this is because pre-2003 dwellings that have undergone the amnesty program process are subject to this ordinance.
The time, the staff can explain this better, but the time at which the program is approved, that is the year of which it is officially built, I guess, for the purposes of this.
Pre-2003 dwellings that have not undergone the amnesty program process may be converted through the regular condo conversion ordinance, not the ADU ordinance.
Pre-2003 ADUs are considered built in the year they went through the amnesty process, so they would still fall under this ordinance.
Prior to 2003, accessories of dwelling units did not have their own code section and were only listed as a special use in the single-family residential district.
The term ADU has also become a popular term that is used interchangeably with residential, other dwelling types that were previously referred to as inline units, cottages, gray flats, et cetera.
Most of these units are now considered full dwelling units and could only convert to condominiums under the condo conversion ordinance.
So this slide compares the differences between our condo conversion ordinance, which is already law for non-ADU conversions, the Planning Commission item, and our supplemental item.
The status of a covered versus an exempt ADU varies on situation, on year of construction, on year of certificate of occupancy, on owner occupancy status, on whether it was built on existing residential space, et cetera.
The status of an ADU can vary and can change over time.
Part of our goal here is to simplify the process and ensure that all ADU tenants are protected from displacement for the sake of conversion without adding new protections on property owners that do not wish to convert their unit.
So first, the tenant right of first refusal.
The condo conversion ordinance requires that those converting a unit provide one year of right of first refusal for current and future tenants in covered and exempt dwelling units.
The Planning Commission recommended one year only for current tenants in fully covered dwelling units.
And the current supplemental compromises by decreasing the timeline to 90 days for current and future tenants in all dwelling units, allowing for a quicker process for sellers.
For the conversion prohibition after no-fault evictions, so again, the current non-ADU condo conversion ordinance has a waiting period that prevents conversions after no-fault eviction from happening by prohibiting landlords from doing a conversion for 10 years after a no-fault eviction.
The Planning Commission recommendation removes these protections for all units, meaning a landlord can perform a no-fault eviction and immediately convert their ADU, displacing their tenant to sell the unit.
And the current supplemental compromises by shortening the conversion prohibition to five years instead of 10 years.
And it also adds an Ellis Act savings clause to ensure compliance with state law.
In terms of prohibiting owner move-ins for current tenants, the condo conversion ordinance prohibits owner move-in evictions for all current tenants at the time of their conversion.
The Planning Commission version prohibits owner move-ins for current tenants living in only covered dwelling units at the time of conversion.
And our supplemental mirrors the existing condo conversion ordinance by prohibiting owner move-in evictions for all current tenants at the time of conversion.
We're almost done, sorry.
For the affordable housing mitigation fee piece, the condo conversion ordinance requires property owners to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee during a conversion.
If they opt into rent control, the fee is halved.
The Planning Commission version does not require property owners to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee during a conversion.
In our supplemental, a property owner who opts to make the newly converted ADU rent-controlled, which would only apply if the condo unit is rented out, they would pay $0 of the HMF.
This incentivizes the preservation of rent-controlled housing, prevents displacement, and gives property owners more flexibility.
I want to clarify again that this supplemental is not intended to add any new tenant protections for ADUs that are not already covered by the rental ordinance unless they are converting their unit into a condo, and that we are not required to adopt AB 1033 ordinance under state law, although we should.
And these are some of the impacts briefly for the owner move-in, the protections would only apply in the case that the property owner voluntarily opts to convert their ADU into a condo.
So, for example, a landlord who wants to go out of business so a relative can move into their ADU when it is already occupied by a tenant can still do that without penalty.
Someone moving their relative into an ADU would likely not want to convert their ADU because they aren't selling it, so the proposed tenant protections of the supplemental would not apply.
And the supplemental only ensures that while creating this new tool for property owners, we don't incentivize displacement.
It does this by applying less restrictive versions of tenant protections that already apply in other situations of Berkeley.
Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is to incentivize new development of ADUs for the sake of condoization, not to replace a tenant in an ADU with a homeowner in an ADU.
Statistically, tenants of ADUs are lower income and significantly more likely to be displaced away from Berkeley or into homelessness than a middle-income family looking to purchase a home.
As I said at the beginning, I would love to purchase a condo home in the future and start a family in Berkeley, and I'm so glad to see that Council is taking concrete steps in creating these opportunities, and I do not want to displace my friends who are current young tenants in ADUs in this situation.
This is not a zero-sum game, and I believe that these amendments balance our priorities to ensure that we are incentivizing affordable homeownership without displacement.
And I want to thank Director Klein and his team for all of their hard work on this.
I'm also really grateful to the Planning Commission, to the Rent Board, and the City Attorney's Office for their substantial contributions to this ordinance.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Okay, so I'd like to get questions from Council members first, and that could be to Vice Mayor Lenopara or to staff, and then I will take public comment, and then we'll go to Council comments before moving to vote.
So, questions? Okay, I'd like to ask staff if you can please speak to the need for clarification of language around which ADUs this would apply to.
This is Council Member Lenopara's point.
She mentioned that staff might be able to explain it better, so I just wanted to get some clarity on that.
Sorry, which ADUs her supplemental would apply to, or which ADUs the staff proposal? The final bullet point, if you wouldn't mind pulling it up, ask for clarity around the language.
I mentioned that because the situation in which an ADU is granted the amnesty program makes the, like, date kind of complicated, so I was wondering if you could just explain it better than I could, what that means when an ADU, an existing ADU, gets approved under the amnesty program.
Sure, under the staff and planning commission proposal, a unit that sought amnesty through the city's amnesty program for unpermitted dwelling units could qualify for conversion as a condo, but only if, but there's two pathways through the amnesty program.
There's a certificate of compliance pathway, which doesn't result in a full certificate of occupancy.
In that case, the unpermitted unit is only screened for housing safety, and it doesn't go through the full land use entitlement process.
It doesn't go through the full building inspection process.
In that case, it couldn't get converted into a condo.
If it goes the full route, which is essentially the normal entitlement and building permitting process with amnesty protection from any code enforcement, then it would qualify for conversion regardless of the date of original construction, and I think that's one way in which the supplemental differs from the planning commission recommendation.
Okay, thank you.
And I know we've gone over this, but I think it would be good if you could also help us understand what, if any, protections exist for tenants who live in an exempt ADU.
So, yeah, I can answer that question.
So, fully exempt units.
Actually, fully exempt units have no protection, but there is really a small subset of units that are fully exempt.
So, that doesn't mean that the ADUs to be converted are not going to offer any protection, because most of them are actually partially covered units, and they have some of the tenant protections.
So, all of the tenant protections that are in condo conversion ordinance that apply to partially covered units would also be applied to these ADUs, and most of the ADUs that are rented would fall into that category.
So, these protections would be exclusive right to purchase, right to remain, and recent no-fault eviction screening.
Thank you.
Yeah, so the point is, fully exempt units, that's a very, very narrow subset, and it only actually applies to ADUs that are on the property, zoned for single-family use, and where there are only two units, and one of them is owner-occupied.
Thank you.
Council Member Blackabee.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
One quick question, and we may not have the answer.
I was curious if staff has any rough projections, predictions as to the kind of volume we might expect.
I know we had a similar discussion about that during the middle housing discussion, but do you have a sense of, under the Planning Commission proposal, any rough projections of volume, and how that may or may not be affected in the alternative version? Do we have any sense of numbers? Sure, I'll take a crack at that.
So, we have been seeing production on average of about 180 ADUs per year over the last five years or so.
We don't think that that's going to be impacted in a huge way by either of these proposals.
What it does, it creates a new avenue for separate sale, but I mean, it's difficult to speculate, but I don't think that this will necessarily, I mean, we think that it could have a slightly beneficial in terms of production.
It could encourage a little bit more production by, you know, creating an opportunity for somebody to, you know, take advantage of some unused land on their property.
And then regarding the supplemental material, you know, most of the proposed expand provisions don't have any direct impact on unit production.
They're really about when there's an existing sitting tenant, and so somebody who's choosing to go to produce a new unit, they could decide whether or not they want to rent out that unit.
You know, the one possible exception is the application of the affordable housing mitigation fee, because that's still an edge case, because it's somebody who is planning to produce an ADU for a separate sale with the expectation that it would be a for-rent unit, right? So that's a pretty narrow subset of the kind of units we're talking about, but it could have a slight impact on production, but we don't think it'd make an impact.
Okay, great.
And then getting back to the earlier question about kind of what's covered, what's not covered, again, your sense is the vast majority, the fully covered units and the partially covered units, that's still where most of the volume is.
And the number of units that are of the fully exempt kind, which is for the most part what would exist in my district in D6 is your individual homeowners who may or may not create an ADU and are going to be owner-occupied.
That's a relatively small percentage of the overall volume.
Is that fair to say? Yeah, I just want to qualify.
We really don't have good data distinguishing these by type, so it's really difficult for us to answer.
You know, you heard Branca speculate that it's likely a pretty small percentage of the overall volume of ADUs, but we don't have great data on that.
Okay, but if you are a tenant, an ADU that's owned by someone who does not live on site, full protection or partial or full protections under the existing rent control, and that's preserved in this piece.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions? Okay.
Oh, sorry.
Yes.
Thank you.
Council Member Tablin.
Thank you.
I would actually like to refer my question to the City Attorney.
Thank you.
I also have Steve Hylas that worked on this project available.
Feel free to ask either of us the question.
Sure.
Thank you very much.
Thank you both very much.
So this was before my time, but we've received communications periodically from members of the ADU task force regarding exemptions to the rent stabilization ordinance for certain types of rental units codified by the 2018 Berkeley Measure Q.
Can you clarify what those exemptions were and what impacts on those exemptions the amendments proposed here tonight and the supplemental would have, how the proposed language would interact with the RSO? I can start and then I can turn it over to Steve if he is prepared to answer that.
But in our examination of the ordinance, there's no conflict between Measure Q, which was, as you mentioned, a ballot initiative and this ordinance.
Steve, I don't know if you're online or Lauren, if you wanted to add anything.
Yes, I am.
Hi.
Yes, so under Measure Q, which, as you noted, was passed by the voters in 2018, certain ADUs, specifically certain ADUs on properties where there's a single family home and the landlord occupies a unit in the same property, are fully exempt from the rental ordinance, provided that the tenancies in question were created after November of 2018.
And so for those types of units are fully exempt under the rent ordinance and they are treated as such under the staff proposal.
Thank you very much.
And so would the language proposed by the supplemental remove that exemption for those units? It wouldn't remove all of those exemptions, but I believe it would remove some in that it would apply certain tenant protections to all ADUs.
We, however, have concluded that the way that the supplemental is written wouldn't pose any conflict with Measure Q.
Thank you.
And then my final question is for the planning staff.
My apologies if we don't have this, but do we have numbers on ADUs produced before and after November of 2018? We have numbers produced after 2018, and I mentioned it's been on average about 100 a year since then.
We don't have good data on projection prior to around that point, actually.
Yeah.
Thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
OK, thank you very much.
Any other questions? OK, we will move on to public comment then, please.
Coming up.
I've got a minute from someone.
Yeah, I know many of you are here for that.
So I kind of want to just get a sense of how many folks.
OK, it'll be a minute.
So and you have a minute from this person here.
OK, good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
As chair of the Run Board, I'd like to thank Council Member Lunapar and Council Member Bartlett for their support for the supplemental, which will, I think, the important thing to understand is largely mirrors protections already in place for tenants in when condo conversions occur, but significantly lower the burden of those protections for during the conversion process.
The board supports, in concept, the idea that we want to make it easier to produce homeownership opportunities in Berkeley, right? You know, whether we need more housing, whether that's rental housing or owned housing, and as Council Member Lunapar said, maybe one day some of us young folks will be able to buy a house in Berkeley.
But I think the important thing, as Planning Director Klein mentioned, is that we don't need to incentivize the creation of units that already exist.
Those units that are currently tenant-occupied have been built.
We don't need to do anything to incentivize their creation.
And it doesn't make a new housing to replace tenant-occupied housing with owner-occupied housing.
And so any unit that's going to be built because of this ordinance will be built empty of tenants.
No building that you build from the ground up comes with a tenant inside it.
And so this will have minimal impacts on the creation of what this proposal would do to incentivize the creation of new housing.
As Director Klein stated, the one part that could is this part about the fee.
But these are units that are designed to be sold and owned.
So the imposition of rent control will have a de minimis impact on selling price if it's being sold for a homeownership opportunity.
Those units are not going to be rented.
It's more of an insurance, right? That basically, if you're not going to use the ordinance for the purpose that we're designing it to, we want to make sure that tenants in those units have protections.
Additionally, sorry, my phone locked.
I like to be environmentally friendly and have a fast close time, but it sometimes bites you in the butt.
Likewise, all currently built EDUs were built with the understanding that they wouldn't be sold as condos.
So there's no rug pull going on here.
This is the status quo, and we're granting a new right, which is the right to convert to a condo, and imposing reasonable protections that mirror current protections.
Thank you.
So just I'll say, I have staff from the rent board here if folks have any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Thank you, Carol.
Is that Carol? Sorry, I can't see you.
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
So I appreciate the chance to speak to this.
I am here to support the work of Councilmember Lunapara, and also— Sorry, folks, can I just have it be quiet while people give public comment? Thank you.
Go ahead.
So I'm here to support that, and there's many details I don't know.
But I did want to speak to the item on page 5 in the packet, which indicates ADU condos would be exempt from conversion mitigation fees.
So I would very much encourage a relook at that.
I, for the last 20 years, have lived in limited equity condominium co-housing, which meant there was a group of us that got together, bought, and moved in as renters into a property that had already been, unfortunately, depleted of renters.
But we moved in as an empty—as cooperators.
The point was that we negotiated for permanent affordability at the moderate income level, in perpetuity, and we were in exchange for giving up the condo— the rental conversion fees, the condo conversion fee, that helped us create and be able to buy these units as moderate income people.
And that agreement is now going away because the city attorney said, no, you can't make it in perpetuity.
I would really like to encourage you to think about that as a bargaining, negotiating to actually make it permanently affordable with the mitigation fee forgiven if people go with a land trust or some other mechanism that keeps it perpetually affordable to moderate income people.
Because we know how crazed the market of sellers and interested parties have been.
Thank you.
Thanks, Betsy.
Thank you.
Hello, Madam Mayor and City Council.
Nathan Mizell, Berkeley Rent Board.
Good to see all of y'all.
I want to thank Council Member Bartlett, Vice Chair Luna Parr for introducing this item.
I think, you know, Chair Alpert said really all the main points here.
Certainly those who originally got in the ADU market or business, this is a new avenue for them, and hopefully for regular folks in our city to be able to live here and maybe buy a home.
I'm in that camp hoping that's something I can do one day.
But more importantly than about me, it's really these protections.
And I think the graph that the Vice Mayor showed really illuminates on it.
The city has similar protections that are in place for the condo conversions already.
These protections mirror that and in some ways are a compromise.
And I think it really gives a reasonable balance between allowing for greater building and home ownership and protecting tenants from displacement.
Things are both very important in this city.
So thank you for considering this.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and Council Members.
My name is Audrey Kramer.
I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley and am speaking to you today on behalf of Cal Berkeley Democrats.
I am coming to you as a student, and I urge you to adopt Amendment to Title 21.
Housing in this city is expensive.
We all know it, but the people who feel it are the students like me.
Enabling the sale of these units separately encourages the building of these homes, allowing for more housing to be built in our community.
It is important to me as a renter in this city that my government works hard to keep our city and community affordable and renter-friendly.
I am particularly in favor of Council Member Luna Parra's amendment to increase tenant protections for all of us.
Please adopt this Amendment to Title 21, but especially the revised agenda material.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and Council Members.
Sam Greenberg here on behalf of East Bay for Everyone.
East Bay for Everyone believes that the most successful outcome of this policy is increased production of ADUs for condominium.
We believe that increasing tenant protections for sitting ADU tenants would not preclude increased production and would limit displacement of lower-income residents, younger families, and generally vulnerable tenants.
I also want to highlight that Director Klein just shared in his response to Council Member Blackaby's question that added protections wouldn't have a notable impact on production.
We applaud your dedication to implementing AB 1033.
Not every jurisdiction in the state is doing that, but we urge you to pass this policy right.
We can be a model for how cities implement AB 1033 justly statewide, and I hope we can accomplish that tonight.
With CalHome funding zeroed out in Newsom's state budget and with tenants more precariously housed than ever, it's important to pass this policy but to do it right with added protections.
Thank you.
Thanks, Sam.
Good evening, everyone.
Thank you, Council Member Bartlett and Vice Mayor Lunapara, for these amendments and modifications.
I really hope and urge Council to support these.
I am extremely hopeful for the continuous agenda of having housing options as well as tenant protections.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and City Councilors.
I just wanted to thank you for this item and making ADUs easier to create and use.
I also wanted to thank Council Member Lunapara for the supplemental because you can have housing development and renter's rights.
Thank you so much, and I hope you will adopt Council Member Lunapara's motion.

Segment 4

Linda Parr Supplemental.
Thank you.
Hello my name is Daniel.
I'm with the Cal Berkeley Democrats, and yeah I would just like to voice my support for the measure.
I think that obviously Berkeley's facing an acute housing shortage, and ADU's are probably going to make up a big part of remedying that issue.
ADU's made up I think something like 20% of new housing developments in the past few years which you know obviously implies that they'll be a big part of housing development in the future.
I also think that it's important to ensure that tenants still have their needed protections.
I think that you know as the, what's it called, as they said earlier, it wouldn't so adversely affect housing price, what's it called, production of ADU's.
So I think that you know just looking at the facts as long as they don't adversely affect ADU production, I think that it's reasonable to adopt it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, is this on? Good evening Mayor Ishii and council members.
I'm Ida Martinak.
I'm also a rent board commissioner and would like to echo the comments of my colleagues.
And I just want to say my hope is limited to surviving this year but should we all survive this year it would be nice to be able to afford a home in Berkeley and I really wish that for the younger generation to be able to own a home.
And I welcome Vice Mayors and Council Member Bartlett's supplement and that it is a very happy compromise.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Good evening Council, Mayor and Vice Mayor.
My name is Rebecca and I'm an ADU tenant in Berkeley.
I think that we should adopt a version of AB 1033 with more tenant protections with the goal of incentivizing new development for condos instead of replacing existing ones.
And as an ADU renter I want, just as everyone else before me said, to be able to buy a home someday especially in Berkeley but I don't want to be risk being evicted in the meantime.
Please support Vice Mayor Luna Parra's supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi all, I'm Audrey Tan, so another Audrey, but a student in Calhabitat for Humanity.
Many students as renters see ADUs as important to Berkeley's housing and I know this because you let me and you guys know.
Important enough to email you over winter break to show up and to speak here today on our first day of school.
Here's a comment from Theo Wang who isn't here today.
Like many students I chose Berkeley not just for school but also because I care about this community and hope to stay in the area after graduation and housing is a big issue on my mind.
Over the past few years I've watched friends struggle to find affordable housing close to campus or face unexpected rent increases.
Student housing often comes in the form of small units or ADUs and those spaces are essential for keeping Berkeley accessible to students from all backgrounds.
When tenants are displaced it doesn't just disrupt our housing, it also hugely impacts our education, mental health, and sense of belonging.
Please consider our voices.
AB 1033 expands housing access opportunities.
Simultaneously displaced ADU tenants are more likely to be homeless.
Berkeley can set a precedent here tonight.
Prioritize new home ownership and tenant priorities.
Thank you.
Hello my name is Shalini.
I'm also with Cal Habitat for Humanity, an organization centered around equitable housing.
I'm speaking on behalf of my peer Ava Smith.
A close friend of hers who lived in our hometown her whole life was forced to leave the home that her family was living in after the landlord decided to turn the home's garage into an ADU.
They were without a home for months and ultimately were forced to leave the community.
A large reason why I've loved living in Berkeley is because of this community's diversity.
Permitting ADUs as written, as AB 1033 has written, can hurt this diversity.
AB 1033 is a good policy that will increase the number of housing units but in a city that already relies on rent control to prevent displacement I hope that tenant protections will be included in AB 1033 because by including safeguards to prevent no-fault evictions and guaranteeing first-right refusal Berkeley can ensure that families and individuals will not suffer from the implementations of ADUs the same way people have in her hometown and that's it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Hi my name is Lucia and I'm also part of Cal Habitat and I'll be speaking from my friend Lorena.
Hello my name is Lorena and I personally am currently fortunate enough to live in a student rental here in the University Village where my rent is covered by financial aid.
Otherwise, like many others, I'd be struggling in finding affordable housing.
As I've had countless of my peers tell me of their unfortunate housing situations that ultimately left them homeless, couch hopping, and seeking unconventional housing for the night.
It is plain to see that it isn't humane and should be prevented from worsening.
It is substantial that we keep in mind that many students live in ADUs or small rental units and as students we wish to protect ourselves as tenants.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello my name is Madeline.
I'm also a member of Cal Habitat for Humanity at Berkeley and I'll be speaking on behalf of my peer Oliver Chang who cannot be here today.
Hello my name is Oliver Chang.
I am currently renting an apartment in Berkeley for college and will be there for at least another year and a half.
I've seen too many examples firsthand of how housing instability has affected how students go about their daily lives.
In fact, today I was with a friend who was absent-minded because all she could think about was how she had to move out because rent was being raised at where she was living currently affecting her thought process and how she interacted with everyone.
As a result, I believe we should say yes to AB 1033 and tenant protections because Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.
This is a good policy.
We should allow ADUs to be converted into condos and sold separately especially when they are newly built and not rented but this should not happen at the expense of existing ADU tenants who are especially vulnerable.
Tenants that live there currently deserve protections as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi my name is Alex DeFraga and I'll be reading on behalf of Angie, a fellow Cal Habitat for Humanity member and UC Berkeley student.
A couple of years ago I lived in a rented ADU with my family.
Though it wasn't here in Berkeley, it was one of the many ways we experienced an inequitable and inaccessible path to ownership and it is applicable to a variety of communities across the country.
Having the ADU as a housing option had significantly helped my family find a sense of stability amidst the housing challenges we were experiencing.
A lack of information on tenant protections and educational barriers pushed us to displacement when the rent increased over time and ownership of the ADU was not an option.
Berkeley has an opportunity to do this right.
ADUs have the potential to offer an affordable space upgraded from a room or apartment.
If combined with greater tenant protections against displacement and towards home ownership, Berkeley can expand long-term housing stability.
We hope that the Luna Parra Bartlett Supplemental is adopted with AB 1033.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you very much.
Good evening Council.
I'm Debbie Sanderson.
I'm speaking on behalf of the ADU task force.
In the past this council has been very supportive of housing and we thank you for that.
We think it is now imperative that we build as many ADUs as we can and we but we want to remind you and that the people of Berkeley gave us a clear mandate in 2018 and we should continue to honor that mandate through the life of the ADU even as a condo.
So we urge you, I think the spirit of 2018 Measure Q was to relieve ADUs that are on owner occupied property, a small number of them, to have control over who lives in their ADU because they live there too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening Mayor Ishii and Vice Mayor Luna Parra and City Council members.
First of all I want to thank Council Member Luna Parra and Ben Bartlett for this very thoughtful supplemental item.
You know tenants living in ADUs are consumers in the rental housing industry.
When you have a business and your ADU is a business, it is a business, you are making money.
So tenants should have protections just like consumers in other industries should have protections and these are really reasonable.
These are really reasonable.
I would love for them to have one year for you know to think about it but you know to think about if they have the first rate of approval but doesn't matter 90 days are fine.
All these are good.
So I really would hope you that you consider this that tenants need protections.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening Mayor and Council members.
Chris Goldbranson, Executive Director of the Berkeley Property Owners Association.
I just want to remind you yes in 2018 the ADU task force of which I was one of the founding members and with Ben Bartlett's help we came forward with a proposal to the voters that said that owner occupied property certain ones especially with new construction ADUs would receive exemptions from parts of the rent stabilization ordinance.
I'm here to say that I do believe in reading this carefully the council member Luna Parr's proposal actually contradicts that.
It puts tenant protections on some ADUs if they decide to convert and be able to sell off the ADU and that is not permitted under the law because the rent stabilization ordinance is a directive of the voters.
She also is proposing that you remove the ability to do an owner move-in.
An owner move-in is given to those properties where a tenant has tenant protections under the rent stabilization ordinance.
I think you need a more clear answer on that.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Good evening to the mayor and to council members.
My name is Dominique Walker.
I'm the vice chair of the Berkeley Rent Board and I just wanted to echo my colleagues.
I think that this is a fair compromise.
Council member Luna Parra, Ben Bartlett.
I think that we can work with this and I would love for you all to to vote yes on the amendments and I'll see the rest of my time tomorrow.
Thank you.
Hello my name is Andy Kelly.
I'm a rent board commissioner and vice chair of the County Planning Commission.
I'm just here to speak in support of the supplemental which I think is a very reasoned compromise.
Sorry can you move closer? Yes.
I've never been accused of not being loud enough in my life.
I'm just here to speak in support of the supplemental which I think is a very reasoned compromise and the kind of spirit of collaboration we'd love to see the council impart on these issues.
I think it's important to note that no one affected by this ordinance tonight built an ADU with the intention of selling it.
That's a major thing that the city is giving to these homeowners and it's a wonderful thing.
If you need to retire or you want to pay for your kids college having the ability to sell is wonderful but so is the ability of folks who are living there now to stay if they want to.
We can do both things.
It's not mutually exclusive and giving tenants three months to figure out if they can purchase the property.
That's a great thing.
It's good for our neighborhoods to stabilize them.
It provides the stability and affordable housing the ADUs were meant to do in the first place and the tenant protections would only exist for the rent control if the homeowner decided they wanted them.
No one forces that in the supplemental.
Only an owner who's saying I'm gonna sell this ADU.
I'd like it to remain affordable.
It's gonna be in my backyard.
I'd like folks to be able to stay there.
That's a choice.
You don't want to do it.
You pay the affordable housing fee.
You pay the condo conversion fee.
You go through the regular process but it allows the protections without anyone being forced to do it.
It's a wonderful compromise.
It provides a pathway to homeownership for folks who don't have a million dollars and I strongly encourage the council to support supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any public comment on this item online? Public comment on item 21 allowing separate sale of ADUs.
Currently have four hands raised.
First is Alfred Twoh.
Good evening City Council.
My name is Alfred Twoh.
I'm also a rent board commissioner and I'm here to also speak in favor of the item with Councilmember Lunaparra's supplemental.
Our goal here is to get people to build new ADUs so we have more housing being built and also get people who have an empty ADU but aren't interested in renting it out to perhaps consider selling it.
Portland, Oregon and to our north they implemented an ADU condo ordinance about 10 years ago and they now have a good ecosystem of businesses that specialize in building new for sale ADUs and that's really the model we want to go where people are building new homes rather than just taking homes from one person for another.
Similarly in San Francisco they passed the AB 1033 ordinance recently but theirs only allows new construction to be condoized.
So I think what we have proposed here is a good compromise between the stronger tenant protections as well as offering flexibility.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comments.
Next is iPhone.
Should be able to unmute.
City Councilmembers and Honorable Mayor, this is Kathleen Prandtl.
I'd like to cede my minute to Debra Sanderson.
Oh she spoke already.
Kathy, do you want to speak instead? No, other than we can't afford to decentralize any kind of building of the ADUs and so I've written the letter to all of you so thank you for your time and please vote no.
Next is Brianna Morales.
Good evening my name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.
We strongly support this ordinance especially at a time when California is facing a housing crisis and housing costs are through the roof.
We love to see creative flexible opportunities that support housing choices especially with ADUs that already exist in neighborhoods across Berkeley.
This ordinance will help create new pathways to home ownership that are often more affordable more attainable and more flexible.
It could mean you know a renter having the opportunity to buy the home they already live in or a homeowner helping a loved one build equity nearby and we strongly also support protecting tenants and appreciate the council's attention to these concerns.
We encourage continued work towards an approach that maintains a clear and workable pathway for ADU home ownership and preserves predictability for these small projects.
Berkeley has long time been a leader and so we're hoping to see this ordinance pass so that we can align with state law and bring more homes to California.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comments.
Okay next is Daniel Brownson.
Hi yeah I think it's telling that the housing advocates including the author of the supplemental council member Lunapara and the members of the Berkeley Rent Board have been willing to compromise resulting in this you know already compromised supplemental measure whereas the landlords like the person who spoke on behalf of the Landlord Association which shouldn't even exist because it's a price-fixing organization seem completely unwilling to compromise and and approve any tenant protections whatsoever so I strongly encourage the board to adopt the supplemental so that it will be balanced with tenant protections.
Thank you.
Thanks Daniel.
Okay next is Tony.
Good evening this is Tony Mester speaking from District 2.
I support the staff recommendation on the ADU conversion, condo conversion.
I don't support the supplemental.
I think it's idealistic to believe that the supplemental some of the items in the supplemental would not be a disincentive.
I think if it passes you will see the number of ADUs being created reduced.
I don't know by what percent I'm not that smart but I do know that it would be a burden for those people who are going to use their equity to build housing and I think we need the ADUs and I'm very proud to have been part of the Measure Q team and very proud that we've had so many ADUs created.
Thank you.
Thank you Tony.
Okay last hand is Cleo.
Cleo you should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Hi I'm Cleo.
So ADUs are different from multi-unit buildings and that they tend to be owned by non-professional individual homeowners.
This means that creating more cost and or more complexity will be a major roadblock to condoization and sale.
People will still build the ADUs sure but they just won't sell them.
On the other hand virtually no small entry-level new homes are being currently built for sale in Berkeley other than the ADUs if they're condoized.
By contrast the city is building tens of thousands of new rental apartments.
For this reason I am against the amendment proposed by council person Luna Parra because it would disincentivize private homeowners with ADUs from condoizing and selling them thereby denying entry-level homebuyers with virtually the only potential new source of affordable first homes.
So we're only talking about a guesstimate of less than a thousand new build ADUs since 2018.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's it.
Okay thank you very much.
We're gonna move on to council comments starting with Councilmember Humbert.
Thank You Madam Mayor and I want to give a huge thank you to Director Klein and the planning staff for all your hard work on this item.
It's been pending for so long and I'm glad that we finally got into it.
I think the ordinance as prepared by planning staff and the Planning Commission is pretty much ready to roll with one exception.
Way back in October Mayor Ishii, Councilmember Blackabay, Councilmember O'Keefe and I submitted a supplemental with a proposed amendment to chapter in section 21.29.010.C1 C.1 covered rental ADUs subparagraph B for the purposes of for the purpose of limiting the right of first refusal to 90 days.
So once again I'd propose an amendment that simply adds the following to the end of subsection B quote except that the exclusive right to purchase period shall not exceed 90 days from the date of the notice and that's in quote and that's in place of the one year.
I think that roughly three months is a fair amount of time for a tenant to declare their intent to purchase and better and it better aligns with typical timelines for real estate transactions.
A year is far too long to demand that someone wait to potentially sell their ADU especially since it is most likely people will be seeking to sell because they're having financial difficulties or because they may want to sell to a family member.
With respect to the thoughtful a very thoughtful supplemental brought forward by Council I shouldn't say that by Vice Mayor Lunaparra I feel that it is well intended but I think I personally I just fundamentally see the relationship between a single-family homeowner you know it's sort of a Measure Q homeowner and an ADU tenant in a very different way.
I do want to credit the arguments that I've heard tonight here about the lack of impact the supplemental would likely have on newly constructed ADUs.
I think those arguments are correct but and I also accept that I still favor that the staff proposal having tighter rules for multi-unit and non-owner occupied properties makes sense but I don't think it makes sense when you have a homeowner with just the one ADU on the property to force them into a potentially fraught relationship with a sitting ADU tenant and I guess I would say why should these proposed rights which it didn't exist and don't exist at this point for this very limited class of tenants all of a sudden spring into existence in connection with a condo conversion of an ADU and I'm not completely well I'm gonna strike that I think that using whether it using whether a unit is covered by the rent stabilization ordinance is the cleanest and clearest way to establish different standards for ADU protections so I think we should stick with the Planning Commission and staff recommended approach let's just keep a clear workable line and ultimately you know it may have some impact to incentivize more ADU conversions if not construction of new ADUs as far as applying an affordable housing mitigation fee to ADU conversions I can't support that as I think it's far too discouraging of such conversions Berkeley suffers from an even more acute shortage of affordable ownership housing as it has been pointed out that it does affordable rental housing so I'm committed to not having a fee for these conversions so with all that said I would like to move for the purpose of discussion the staff version of the ADU conversion ordinance with the amendments proposed in the October 28th supplemental that I just referred to that was submitted by the mayor and council members Blackaby and O'Keefe and I to limit the right of first refusal period to 90 days for the tenant thank you thank you a second that was my next question is there a second a second a second from councilmember Blackaby moving on to councilmember Taplin's comments thank you just real quick and my apologies for not asking this in the first round the prohibition on conversion following no fall evictions who's proposing what? I'm going to try to field that so the Planning Commission recommendation applies a no fault eviction screen on condo conversion eligibility of 10 years and that applies to covered units and partially covered units but not to fully exempt units I believe that the supplemental expands that to also apply to fully covered units but reduces the period from 10 years to 5 years for all three categories of ADUs thank you to share my thinking it's really helpful to know that there is a relatively small number of ADUs situated on owner-occupied two-unit properties and the diversions of a prohibition on conversion following no fault termination tendency is present in both versions I'm very committed to increasing pathways and opportunities for home ownership and I see condo conversion for ADU sales as a valuable tool and want to be cautious to not unwittingly create impediments that would have a chilling effect on ADU production that being said I do welcome my colleagues deliberation on the two proposals for the no fault eviction screen in particular sorry just to clarify the no fault eviction for for all all ADUs just councilmember oh I I I I welcome hearing from the rest of my colleagues on the fine points of both and either of the two proposals on that point okay thank you and actually I would like to see if there's a motion to close the public hearing before we continue more so moved okay thanks can we take the roll on that please to close the public hearing councilmember Taplin yes Bartlett yes O'Keefe yes Blackaby yes Lunapara yes Humbert yes and Mary she yes okay okay thank you very much I'm going to go to councilmember Bartlett thank you madam mayor it would be possible to post that one chart with the three proposals with the X's that one you know the planning commission yeah give me a moment that's helpful thank you and in the meantime I want to do want to thank the the planning staff think director Klein and team for your diligent work wonderful work I love the proposal I do think it is it is it's benefited by my colleague the vice mayor's efforts here to really what what I see is a really rational really rationalization and unifying of the baseline protections afforded to tenants that we give to houses people living in houses you know and in one sense without it we kind of carry on the the prejudicial relationship between some family homeowners and home dwellers versus apartment people in this case a to you people that work so hard to kind of unify and make make even and so I think that's a you know these protections afforded to the people they use are less less burdensome than those living in homes and again you know going what you said 100 units a year I think this is gonna be negligible however even though it's negligible if it keeps one person from falling out into the street that's worth it that's a real person and and and believe me I think that I think the fears and but 80 you people yes I'm Molly to you a mr.
a to you I formed the task force I'm all about it but again you know I don't like I don't believe in the zero-sum relationship that we hear so much in our world today you can have a cake and eat it too you can have economic growth and you can have people living a good life they're not exclusive and this is one example where I would really impress upon you the fact that we can protect people while advancing the goals of homeownership and starter homes need to you development and you realize if someone's making a to you to sell it they're doing it to sell it and they will be engaging in property taxes and etc and you know doing all things you do to sell property it's a it's a commercial decision this is not the the usual story but 80 years about my grandma being in there my mama you know sister got got rained out in Florida's coming here to live with us this is you selling it to someone to make money and so you will factor in that cost when you sell it I mean this is really a I think again the fears are overblown and I think the the rationale for doing so and executing it with this these elements are good they're good for the community good for people and good for our economy as a whole you thank you councilmember councilmember Keith thank you just make some brief comments I'll be supporting councilmember Humberts motion here's why I do want to say I really respect the supplemental it makes sense it's a good like the heart of it is in the right place and it's you know it's very easy to feel good about tenant protections that's just.

Segment 5

It seems on its face like always a good policy.
Here's why I can't support it.
I'm not choosing to support it tonight.
We're making the law more complicated and we have to.
That's the mandate of this is we have to sort of update our laws to incorporate this specific situation.
I'm pretty allergic to making laws more complicated.
I think as I said earlier in my comments for consent calendar I really we really need to be making them clearer more streamlined make more sense at any opportunity and so yes we have to tweak our law a little bit we have to add a little you know cross some things out and add some things but the best way to do that in this case is to maintain as much as possible the philosophy and the structure of the existing law and that's that's what I'm basing my vote on.
Right now in Berkeley like it or not renters who are renting in multifamily developments have certain tenant protections.
Renters who are renting in single-family home type situations either a part or all of a home or a back of a home have none essentially and the staff the staff recommendation that the main Councilmember Hubert's motion supports carries that philosophy forward into this new situation and so that just makes more sense to me it feels more comfortable for me and I'd like to just continue I'd like to keep that our law structurally the same as it exists now and that's why I'm voting the way I am.
Thank you actually if you don't mind before you speak can I ask a couple of questions or do you want to I want to respond to that.
Sure please go ahead yeah yeah.
I would argue that the Planning Commission version is much more complicated than our version given that ADU units often can can like go in and out of certain statuses and if we apply the same tenant protections across the board that very much simplifies the process and and also because we're mirroring existing legislation that we have currently for the condo conversion ordinance that also kind of connects everything together more than the Planning Commission version does so that's my argument.
So I will ask my questions but I do want to make sure you get your your comments in as well so I'm curious if you can let us know because I just couldn't pull it up quickly what the affordable housing mitigation fee actually is so that when we're talking about the fee we can just be clear about what we're talking about.
Yes sorry it's for staff.
You know we we have HHCS staff on the line and so I think we'd like to turn that question over to either Margo Ernst or Mike Uberdi to speak to the affordable housing mitigation fee that applies to condo conversions.
Hi council members can you hear me okay? Yes thanks for being on.
Sure no problem thank you for having me.
I can't see my video I'm hoping I'm looking good for everyone.
We can see you.
Okay so how the affordable housing mitigation fee works is it's based on a nexus between ownership costs and rental costs for the unit that's divided by the current interest rate.
And so we usually we have a kind of set way that we calculate the projected ownership costs for the unit as a condo including a 5% down payment price, the cost of future HOAs, property taxes, etc.
Comparable to a rental cost for the unit.
Now there's an alternative called the rental limitation in which property owners can elect into establishing of rental limitations on the unit in exchange for a fee that's based on the sales price of the unit an 8% sales price or in certain cases a 4% sales price.
And so that's either they can do that based on an appraised price at the time of conversion or they can base that on the actual sales price.
They can defer the fee until the unit is sold and then that's based on the sales actual sales price when it goes on the market.
Thank you I just I remember when we were talking about this there were some I don't know if it was like median you know amounts or something that was an actual dollar amount just to kind of put some specifics into this conversation.
I don't know if you can speak to that at all.
I believe we probably I worked with planning to develop examples based on like an estimated sales price so you could kind of compare how the two fees would look.
I'm sorry I think that might be what you're thinking.
Yeah thank you I'm sorry we've we've continued this item so many times I don't have the same documents in front of me anymore.
All right we do thankfully thanks to Bronco.
Mike and I worked about on this I want to say about six months ago.
So the example that we came up with and so you're gonna have to bear with me because there's a lot of numbers here because to be honest with you this is not a simple fee.
It was a complex calculation.
So Mike mentioned that you you're identifying the difference between the rental costs and the ownership costs.
So if the rental costs were estimated at $1,500 per month or that's $18,000 a year annually.
The ownership cost is you develop the estimate of that based on estimated mortgage payment costs plus taxes and insurance and HOA dues.
You might estimate that at $2,700 per month for a small ADU or $32,400 annually.
The difference between those numbers the ownership cost minus the rental cost is $14,400 and so the mitigation fee is developed by dividing that difference by the prevailing interest rate.
Six months ago it was six and a half percent.
The resulting amount is $221,000.
$221,538 and that's that that's a pretty real world.
I mean those amounts we came up with we did our best to estimate what the actual rental and ownership costs would be of an ADU around $752,000 square feet.
Thank you.
That is really helpful to have an actual number in front of us as we're having this conversation and thank you Mike for being on as well and answering that question.
Jordan can you also speak to the impact of a conversion prohibition after no-fault eviction? I know that Councilmember Taplin asked us to opine about that and I'm interested in thinking about that more as well.
Well first let me say I think it's quite rare that this occurs.
I would actually potentially if you have questions about specificity I think that rent board staff work with those cases much more frequently than we would.
Sorry I should I should clarify that question.
It's to speak to the impact of adding this to the potential conversion of ADUs to condos or building ADUs.
It's really on the planning side.
Oh so whether adding it would impact production? Thank you.
I really don't think it would impact production much if at all to add that so currently the Planning Commission proposal it's already applies to covered units and partially covered units would not apply to fully exempt units.
Supplemental proposes to expand it to also apply to fully exempt units.
I think that it would impact production only in cases when somebody is intending to sell a condo as an investment property or condoize an ADU as an investment property.
In those cases yeah it could serve either it's good you're gonna add a huge amount of cost to the conversion to hunt over $200,000 is what we estimated or you're gonna limit the future income generating potential of the property.
So yeah in those cases it could serve as a disincentive if somebody would only produce the unit with intention for sale as an investment property.
Yeah and I think that's important because I think the conversation that we're having here is about encouraging condoization in the hopes that also people are owning their homes and not just you know someone's buying it in order to rent it out as as additional income because they can do that as an ADU they don't need to convert it to be a condo in order to to in order to rent it out in that way.
So I just want to clarify that for folks.
Okay I'm sorry I wanted to make sure you got to make your comments.
I just have a couple a couple short comments kind of emphasizing some of the pieces of this.
First for the affordable housing mitigation fee the goal isn't necessarily for people to pay the fee but if this is happening if somebody is purchasing this converted ADU condo is then renting it out that then those tenants get rent control protection which is also not the intended purpose of this and is an unlikely scenario I think.
I also want to go back to some other topic of how many tenants this would apply to.
I don't this wouldn't apply to many tenants.
I think we all know that we have a crisis of displacement and of homelessness and even if this applies to one person or one family that person or family is getting evicted from the city or is significantly more likely to fall into homelessness and the best we know the best way to prevent homelessness is to keep people housed in the first place.
I understand the unique relationship that ADU that that that tenants and ADUs have with with their landlords if the landlords have on the same property and I think that if they if they are not choosing to convert it they still can evict those tenants that that is not changing.
I think if we're granting as Commissioner Kelly said if we're granting this opportunity for homeowners which is a great opportunity then it should not come at the expense of our current tenants that are very vulnerable in this naturally affordable unit.
Thank you.
Council Member Bacoby.
Thanks Madam Mayor.
Just stepping back very briefly I mean one thing I've been observing and wrestling with a little bit is that you know we have a series of different housing policies in Berkeley to accomplish different goals.
Different housing types whether it's rental housing or housing that's available for purchase, tenant protections to protect people who are in those those rental units and so part of what I've been wrestling with a little bit is thinking about well what's what's our a number one goal with this you know particular policy and you know our challenge one of many challenges we face in Berkeley is that we don't have enough housing for purchase at the lower end of the economic scale and by lower end it's still plenty high-end.
I'm just saying that you know we're trying to create more housing inventory that's available for less than a million dollars and hopefully substantially less than a million dollars and to me this ADU conversion policy is one chance and that we've heard I know she's not here but Council Member Kastorwani's talked a lot about in the past some of this work to create more inventory on that side of the scale and not just at the upper side of the scale.
So this ADU conversion policy under AB 1033 is focused on generating more for sale inventory at that sort of lower relatively lower relatively more affordable price point.
We have other policies like the density bonus that incentivizes the creation of affordable rental housing and that is a clear policy choice and we're putting we're trying to put that to work and the state's trying to put that to work.
Then we have a rent control system in here in Berkeley it's the most robust in the country to provide strong tenant protections in as many places as we can.
But I keep coming back to the goal and this in this case our primary goal is the creation of more housing for purchase at a less exorbitant price point and from speaking to residents in my district I know there's real apprehension to moving forward with ADUs at all if they feel potential restrictions.
It's a disincentive to convert existing ADUs and I do believe that it's the ethos of this additional regulation on you know ADU on a single-family property where the owner is occupying one of the units.
The ethos of this additional regulation whether it's real or perceived is a disincentive to participate.
I heard it a lot during the campaign and I hear it as I go around now there's just a sense that I don't know if I want to do this if I feel like my hands are going to be tied if I feel like I'm gonna have these additional restrictions additional fees why bother like I'm just not gonna do it it's better for me not to do it at all than to do that and that feels like that's that moves us backwards in terms of what we're trying to do with this particular policy.
Again I I could be wrong but that's sort of where my head is at in terms of my discussions in the district and thinking about the goals and what we're trying to accomplish.
So for that reason I really appreciate I really appreciate the passion the commitment of the Vice Mayor and Councilmember Bartlett for their proposal but thinking about what's the primary goal here what's the primary problem we're trying to solve with this particular legislation I believe that the Planning Commission version with Councilmember Humbert's amendment is the better approach to actually creating more housing for purchase at this kind of price point.
If our goal was different you know if we had a different goal and that wasn't the goal I think a different policy prescription could be the right choice and I could end up supporting the the supplemental.
But for this particular goal for this particular reason I'm going to support the staff recommendation with Councilmember Humbert's amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you and and speaking of you know what is kind of our goal here you know what I I mean the purpose of really converting ADUs to condos is to encourage more opportunities for homeownership and at the same time I know that we need to be doing our best to protect the tenants who are currently living in ADUs.
At the same time I'm also concerned about some of the aspect of Councilmember Luna-Tapara's items and worried about how it might disincentivize the conversion of ADUs to condos specifically the affordable housing mitigation fee piece of it.
Another thing I realized that in this conversation we really need to have better data around ADUs so I'm just saying that out loud because I think that's something that we should all be working on because I think that will help us make more informed policy decisions.
I want to comment on something that was said earlier.
I really want us to consider the possibility that people will be condoizing their ADUs in order to live in them themselves and sell their main houses instead.
And in fact I know some older residents who you know are selling their main homes to their children for instance or to someone that they know and then are living in the ADU but might be interested in continuing to own something so condoizing it might make sense for them.
So I just want us to think about that and not make too many assumptions about how people might utilize this.
The other thing that I also agree with in that I agree with in Councilmember Luna-Tapara, Vice Mayor Luna-Tapara's item is the right of first refusal for all ADU tenants with a 90-day time period.
I want to briefly speak to why we were interested in shortening it to 90 days.
We had many conversations with different folks about how long it takes to get funding together and we thought that 90 days was reasonable, was enough time.
If you're able to get funding together in 90 days you'll most likely be able to purchase.
And I'm interested in giving everybody that opportunity given that we're talking about converting ADUs to condos and to encourage homeownership.
We want to allow the people who are currently living in them to have the opportunity to purchase their ADU first.
And given 90 days that we've kind of agreed is a reasonable time frame, I'm also interested in including that as well.
And so speaking to Councilmember Taplin's interest in a conversion prohibition after no-fault eviction for five years, I'm also interested in supporting that.
So I want to signal my support and see if folks have any other comments about about my comments before we move on.
Right now we only have one thing on the floor.
So yeah, Vice-Mayor Lunapara.
I have some kind of high-level comments in kind of an attempt to convince my colleagues about what the choice that we're making here is and and how we are treating tenant units in comparison with homeowner units.
If the choice that we're making here is about replacing our tenants with homeowners, I think that is a, I think we've lost the plot.
I think it is so important to create those middle-level for-sale homes, but are we really willing to displace and evict our vulnerable tenants to create them? That's not a decision that we have to make.
That is a policy choice.
Our primary problem that we're trying to solve at a high level is housing affordability and housing stability for all, and I'm really frustrated because I think that this conversation is leading into the same fundamental problem that we see over and over again about prioritizing homeownership and placing their homes at a higher standard than tenants' homes, and we should not be considering that tenants' homes are unequal to homeowners' homes.
We are telling tenants that they do not deserve the residential and financial stability that homeowners do, and that, I think that's the policy choice that we're making right now.
Yeah, that's my argument.
Okay, so right now, just so we're clear, the only thing that's on the floor is the staff recommendation with the supplemental that council members Humbert, Blackaby, and O'Keefe and I have put forward.
I'll make a motion to approve the supplemental material without the affordable housing mitigation fee section.
Second.
Sorry, your supplemental without the affordable housing mitigation fee.
Okay.
I still can't fully support that where it's at.
Where are we? Do you have a friendly amendment? Yeah, I think the piece that I have a hard time with still is the, sorry, I'm just trying to pull up my notes, the owner move-in.
Since, like I said, there might be some owners who would be interested in moving in to their ADUs and converting them to a condo and then selling their, the main house.
Do we think, what I'm worried about is a landlord using owner move-in eviction and then turning it into a condo.
I wonder if there's a way we can meet in the middle of there and accommodate that issue without completely removing it.
I would be interested to see if anyone else is in support of this.
So I'd like to ask if any of my colleagues have any comments.
I'm interested in this mostly in the name of unity.
I don't, I think I'd prefer to just have my way but I think, I think the other side's arguments are reasonable so I'd like, it would be feel better if we could find some, some agreement and I'm open to looking for that.
And this, I like this.
Keep going.
Go ahead Council Member Dabney.
I did want to speak, I did want to speak to the point about displacement.
I think that's why I'm interested in this, the prohibition on conversion following a no-fault eviction.
I see both proposals as having very valid, very valid and very useful dissenters against displacement and I want to just voice that.
I don't think either the Planning Commission or Planning staff or any of the members of the Council are seeking to replace tenants with homeowners.
I think we are, you know, trying to thread the needle here but I, but I wanted to sort of reiterate that I, that's why I'm so interested in the prohibition on no-fault eviction conversion.
Thank you.
Yeah, Vice Mayor Narapara.
I think in the interest of not trying to come up with an entirely new policy on the dais, we can revert to the Planning Commission of the OMI evictions and that's my, of the owner move-in evictions.
So, yes.
Yeah, okay.
Do you want, I'm sorry, do you want to actually just repeat everything? I think that might be helpful.
Yeah, it would, this motion would approve the supplemental item without the affordable housing mitigation fee or the changes to owner move-in evictions from the Planning Commission version.
So, that would leave, sorry, I'm just pulling up my notes.
I want to make sure I'm saying everything correctly.
So, that would leave the right of first refusal of 90 days and the conversion prohibition after no-fault evictions for five years? Correct.
Okay, and just looking to see if anyone has other thoughts.
I'm imagining a scenario where somebody has rented their ADU, backyard ADU, to a tenant and it wasn't working out and they wanted to condolize it and I feel like what's being proposed right now, I do have empathy and concern for that landlord.
I think, I think they need, because it is, as I alluded to before, this is more of a single-family home situation.
It's a little more personal.
I do want to preserve that right, sort of, of who you get to live next to for homeowners.
So, but I, I don't know, I feel like there's still a compromise in here, but the, it's the pairing of those two things that concerns me.
I guess in that situation, they would either have to wait five years, and if it is a no-fault eviction, because there are many, you know, I don't know what it's called, but faulted evictions that a homeowner can take, if they perform a no-fault eviction, they would have to either wait five years or they can just rent it out to another tenant in the meantime.
I don't know, I guess, I, I don't think that we should, I'm worried about weighing, about displacing that tenant and possibly pushing them into, into homelessness when the homeowner has multiple options to not live with that person, if, if it's not working out for them.
They don't have to condoize it, and yeah.
Okay, I just want to check and see if there are any comments, and then I think we should move forward and vote, yeah.
Yeah, just cuz I guess we're having a little bit of back and forth, I'd like to respond.
I just, I want to say, I, I hear what you're saying.
I think you're, I think we're gonna agree to disagree, but I think what you're saying is reasonable.
I just, I'm not, I'm not, I'm just not comfortable with what's being proposed at this time, but I appreciate the argument.
It's, it has a lot of merit.
How do you think, what, what, what would you propose differently? I'm not sure, I'm just, I'm open to some sort of less, less, draconian isn't quite the right word, but less strong tenant protections.
Like, I'm open to something.
I just, I do want to preserve, I don't know why this has come to just me, maybe, maybe other people on my side aren't open to this at all.
Yeah, I just, I really want to make sure to preserve the, the right of a homeowner, a single-family homeowner, to choose who lives next door to them, next on the same property as them.
I just, I want to preserve that.
So, whatever we do has to make that possible, even when they want to do a condo conversion.
So, just, just being realistic, thinking about the votes that we have here, I do really want us to make a push for the 90-day, 90-day right of refusal, because I do think that that's something that we can have votes for.
And so, I just want to say that out loud with the hope that you might make an adjustment and focus just on that piece, because I do think that that piece is winnable.
And at the same time, to address Councilmember O'Keefe's concerns, it's possible for us to have this prohibition after no-fault evictions for five years, unless, unless the owner is moving into the ADU, into the condo, and that might address your concern.
Right, there's a difference between a no-fault eviction and an owner move-in eviction.
No? There's no difference between those? They have different names? Yeah, because I agree, if you could, if there's crossover, so there, they are, they are not the same thing, but situation could happen where there's both.
Okay.
I have one more point, if I can add.
If someone condoizes and sells their ADU, and then that person sells it to someone else, that homeowner has no choice over who lives there.
They can choose who they sell it to, but then that person can sell it to whoever they want.
So, it, it's kind of, yeah.
Does that make sense? Does that address your concern? It could have the most control if they keep renting it out.
Does my vote even matter? Why is everyone looking at me? Everyone's vote matters! Yes, sorry, go ahead Council Member Taplin.
Thanks, yeah, I appreciate the conversation.
I, you know, just, you know, I think, you know, I hear what everyone is saying, I see where we're trying to go, and I think between the, what's on the table, I feel most confident that the main motion by Council Member Humbert will get us as close as we can get to where we want to be.
Okay, so our, okay, I have one more last-ditch effort.
If we can compromise to only apply the no-fault eviction prohibition for all covered current tenants, or all, sorry, all current tenants, and we can set a date for that.
That does make the law more complicated, though.
Sorry, say that one more time.
Only apply the no-fault eviction five-year prohibition for all current tenants as of the time of the second reading, but that does make the law more complicated.
Yeah, can I, is it okay if I, yeah, please, thank you.
I, the thing that sort of happened for me when I, that was a really.

Segment 6

I think what's happening for me is I'm just going back to my original orientation to this which is like I think that the Planning Commission staff recommendation just makes more sense and it just feels cleaner to me and I do want to it would be nice if we could come up with a compromise that and voted unanimously but I don't think that's on the table and I think I'd rather just stick with Councilmember Humberts.
Vice Mayor I think the only thing that we might be able to pass to add on from what your supplemental is is the 90-day..
I'm mixing up all my phrases oh my word thank you right of refusal thank you 90-day right of refusal for our referral.
I'll amend my motion to just that.
So that it would be just to clarify it would be staff's recommendation with Councilmember Humberts supplemental and but the 90 days would be included for all? For all for all tenants yes.
Okay so I believe there was a second from Councilmember Bartlett already and so in that case I will ask if the clerk can take the roll.
Does that mean we have the same motion twice or? No.
So what's the difference between the two? The addition is that the 90-day right of refusal would apply to all as opposed to just the it would the 90 days was just a change from a year.
In which motion? In Councilmember Humberts substitute.
Substitute no supplemental in Councilmembers.
In the main motion? In the main motion yeah.
Okay.
Did you have a question? I think that was my question was how it it's exactly Humberts but with a different number.
No same number what's that but it would apply to more people.
Okay I guess my question is Councilmember Humbert had a something extra and I just want to make sure that's in it or if it doesn't matter anymore maybe he could speak to that.
Yes go ahead.
So the Planning Commission version gives one year of right of first refusal for covered tenants.
Councilmember Humberts change reduces that to 90 days.
My supplemental expands that to all tenants but only for 90 days.
Yeah.
So to exempt partially covered and covered to 90 days.
Yes 90 days of right of first refusal.
Thank you.
Thanks for clarifying.
Councilmember Humbert did you want to say something as well? Yeah I know I can't support that I mean there may be a majority that does but I can't support it.
Okay.
Yeah yeah I just sorry I'm out of order my apologies.
No no go ahead Councilmember Taplin did you have a comment? Yeah it's just it's just it's I mean it's difficult to keep up it's you know it's difficult to parse on the fly like this.
I might you know I remain my support for the main motion remains.
Okay thank you.
Okay so on the substitute motion by Councilmember Vice Mayor Lunapara on the motion Councilmember Taplin? No.
Bartlett? Yes.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? No.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? No.
Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay that motion fails.
All right thank you.
On the main motion by Councilmember Humbert, Councilmember Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? No.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay that motion carries.
Thank you.
I'm sorry I know that was a lot of sausage making I really appreciate you all sitting through that.
Okay I think we should take a five-minute break so we can switch over to the next item.
Let's get back in it.
Hello lovely people in the crowd.
We're gonna get started again.
Okay Sam, Ciroc, Rebecca, everyone please.
Paul, Sidney.
I'm just gonna start calling everyone by name.
Okay all right let's get started.
Thank you so much.
All right we've got a few more items left so let's let's get going.
We're gonna move on to item number 22 which is public health vital statistics vital records fees.
We don't have a presentation from this but I will ask if there are any questions from our council members and I will also open the public hearing.
Questions from council members about item number 22? Okay seeing no questions I will ask if there are any public comments.
Yep any public comments for the public health vital statistics vital records fees item number 22? Given the leptospirosis that's that's come out it's just ironic that when the bathrooms that were portable bathrooms that were raised in 2017 and that passed council which have now eight years later who have been set aside that we now are in the middle of another epidemic because at 2017 the reason that passed council was because the hep A that had broken out in San Diego and was spreading to Santa Cruz and other areas and I hope that we don't have to have that widespread of an epidemic again that we have to be fearful of before we recognize the importance of or the community recognizes the importance of having sanitation because sanitation has now come up as the issue with the leptospirosis at Harrison.
Thank you.
Thanks Carol.
Any other comments online? One online commenter this is on item 22 public health vital statistics fees and the hand went down.
Okay no no comment.
Okay thank you very much is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved.
Is there a second? Okay thank you very much council member.
Can we take the roll please? Okay to close the public hearing council member Casarwani.
Council member Casarwani to close the public hearing.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traigub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackabee.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary Sheehy.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay are there any council comments on this item? Yeah.
Yes go ahead council member Humbert.
I do have one.
I just want to thank director Gilman and the staff at HHCS for preparing this item.
No one likes death and taxes and people and people like a fee you pay after death even less.
But we have to make sure these fees keep up with the costs of providing these vital services.
Thankfully these increases for most people will equate to just a few dollars over a lifetime so I don't think we're pricing anyone out of being born or dying and I'll support this item.
Okay thank you.
Any other comments? All right and is there a motion to approve? So moved.
Second.
Very good.
Can we take a roll please? Okay to approve the item council member Casarwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trigub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackabee.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary Sheehy.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to item number 23 changes to selected recreation and campus facilities and program fees.
I believe there's also not a presentation for this one so I will ask if there are any council questions.
Yes council member Blackabee.
Thanks Madam Mayor and director Ferris is online is that right? Director Ferris just quick question.
I think we've seen this in previous reports.
Do you have a sense of not just the before and after of the proposal in Berkeley but how we compare kind of our fee levels and I know we can't do it at the level of every line item but kind of any sense of where this puts us relative to neighboring jurisdictions with with kind of our fee levels for these programs.
Yeah a lot of those tables are attached to the report but generally it puts us either close to the middle or below below the average for most other cities so it just depends on what program.
Okay but we're not definitely not in the case of kind of pushing ourselves higher than we're at median or a little below and not significantly above median which is more my concern.
Correct you know in in the case of Berkeley Tuolumne camp which which these fees addressed we are you know in in good shape but you know it is a it is a camp that a lot of services are provided so the fees are inching up there but we're still in in good shape compared to other family camps.
Okay Thank you.
All right thank you very much.
Okay since there's no there are no more council questions I'm gonna move to public comment.
Are there any public comments on item 23 changes to select selected recreation and camps facilities and program fees? Is there anybody online? One commenter online this is Alan.
Alan you should be able to unmute.
Thank you good evening members of the City Council my name is Alan Apshas.
I'm the chairperson of your Parks Recreation Waterfront Commission.
In November the Parks Commission received a presentation on the proposed recreation fees for fiscal year 2027.
As you know the Parks Commission is quite concerned about the adequacy of Berkeley Parks funding.
Berkeley's currently unable to fund approximately three hundred million dollars in capital and major parks maintenance projects and on top of that department is facing a potential 10% budget cut in the coming year.
Simply put Berkeley's parks and programs are starved for adequate revenue.
After receiving staff's presentation on the proposed fees the Commission unanimously recommended that staff revisit the proposed fees because in many cases Berkeley is charging and proposes to charge less for comparable recreational programs and facility rentals than jurisdictions that surround it.
In many cases materially less as indicated in attachment 3 to this item in your packet.
The Commission felt that it makes no sense for Berkeley to continue undercharging for recreational facilities and programs especially given Berkeley's current fiscal environment and park funding needs.
Accordingly my fellow commissioners asked that I appear tonight to request the City Council not approve the proposed fee schedule and instead direct staff to revisit the proposed fees and bring them into better line with fees surrounded by surrounding jurisdictions.
Every dollar counts.
Our parks are not in a thriving state.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks Alan.
Any other comments? No other commenters online.
Okay very good thank you so much.
I'd like to see if there's a motion to close the public hearing.
So moved.
Second.
All right can we take the roll on that please.
Okay to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Kisarwani.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Tregub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackabay.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary Ishii.
Yes.
Okay public hearings closed.
Thank you very much.
Are there any council comments on this item? Yes.
Councilmember O'Keefe.
Yeah I just want to say briefly because I have thrown a tantrum in the past about adventure playground fees I just want to say this is fine and also the I'm remembering my kids have aged out of needing camp now but I remember the Berkeley day camp the affordability of it was a real lifesaver.
As a teacher I haven't needed camp that much but a few times we did and you wouldn't if you don't know you wouldn't believe how expensive summer camp can be and having that relatively affordable option of very high quality child care during the summer was amazing and that said this new fee is still very affordable so I just want to mostly give an opportunity to shout out Berkeley day camp and give some appreciation and this is fine.
Thank you.
Councilmember Humbert.
Yeah I just want to thank Director Farris and park staff for all the work on this.
Raising fees is never fun but given our budget situation and broader inflation these cost increases are necessary to preserve the facilities and programs that we all value and that are so you know useful to us in terms of maintaining our sanity and using our public facilities and programs remains a very good deal relative to purely private options.
I also want to thank staff for devising the birthday package options.
I thought that was really creative and important it's a great idea to offer folks this opportunity and encourage more use of these facilities while maintaining general open public access.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councilmember Bacoby.
Thanks Madam Mayor.
Very briefly I just wanted to respond to the parks chair his comments and I appreciate the feedback because I do I think there's a tricky balance here we want these programs to be affordable and accessible for all our residents I think that's you know that is the most important thing these are services that we want people to be able to avail themselves of the same time we know we're entering a difficult budget climate so I'm certainly open kind of moving forward to just you know how else we need to kind of strike this balance so you know I'm gonna support certainly the the proposal from our parks director and all the work they've done in this but as we go through the coming months in the coming year we're just gonna have to look not I'm not saying we're gonna look at you know just these things but we have to look at a lot of things in our budget in terms of how we are both generating revenue and also providing services and so I'm open to if we need to make future adjustments to make sure that we are properly funding these things but I do just I do have real sense of me making sure that's accessible to everyone in Berkeley and that to me is still the a number one goal but I do appreciate the feedback from the Parks Commission and sensitive to that and it's very good feedback so thank you thank you going to council member tap on online thank you on that note I'm wondering whether it would be possible for staff to come back as we enter the budget season with potential options or fee levels that we can consider councilmember Kevin we can we can do that we can incorporate some additional fee information as part of the budget deliberations when we come back to council through that process thank you very much and yes just adding on my comments about the the challenges that we are going to be facing and the importance of looking at all the different options for increased fee revenue while also balancing what councilmember black have you brought up around access that that's very important so thank you all so much for your comments there and I know our council really understands the challenges that we face ahead and the importance of also considering our values as a city I did you want to say something else really quickly just to follow up on that as well and by the way I love 12 knee camp and this will be this now second year we're taking our kids it's amazing and I will say Scott you're right like the value for the amenities for what a family pays is I mean it's a very attractive option so as we're you know working with staff going forward maybe the other way to think about it is making sure that certainly there's you know if you are at the more modest end of the income spectrum again super affordable make sure it's completely accessible and there might be some income based things you can look at but just we might be able to be creative in terms of I don't want to be assessing big fee increases on folks to discourage them from using the services so maybe there's some capacity or ability to pay that also comes into play I don't know I'm reluctant to go into this territory but I think we're gonna have to at least look at it as we move forward so thank you absolutely thank you and I know that the Parks Department is particularly you know focused on equity and access and that there are some options for scholarships for different programs the Parks and Recreation Department so I just want to shout that out to thank the department but also to bring that to folks attention if anyone's listening and you know is looking for some relief from some fees that we have okay so we have already voted to close the public hearing is there a motion to move this item forward thank you all right can we take the roll please clerk okay to approve the changes to selected recreation and camps facilities and program fees councilmember Kessler-White yes yes yes Trego aye O'Keefe yes Blackaby yes Lunapara yes Humbert yes and Mary she yes very good moving on to item 20 thank you staff moving on to item 24 amendments to title 23 zoning to permit by right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous housing elements and revisions related to design review whoo all right Jordan where's my fun acronym I'm just kidding okay I'm gonna pass it back to you thank you good evening again council members Jordan Klein I'm joined at the staff table by Anne Hirsch ladies planning manager and Burns senior planner and our design review lead and Justin Horner principal planner for policy and Justin is gonna bring up a very quick slide deck Mary she members of the City Council Justin Horner planning department staff tonight I'll present amendments to the zoning ordinance to enact program 32 of the housing element regarding by right approvals of housing projects and revisions to our design review regulations for these program 32 projects and for middle housing projects in the MUR zoning district the 2023-2031 housing element update includes program 32 which requires the city to amend its zoning code to reflect the requirements of the California government code that allow residential uses by right that is with a zoning certificate for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable on sites that have been listed as opportunity sites in previous housing elements there are currently 14 such projects or properties that meet the government code requirement which are included on the map in the slide and listed in your staff report in future housing elements the list of eligible eligible parcels may change as some sites are developed and others end up meeting the government code requirements the second item relates to design review for program 32 projects and for residential projects in the MUR a middle housing zoning district as you recall the intent of the middle housing changes was to approve new code compliant housing projects without any discretionary public hearings and without any appeal BMC section 23.406.070 contains the city's design review requirements to summarize for our purposes here design review is required for all projects in all non-residential districts therefore design review applies to projects in the MUR district which is a manufacturing or non-residential district as well as any projects on sites identified through program 32 which are all in commercial that is non-residential districts projects that do not require a use permit such as program 32 and middle housing projects receive staff level design review however staff level design review decisions are appealable to the zoning adjustments board and ZABS decisions on DR on on the DR appeal can be appealed to the City Council although that is quite rare as being able to use DR to appeal a project to the City Council is inconsistent with the intent of ministerial approvals to avoid appeals the proposed ordinance includes an abbreviated design review process recommended by the Planning Commission for MUR and project 32 projects these include staff level design review one advisory visit to the design review committee for design related input only and a new provision that would exempt projects covered by this process from appeal to the ZAB or the City Council that's the end of my presentation please hold a public hearing and we're available for any questions thank you very much I'm going to pass it forward to are you ready okay you don't want to present your supplemental so madam mayor I don't have a supplemental I have two short amendments that I want to make to the ordinance but before I do that I so this is the public hearing so I can ask a question director Klein can you just briefly explain what was your recommendation to the Planning Commission or mr.
Horner you know whoever wants to take it what was your recommendation to the Planning Commission as it relates to middle housing projects in the mixed-use residential zone and can you explain why you made that recommendation our initial recommendation for both program 32 and for MUR projects or middle housing projects in the MUR was to exempt them from design review this was in our view consistent with the City Council's intent to allow code compliant projects to be approved ministerially and not be subject to any discretionary hearing or any appeal and we in the process of implementing middle housing zoning changes came across this particular provision that would create an appeal pathway for middle housing projects what we thought that we should remove that provision and mr.
Horner can you just clarify why does the mixed-use residential zone why does it historically have this requirement for design review whereas the the residential zones do not our design review is is required in any non residential zone so any commercial zone and any manufacturing zone requires design review for any project and so the MUR although it permits residential is classified as a manufacturing zone okay thank you very much I think we should close the public hearing and then I can discuss my proposed amendments thank you sure that's fine are there other questions I no longer see council member chaplain but I think if his hand is raised he'll pop up so I will then move us on to see if there are any public comments on this item so public comments on item 24 which is amendments to title 23 zoning to permit by right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous housing elements and revisions related to the design review is there anyone online who has public comments on this item we have three three hands raised first speaker is Cleo Cleo you should be able to unmute hi I have a small observation here I noticed that there's a property 104 9 1049 Gilman Street that is in the list of properties and that's the location of the Dollar Tree and so I think the observation I'd like to make is that it's amazing that you know we're having by right authorizations to build housing that are there's gonna contain lots of affordable housing but we might also want to consider did we want to keep things like the Dollar Tree because this is my neighborhood and it is the only affordable store in the entire neighborhood and I know that I have neighbors who have been in the area for a very long time and who are on the lower end of the income spectrum and for whom that store is invaluable so this is great but while you're doing it don't forget to like keep the actual affordable stores that you know people who would benefit from the lower income units might actually want to use thank you thank you next is Kelly evergreen can you hear me okay without an echo yes okay um so I really pushed for this design review when I heard it at the Planning Commission because I've been attending the Planning Commission for 10 years now I've missed very very few meetings a design review has changed considerably in those 10 years from what used to be a very picky and many many meetings and now with SB 330 we only have like one one meeting at the beginning and then kind of a final on colors and products and things I always thought that it was for the mixed-use projects because projects in residential areas that are the big apartment buildings do come to design review and design review really contributes a lot in terms of that of the building I've just seen so many projects over so many years to improve to improve the project make improvements there are some things that the architects is you know as good as they are will miss and the design review makes significant contributions and so that one stop at design review is really not going to slow things down and there's a great benefit to improving the project because once it's built you can't change you really can't change it but the design review committee can catch problems that have been that shall we say not considered or missed in the development and the design of the of the building and it's just it's just so important they contribute so much.

Segment 7

Thank you, Kelly.
Thanks for your comments.
And then the last speaker is Brianna Morales.
Hi, good evening again.
My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.
We're a member-supported advocacy organization working across California to advance housing at all income levels, and we see this as really about follow-through.
These sites were identified by the city as appropriate places for housing, and so by allowing qualifying projects on these sites to move forward by right, the city is honoring commitments it made in its housing element and bringing local rules into alignment with state law.
We see this as a balanced approach.
It prevents housing, especially more affordable middle housing, from getting stuck in layers of process that add costs and uncertainty and delays without improving outcomes.
And I think importantly for builders and communities alike, predictability is incredibly important.
When housing can move forward more efficiently, we get home sooner and lower overall costs and a better chance that projects serve lower income households actually pencil out.
It benefits not just future residents, but the broader community like local businesses, schools, and neighborhoods that depend on people being able to live nearby.
It's a practical, people-focused step forward towards a more functional housing system.
And so yeah, the Housing Action Coalition strongly supports this ordinance and encourages it to move forward.
So thank you for your time and continued leadership on housing.
Thank you.
Okay, that's it.
Okay, very good.
I will go back to actually, I'm going to see if anyone has, if there's a motion to close the public hearing.
So moved.
Second.
Can we take the roll on that, please, clerk? Okay, to close public hearing, Councilmember Kisarwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trigub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Lackabay.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay, going to council comments starting with Councilmember Kisarwani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I hope we can wrap this up relatively quickly.
I want to thank our Planning Director and Mr.
Horner for your very brief presentation.
And so I just want to recap.
The Planning Department recommended that the Planning Commission eliminate the design review requirement for middle housing projects in the mixed-use residential zone to better align with the council direction in the middle housing ordinance, which we, you know, we passed unanimously back in, I think it was June, July.
Time flies.
So, and what we said in the middle housing ordinance, remember, is we want to treat all residential zones except for the hillside overlay zone equally.
They are going to get the same density per acre, dwelling units per acre.
They are all going to have the opportunity to go through a by-right streamlined approval process.
So, I have great respect for our Planning Commission.
It is my view that their recommendation to have these small slice of middle housing projects that are five or more units in the mixed-use residential zone to have a requirement to have one non-binding design review meeting, I think that is going in the wrong direction.
And the reason why is all other middle housing projects are going to be able to go straight to that permit counter with their plans and they don't have to go to design review.
And I think we heard in public comment that there's no delay.
There is a delay.
The design review group, they meet monthly.
That's a one-month delay.
I don't think we need to do that.
And I'm also thinking about the potentially new developers, people of color, people who are new who are trying to get into this development industry.
I think we should be lowering barriers and making it easier to enter this market.
And so, I have a brief amendment that just reverts back to what the staff proposed that we're not going to require design review for middle housing projects of five units or more in the mixed-use residential zone.
On the housing element opportunity sites, it's interesting that staff was, they're also saying no design review.
When I looked at it today, you know, other sites in commercial zones do go to design review.
It's typically one non-binding meeting.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
What I'm trying to do with these amendments is, like, let's just treat like projects the same.
So, all middle housing projects in the city of Berkeley will be treated the same, no design review.
All of these sites and commercial zones will be treated essentially the same.
They will go to design review.
Those are going to be bigger projects.
They may, you know, have greater benefit from the design review experience.
So, with that, I'm going to share screen on Zoom and introduce, oh, someone else is sharing.
Let's see.
Share.
Okay.
Share.
Let's see if I can get the amendments up.
Those are visible.
Okay.
So, the first amendment here is in this B1A.
We are just saying except for residential uses in the MUR zoning district.
Oh, even bigger.
Apologies.
As big as I can go.
And still have it be visible.
Okay.
Okay.
So, that's the first edit.
And then, these edits below, these are the amendments that came out of planning commission.
So, what we're doing is we're leaving the housing element opportunity site portion, but we're just striking the piece about MUR and for projects including five or more units.
This, again, is just to treat all middle housing projects of any unit number in any zone the same.
And, you know, on a personal note, as somebody who represents this mixed-use residential zone on the far west side of the city, formerly redlined area, it just rubbed me the wrong way that we would treat this part of town.
For projects that are trying to do a lot of density, five or more, we're going to put them through the ringer.
I don't think we should be doing that.
So, these are the amendments.
So, I'd like to pass a motion to or make a motion to pass this ordinance with the amendments shown on the screen.
Second.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other council comments? Oh, yes.
Council Member Trakob.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to conform with Council Member Keserwani, and I appreciate your suggestions.
To clarify, this would only exempt MUR middle housing type, housing type proposal, but it would not alter anything under, like, the proposed, let me see if I can pull it up, the balance of the items.
And, I'm specifically looking at, for example, the 14 sites under Program 32, three of which are in my district.
So, yes, we're going to go with the Planning Commission recommendation for that, which is those housing element opportunity sites, including the three in your district, they will have the number of non-binding design review meeting, an opportunity to improve the design of the project.
With this middle housing in the mixed-use residential zone, it's, the way I think about it is, we're just treating those projects the same as the projects in the R zone.
So, where I live in R2, there is no design review requirement.
If I want to transform my parcel into a five-plus unit middle housing, middle income development.
So, we're just saying, if you go far west to mixed-use residential, you'd have the same treatment with this amendment.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Yeah, I just want to say I'm supporting, I'll support Council Member Castellani's motion, and I just, I really need to say, I think what's my hottest take has always been that design review is a waste of time, and I think we should get rid of it as much as possible.
Architecture is an art form, and I don't think art benefits from a committee.
So, that's my hot take.
So, yes, I like this.
More of this, please.
Thank you.
Vice Mayor Lunapara.
I support the motion as well.
Okay, any other comments? Yes, sorry, I forgot we were in comments, but I will support this item, although, and this is where my colleague and I have maybe a slight, albeit respectful, disagreement, having sort of done the design review committee.
I think committee members do good work, and I know that was not actually your comment, but I think the committee is very efficient.
I think it reviews project, most design review projects don't come back for a second design review meeting.
That said, it does make sense from a consistency and equity standpoint to make the further alteration to this proposal suggested by Council Member Caseroni, so I'll be supporting the motion.
All right, thank you very much, and then we have a motion on the floor.
Do we have a motion on the floor? Yes, we do.
Sorry, I couldn't remember the second.
All right, I'm also going to be supporting the motion, so if we could take the roll, please, Okay, on the motion by Council Member Caseroni.
Council Member Caseroni? Yes.
Kaplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Bunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mary Ishii? Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, staff.
Thanks for being here to the late hour of 9 56 p.m.
Council Member Caseroni, will you email that to me? Okay, so now public comment on items not listed on the agenda.
Thank you.
First, I want to say those throne bathrooms, they just open up.
They just open up after 10 minutes, so ready or not, you're exposed.
And last night, I was near San Pablo Avenue, and I noticed an older man in a wheelchair outside the Everett and Jones.
This is about nine o'clock at night, and he didn't, he wasn't properly clothed for the weather.
I could share my scarf and a hat and a jacket with him, but he was clearly cognitively impaired, isolated out there by himself, so I engaged with him.
He didn't know how he got there.
He didn't even know he was in Berkeley.
And after it took almost, I was with him for almost an hour, probably over an hour after 10 o'clock, and, you know, there was no mobile crisis, but I have to say the officer that responded, the Berkeley Police Department, was Officer Edwin Giacala, and he was incredibly empathetic the way he communicated with the man.
It was just, he was very, very sensitive to him, very kind, making him comfortable, and it was just really good to see an officer that was trained and skilled in this way, that was aware, you know, and he was taken away in an ambulance, but to see that situation, that it could have gotten so much worse, because the man, I was holding on to his wheelchair.
He kept trying to wheel away because he was convinced he was going to make himself warmer if he wheeled miles away, but it was, that officer really deserves to be thanked for that.
Officer Edwin Giacala.
Thank you.
Thanks.
We can have our city manager pass it on to him as well.
Thank you.
Other public comment on items not listed on the agenda? Anyone online? Yeah, we have four hands online.
First is a caller phone number ending in 211.
Well, good to talk to you, good to talk to you tonight.
I just like to remind you, our great company contributed more, over 1.2 million dollars to the city of Berkeley Finance.
In business license, our business license to be 60, 70 thousand dollars a year, as well as sales tax, which is 61 percent.
So let's go forward.
We're not only losing, we're in business, but our customers are losing, and many of them are cursing you for the fact that you did nothing when you had seven places vacant, and eventually you rented for one, but when we talked to this woman, we told her we'll pay anything she wants.
We're never giving a chance.
Let's fix what was done wrong and go forward.
Again, we are dealing with horrible time with this monster in the White House, so we need all of our strengths to build the city of Berkeley as it was before.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we have Alfred Twoh.
Hi, everyone.
I want to invite everyone to the Friday kickoff of Connect Bay Area, the ballot measure initiative to fund and save transit in the Bay Area.
I want to give a big thanks to everyone who's already endorsed the measure.
Encourage everyone else to as well at connectbayarea.org.
And there will be a kickoff at 10 o'clock on Friday at the Embarcadero Plaza, and then another one at 1215 at the Alameda County Administration Building in Oakland.
Hope to see you there.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alfred.
And then we have Daniel Brownson.
Hello.
So recently, Santa Cruz became, I believe, the first city to terminate their contract with Block Safety.
Berkeley should follow suit.
We know that the owners of this company, the people who run it, are deep in with ties to the Trump administration.
We know that despite prohibitions on them doing so before they have shared information with ICE, we know that ICE is coming to the Bay Area.
Minneapolis will not be the end.
These cameras, as long as they are up, are weapons pointed at the very heart of our community.
It's time to take them down.
People will say, oh, but what about public safety? But at the current moment, there's no greater threat to the public safety of our community than the rising fascism that is now very much here, as we can see in Minneapolis.
And those cameras will be used to track those who try to stand up against the fascist incursion when it comes to Berkeley, which it will.
Thank you, Daniel.
We have Janice Ching.
Thank you for taking my comment.
I just have to say on that last item that you discussed, I don't understand why council members can propose supplementals after the public comment is closed.
I appreciate, Mayor Ishii, that you offered the council member to present the supplemental, but, you know, maybe I missed it.
I read the packet.
I listened to the staff report.
I thought I understood the item, and then a supplemental is brought forward, and I wasn't able then to comment about the new proposal, and it passes.
Yeah, Janice, I'm sorry, but this is actually public comment for items not listed on the agenda, since the item that you're referring to was on the agenda already.
I understand your comment.
I'm not commenting on the item.
I'm commenting on the process that council members are allowed to bring supplementals that completely change the staff recommendation after public comment is made and closed.
So I just want to voice my opposition to that.
If we're at the meeting to comment on an item, we should hear all of what is going to be proposed, especially when it's already stated that there is a supplemental.
It would have been good to hear it.
Thank you for your comment.
I appreciate what you're saying.
I do just want to say that, you know, that there can be changes that are made on the dais that are completely different from what are in the agenda packet just generally, and I understand that can be frustrating, and the purpose of, you know, closing the public hearing is really so that we can actually take a vote on what we're talking about.
So I understand it's frustrating, and I appreciate your comment.
Are there other comments online? Yes, two more.
Kelly Hammergren.
I know surveillance is coming up at next meeting, and it's very concerning.
My family's in the greater Twin Cities area, Minneapolis, St.
Paul, Minnesota, and whatever you've seen on television or may have heard or have seen on videos, it's worse.
It's worse than that.
For the people that are there, it is terrifying.
It's terrible.
People are being sheltered.
It's just really awful, and at some point, they'll probably be here, and I think you all need to be thinking about the future.
We're no longer living in the same kind of world, the same kind of democracy that we thought we had, even though democracy wasn't the same for everyone.
This is very, very bad, so I'll leave you with that thought for the night.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kelly.
Jeff Lomax.
Yeah, Kelly's always a tough act to follow, and that was a great comment, so thanks for that, but I do want to return to the previous comment.
I mean, I actually supported Member Keshewani's amendment, but I do agree that you're basically icing out.
You could substantially change an item, and then you're icing the public out of any participation in that change, and you all have the discretion to re-invite comments, so nothing has to change, but I think once you make a substantial change to an item, you should give the public who are spending their time and their intellect to be part of this process the opportunity to respond once that change is made, so I just want to concur with the prior comment, and again, thank Kelly I agree completely.
Have a good evening.
Thank you for your comment.
Are there other comments? That's the last commenter.
Thank you very much, everyone.
Okay, with that, I will see if there's a, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Second.
Can we take the roll, please, Clerk? To adjourn, Council Member Kesharwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trago? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
Mariaschi?.